No, we don't think we are right, we actually don't really care. Do the things you have to and that is the end of it!
If you are in the military or have been how do you feel about Don't Ask Don't Tell?
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Yeah you folks seem to be more process oriented.
Makes a lot of sense actually.
Makes a lot of sense actually.
AZ_Infantry
Active member
So, let me get this "straight:"
Gays don't want special treatment, but they want to be treated specially, having the protection of class, using insane and disingenuous arguments to tout their needs, to be able to comment where others cannot, and share a right to sue when their character comes into question.
Here's the thing you people will likely never understand: Combat Arms units are about peer approval, not politics. If you want to carry forward the fight against prejudice, the military isn't for you. We are prejudice by nature - everything we do is meant to make you conform to the majority. There is no Democracy, no understanding, no deliberation panel moderated by an unbiased source interceding as your arbitrator.
Don't like it? Don't join. There is no conscription here. But don't ask for favors others do not get.
We all wear the same color. Be a conformist with your mouth shut, or open your mouth and fight your cause where others have a creed that puts themselves and their cause first.
The vocal minority refuses our acceptance of the silent majority.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Beans and Garbage .............
The above is so much garbage, that I don't even know where to start.
The bottom line, is that gays want to be treated the same as their heterosexual team mates ... not differently. Presently, they ARE treated differently and to complain about THAT, is only to be expected. Doing away with DADT, will level the field, and complaints from gays about DADT will go away.
As far as your comment about the 'silent' majority ... I guess you refuse to accept the fact that a %70 to %30 majority are in favor of doing away with DADT.
As far as Combat Arms being about peer approval, you are full of beans ... the ONLY thing I wanted to know, was knowing my buddy had my back when the bullets were flying. Whether he was gay or straight NEVER entered the picture.
The above is so much garbage, that I don't even know where to start.
The bottom line, is that gays want to be treated the same as their heterosexual team mates ... not differently. Presently, they ARE treated differently and to complain about THAT, is only to be expected. Doing away with DADT, will level the field, and complaints from gays about DADT will go away.
As far as your comment about the 'silent' majority ... I guess you refuse to accept the fact that a %70 to %30 majority are in favor of doing away with DADT.
As far as Combat Arms being about peer approval, you are full of beans ... the ONLY thing I wanted to know, was knowing my buddy had my back when the bullets were flying. Whether he was gay or straight NEVER entered the picture.
AZ_Infantry
Active member
Then you, Chief, never served in a Combat Arms unit. I did - for 8 years of my life (4 were Reserves).
Peer approval is everything in a Combat Arms unit. Everything. If we don't like you, it doesn't matter why. What matters is that you'll never gain approval, you'll always be a problem, and you'll eventually be shuffled to others.
If gays want to be treated equal, all they have to do is not announce that they are gay. Seems reasonable to me. Running around stating, "Gimme because..." is a sure way to get everyone else in your unit against you. Political beliefs, sexual orientation, the color of your skin, your religion - we don't care. Keep your mouth shut and we'll never care.
Want special treatment because you are somehow protected against the same rash of sheet we all go through? GTFO.
The only people we weeded out were those who couldn't make it. Whether that was because they wanted to flaunt something as special, they couldn't define the pointy end of the rifle or because they just had agendas that didn't fit with us is irrelevant. We were a team. When you go to a team, every single personal thing you know goes away. You conform. Or you GTFO.
If you want to suck rope, be my guest! Just shut up about it. Ergo, the "Don't tell" part of the policy.
With that said, I have ALWAYS wanted DADT repealed. It is an unfair regulation. It doesn't have correct parameters. It is designed to fail. It forces homosexuals to either tell or to admit when someone accuses. It is pure BS.
But I will NOT support special treatment. We are discussing a line unit here, not support. Everything relies on trusting the man next to you, for you serve for the man next to you. That requires cohesiveness. If you cannot separate yourself from special interests and the collective cohesiveness, I cannot be responsible for your Utopia where reality is occluded with a sense of fairness.
The Infantry isn't "fair." Get over it. 200 years of success isn't about to be tempered with today's politics and political correctness.
Peer approval is everything in a Combat Arms unit. Everything. If we don't like you, it doesn't matter why. What matters is that you'll never gain approval, you'll always be a problem, and you'll eventually be shuffled to others.
If gays want to be treated equal, all they have to do is not announce that they are gay. Seems reasonable to me. Running around stating, "Gimme because..." is a sure way to get everyone else in your unit against you. Political beliefs, sexual orientation, the color of your skin, your religion - we don't care. Keep your mouth shut and we'll never care.
Want special treatment because you are somehow protected against the same rash of sheet we all go through? GTFO.
The only people we weeded out were those who couldn't make it. Whether that was because they wanted to flaunt something as special, they couldn't define the pointy end of the rifle or because they just had agendas that didn't fit with us is irrelevant. We were a team. When you go to a team, every single personal thing you know goes away. You conform. Or you GTFO.
If you want to suck rope, be my guest! Just shut up about it. Ergo, the "Don't tell" part of the policy.
With that said, I have ALWAYS wanted DADT repealed. It is an unfair regulation. It doesn't have correct parameters. It is designed to fail. It forces homosexuals to either tell or to admit when someone accuses. It is pure BS.
But I will NOT support special treatment. We are discussing a line unit here, not support. Everything relies on trusting the man next to you, for you serve for the man next to you. That requires cohesiveness. If you cannot separate yourself from special interests and the collective cohesiveness, I cannot be responsible for your Utopia where reality is occluded with a sense of fairness.
The Infantry isn't "fair." Get over it. 200 years of success isn't about to be tempered with today's politics and political correctness.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Gay bashing .....
I served at a time when DADT wasn't policy .. AND, never had a problem with ANY gay being a problem. Before you ask .. YES ... I knew that certain comrades were gay. They didn't flout it and the ONLY reason I knew about, was I met their 'significant' other when we were on the beach. Even there, they weren't obvious about their sexual preference. That is NOT something that I can say about several hetero fellow soldiers/sailors. A hetero soldier/sailor, who is groping some young girl in a public place, is NOT something that I condone - that kind of behavior should be carried out in a private.
Bottom line, I disagree with ALMOST everything you have posted, that is based upon a characterization that is completely false. It is gay bashing, dressed up with the coat from a jaundiced eye. Most gays who ARE serving in the military, are NOT sexual predators .. nor do they ask for one single "special" treatment ... they just want to be treated like everybody else - which is NOT the case under DADT.
I served at a time when DADT wasn't policy .. AND, never had a problem with ANY gay being a problem. Before you ask .. YES ... I knew that certain comrades were gay. They didn't flout it and the ONLY reason I knew about, was I met their 'significant' other when we were on the beach. Even there, they weren't obvious about their sexual preference. That is NOT something that I can say about several hetero fellow soldiers/sailors. A hetero soldier/sailor, who is groping some young girl in a public place, is NOT something that I condone - that kind of behavior should be carried out in a private.
Bottom line, I disagree with ALMOST everything you have posted, that is based upon a characterization that is completely false. It is gay bashing, dressed up with the coat from a jaundiced eye. Most gays who ARE serving in the military, are NOT sexual predators .. nor do they ask for one single "special" treatment ... they just want to be treated like everybody else - which is NOT the case under DADT.
AZ Infantry said:
I am with you all the way! But trust is not given or taken on sexual preferrence. I just don't get the need to different. I hear so much about gays enforcing things on hetero's, that I would get scared too. Is it really that bad in the US? And if so, why are they like that? Where I live it actually looks a lot like one big DADT. If a guy comes to work in pink tights and does his work perfectly... well I don't ask and he doesn't feel the urge to tell.
AZ_Infantry
Active member
Where did I ever compare gays to sexual predators? If you're going to reply to me, reply to what I have actually said, not what you wanted to hear. What I defended was that line units are about peer approval, and SOME gays -- get it? Some? As in, not all? -- don't get it because they want special treatment. When ONE person is allowed to self identify, all others like him will take that as a sign - they will, almost naturally, scream something akin to "racist!" or "bigot!" because they didn't cut the damn mustard.
I'm not going to support giving ANY special interest group a legal precedent to ruin the peer approval we have, and it is without a shadow of a doubt that ANY special interest group, which homosexuals are, will stop accepting their own inabilities and use their "minority" status as a way to villianize those of us who are simply doing what we do to everyone.
Do I need to explain the term of 'legal precedence' here, or can everyone figure it out with 5 seconds of Google on their own? The fact -- FACT -- is that ever since homosexuals have demanded to be considered equal they have been using their new "equality" to want special treatment. The marriage debacle is one good example of why they cannot be trusted.
Until they (the homosexuals) shut their own vocal minority up, I am not going to support good soldiers being brought under legal charges because some loser thinks he got discriminated against when, in fact, we do the same damn thing to every damn person regardless of their sexual orientation, their religion, how many freckles they have, or whether they wear boxers or briefs.
The entire argument of, "They just want to serve their country!" is moot, irrelevant and tired. There are a LOT of people that want to serve their country and cannot. Where is the line drawn? Do we make an exception for everyone? Or just the select few? What are the parameters, the criteria?
CHIEF BONES, I most certainly owe you an apology for suggesting that you were ignorant of line unit policies. I deeply and truly apologize. I have made every effort in my life to respect everyone. By making the assumption I did, I violated my own character principles, especially my own personal desire to carry forward discourse without furthering immature, uneducated assumptions. But what is said was said, and all I can do is offer forward my apologies.
It doesn't change the context of my point. But it was a really stupid thing for me to say.
I'm not going to support giving ANY special interest group a legal precedent to ruin the peer approval we have, and it is without a shadow of a doubt that ANY special interest group, which homosexuals are, will stop accepting their own inabilities and use their "minority" status as a way to villianize those of us who are simply doing what we do to everyone.
Do I need to explain the term of 'legal precedence' here, or can everyone figure it out with 5 seconds of Google on their own? The fact -- FACT -- is that ever since homosexuals have demanded to be considered equal they have been using their new "equality" to want special treatment. The marriage debacle is one good example of why they cannot be trusted.
Until they (the homosexuals) shut their own vocal minority up, I am not going to support good soldiers being brought under legal charges because some loser thinks he got discriminated against when, in fact, we do the same damn thing to every damn person regardless of their sexual orientation, their religion, how many freckles they have, or whether they wear boxers or briefs.
The entire argument of, "They just want to serve their country!" is moot, irrelevant and tired. There are a LOT of people that want to serve their country and cannot. Where is the line drawn? Do we make an exception for everyone? Or just the select few? What are the parameters, the criteria?
CHIEF BONES, I most certainly owe you an apology for suggesting that you were ignorant of line unit policies. I deeply and truly apologize. I have made every effort in my life to respect everyone. By making the assumption I did, I violated my own character principles, especially my own personal desire to carry forward discourse without furthering immature, uneducated assumptions. But what is said was said, and all I can do is offer forward my apologies.
It doesn't change the context of my point. But it was a really stupid thing for me to say.
AZ_Infantry
Active member
BTW:
It would seem that my most cherished compatriots completely disagree with me:
Dear Richard,
Now is the time.
After years of talking with our membership, key leaders in the new veterans community, and the Department of Defense, IAVA joins the Pentagon and top military leaders in supporting the repeal of ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). This is one of several important provisions for our community in the pending Defense Authorization Bill.
Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the country that DADT should and can be repealed.
Their opinion is supported by an unprecedented DoD study of 115,000 service members, a majority of whom indicated that repeal of DADT would not have a negative impact on their ability to conduct their mission. Results from a recent IAVA survey of our membership echoed these findings, revealing that a clear majority of our membership does not object to gay men and women openly serving in the military.
Click to see what Gates and Mullen had to say, or view an interactive timeline on the history of this issue.
IAVA shares Secretary Gates’ and Admiral Mullen’s opinion that upholding the integrity of the military as an institution is critical. All men and women who have committed their lives to service and sacrifice in the military should be treated equally.
Whether or not Congress votes to overturn DADT in the next few weeks, this is an issue that will impact members of our community for years to come. As the Pentagon has strongly warned, if repeal is not enacted through Congress, the debate will move to the courts. A court decision to repeal could result in an overnight policy change that may not allow for thoughtful and adequate preparation by military leadership. We strongly believe that commanders should determine the tempo on military policy. Not the courts.
But DADT isn’t the only policy in jeopardy within this year’s Defense Authorization Bill. This legislation also contains critical provisions to expand mental health care resources, address Traumatic Brain Injury and Military Sexual Trauma, and improve electronic sharing of health records between the DoD and the VA - all issues of high priority for IAVA members.
We hope the Senate passes this legislation now and turns to other key issues facing our community, like making sure all Iraq and Afghanistan vets have jobs.
Thank you for having our backs.
Sincerely,
Paul
Paul Rieckhoff
Founder and Executive Director
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA)
It would seem that my most cherished compatriots completely disagree with me:
Dear Richard,
Now is the time.
After years of talking with our membership, key leaders in the new veterans community, and the Department of Defense, IAVA joins the Pentagon and top military leaders in supporting the repeal of ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). This is one of several important provisions for our community in the pending Defense Authorization Bill.
Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the country that DADT should and can be repealed.
Their opinion is supported by an unprecedented DoD study of 115,000 service members, a majority of whom indicated that repeal of DADT would not have a negative impact on their ability to conduct their mission. Results from a recent IAVA survey of our membership echoed these findings, revealing that a clear majority of our membership does not object to gay men and women openly serving in the military.
Click to see what Gates and Mullen had to say, or view an interactive timeline on the history of this issue.
IAVA shares Secretary Gates’ and Admiral Mullen’s opinion that upholding the integrity of the military as an institution is critical. All men and women who have committed their lives to service and sacrifice in the military should be treated equally.
Whether or not Congress votes to overturn DADT in the next few weeks, this is an issue that will impact members of our community for years to come. As the Pentagon has strongly warned, if repeal is not enacted through Congress, the debate will move to the courts. A court decision to repeal could result in an overnight policy change that may not allow for thoughtful and adequate preparation by military leadership. We strongly believe that commanders should determine the tempo on military policy. Not the courts.
But DADT isn’t the only policy in jeopardy within this year’s Defense Authorization Bill. This legislation also contains critical provisions to expand mental health care resources, address Traumatic Brain Injury and Military Sexual Trauma, and improve electronic sharing of health records between the DoD and the VA - all issues of high priority for IAVA members.
We hope the Senate passes this legislation now and turns to other key issues facing our community, like making sure all Iraq and Afghanistan vets have jobs.
Thank you for having our backs.
Sincerely,
Paul
Paul Rieckhoff
Founder and Executive Director
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA)
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
No problem .....
AZ ... apology accepted.
The point I was trying to make, was the fact that prior to DADT, we didn't have ANY problems with gays in the military. We exercised a REAL attitude of NOT asking what an individual's sexual proclivities were .. we accepted them as fellow warriors. By adhering to the UCMJ, gays were given the same rights as their hetero friends. Those that said they were gay (as long as they don't make unwanted passes to others [in violation of the UCMJ[), were treated the same as a hetero who talked about his/her conquests.
I have seen fellow military members laugh at some of the antics of someone who they knew (or suspected), was gay .. without the hatred that seems to have surfaced since the implementation of DADT.
NOW, with the advent of DADT, gays and heteros are treated differently ... we would NEVER discharge an individual because they said they were hetero .. but .. under DADT, an individual (male or female), who states they are gay, is immediately processed and kicked out of the military. That is one of the most perfidious violations of the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
It is way past time that this piece of garbage (DADT), was repealed.
AZ ... apology accepted.
The point I was trying to make, was the fact that prior to DADT, we didn't have ANY problems with gays in the military. We exercised a REAL attitude of NOT asking what an individual's sexual proclivities were .. we accepted them as fellow warriors. By adhering to the UCMJ, gays were given the same rights as their hetero friends. Those that said they were gay (as long as they don't make unwanted passes to others [in violation of the UCMJ[), were treated the same as a hetero who talked about his/her conquests.
I have seen fellow military members laugh at some of the antics of someone who they knew (or suspected), was gay .. without the hatred that seems to have surfaced since the implementation of DADT.
NOW, with the advent of DADT, gays and heteros are treated differently ... we would NEVER discharge an individual because they said they were hetero .. but .. under DADT, an individual (male or female), who states they are gay, is immediately processed and kicked out of the military. That is one of the most perfidious violations of the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
It is way past time that this piece of garbage (DADT), was repealed.
Chukpike
Banned
Your whole statement is a complete load of cr*p.
Gays in the military were routinely kicked out upon discovery. If they reveled the were gay they discharged. People suspected of being gay may very well have been given blanket parties. Gays who did not display outwardly gay tendencies could possible "get by" if not discovered. And they could be prosecuted under the UCMJ for sodomy.
"ART. 125. Sodomy.
(a) Any person subject to t h i s Code who engages in unnatural carnal c o p l a t i o n with another 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." UCMJ
(b)
Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." UCMJ
Various other regulations addressing military conduct would also be used to exclude GLBTs. If they were caught in homosexual acts it was probably a dishonorable discharge, if it was determined they were homosexuals or had homosexual tendencies the discharge was possibly an undesirable.
"Those that said they were gay (as long as they don't make unwanted passes to others [in violation of the UCMJ[) were treated the same as a hetero who talked about his/her conquests." Chief Bones
Complete horses**t.:roll:
The various branches of military service were not setting around singing "Kumbayah".:-o
Complete horses**t.:roll:
The various branches of military service were not setting around singing "Kumbayah".:-o
Most people discussing Don't Ask, Don't Tell don't even bother to know what it accomplishes.
It was impletemented by President Clinton as a sort of compromise to allow gays, lesbians and bisexuals to remain in the military.
It was designed to circumvent the law: "At the time, per the December 21, 1993 Department of Defense Directive 1332.14,[4] it was legal policy (10 U.S.C. § 654)[5] that homosexuality is incompatible with military service and persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were discharged."
It was impletemented by President Clinton as a sort of compromise to allow gays, lesbians and bisexuals to remain in the military.
It was designed to circumvent the law: "At the time, per the December 21, 1993 Department of Defense Directive 1332.14,[4] it was legal policy (10 U.S.C. § 654)[5] that homosexuality is incompatible with military service and persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were discharged."
If any thing is going to change the legislature has to change the law, then DADT can be cancelled.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Chuk .....
I can only speak for myself and for those places that I served. In 20+ years, I never saw or had any occasion to have to deal with the points you raised.
As long as the gay lifestyle was brought into the barracks or aboard ship, those who were in a position to have caused any problems for gay or perceived gays.
I am quite sure that others will have had different experiences.
I can only speak for myself and for those places that I served. In 20+ years, I never saw or had any occasion to have to deal with the points you raised.
As long as the gay lifestyle was brought into the barracks or aboard ship, those who were in a position to have caused any problems for gay or perceived gays.
I am quite sure that others will have had different experiences.
In my platoon there is a homosexual, we occasionaly joke about it with him, but that's all, he is respected and is a good friend to all of us. He doesn't walk around in a pink tutu and he also doesn't want to convert us to homosexuality 
I just mean, he does his job and at home he likes to stick his wiener in some guys pooper, so what?
I just mean, he does his job and at home he likes to stick his wiener in some guys pooper, so what?
Chukpike
Banned
'Don't ask, don't tell' repeal picks up some GOP support
By Brian Bennett, Tribune Washington Bureau
"Three of the four U.S. armed services chiefs told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly while the nation is at war could disrupt combat operations. But all four chiefs said they supported an eventual repeal."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dont-ask-hearing-20101203,0,3195254.story
By Brian Bennett, Tribune Washington Bureau
"Three of the four U.S. armed services chiefs told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly while the nation is at war could disrupt combat operations. But all four chiefs said they supported an eventual repeal."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dont-ask-hearing-20101203,0,3195254.story
Last edited:
After DADT - Can we meet the challenge?
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As a retired Army combat [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]decorated [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]officer (Infantry-Airborne), I have to agree with Chief Bones and some others here. Hetero and homo sexual sex or the related behavior has no place in the military unit. You leave it at home. If either is a problem, distracts from mission and discipline or threatens unit cohesion, there is a leadership challenge to stop it it through the chain of command using education, persuasion, discipline and if necessary punitive actions. From an informed, studied, experienced position I believe me need and can integrate open homosexuals in the armed forces. As I will mention, it is a two way effort, not just on those discriminated against. Concerning other nations, most have done it and have learned to deal with it; it is no longer an issue. The ones that have not done it for the most part are those known for their human rights abuses. For the U.S. military it would be a question of leadership and professionalism. We have been there before and succeeded, as one example armed forces integration began out of need especially in WWII and by executive order in the late 1940's. Imagine a military without that integration. For me I would not have had the opportunity to serve with many talented professional officers, non-commissioned officers and troops.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Personally, I remember when women were integrated into the total force in the 1970s. There were some men who were prejudiced and some that thought it would ruin the Army. And, there were some women who abused it either in shirking demanding duties and a few trying to use their womanly charms to seek favor while on duty. As leaders and professionals most of us dealt with it, effectively and impartially both ways. As leaders we dealt with those men and women that didn't understand that shirking and seeking favors, or those acting prejudiced towards women, would not be tolerated. Personally, the transition tested me as a leader at times and took extra effort but I did my part as a professional to make it work. I have no regrets and as a result I had the opportunity to serve with some very remarkable women, not just remarkable men in my career. Also as a result, today women fill many ranks that probably would be empty, contributing to a defeat of the all-volunteer force. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Fortunately, I was brought up not to discriminate against anyone and not to prejudge anyone be it for race, religion, national origin or sex. The worth of someone was their goodness, work ethic, trustworthiness and dependability. Their behavior, manners, and respect for others also played a part in how I thought of them. After my military active duty (almost 11 years), as a civilian, women were already common in the work place. And, like in the Army initially, there were some men that joked about women, didn't respect them as they should have and always attributed a woman's success to using her charms. As a co-worker, soon a manager and then an executive, I judged everyone on their worth as a productive member of a team and how they contributed to the economic success of the firm. It was real estate and many of the top producers who paid the firm's bills and made it a profit were women. For those women that rose to the top, I can clearly attribute it to their superior performance, dedication, persistence and motivation - It wasn't easy for them. It [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]was hard work; and, proved once again that discrimination based on sex, race, creed, etc. is fool hardy and counter to success of the endeavor at hand, be it military or civilian. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Were I today actively serving in the Army and DADT ended with homosexuals openly accepted, I would again be a professional, a leader. I would continue to assure that sex and sexual behavior stayed out of the unit and its missions, be it hetro or homo sexual. I would continue to judge each soldier regardless of sexual orientation based on their performance, dedication, persistence and motivation as a contributing member of the unit team. As a civilian in business I met open homosexuals not just open heterosexuals. There was no place for "sexual" behavior in the firm. On occasion I had to deal with it just like in the Army through intervention, education and persuasion; and, in worse case I was forced to use disciplinary measures. While withholding judgment I learned that most homosexuals are just like anyone else, like you and I, trying to do an honest job, contributing to the firm, someone with demonstrated good performance, dedication, persistence and motivation; and, yes, good behavior, manners, and respect for others. A few were good friends and sex was never an issue for us. Those I met were not perverts or hitting on men in the company. And, you could depend on them, trust them just as much as anyone else. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Lastly, the U.S. armed forces need people, especially the Army and the Marine Corps, the reserves and National Guard; and, especially if the United States is confronted with a much larger mission than Iraq or Afghanistan. We cannot afford to discriminate against those willing and able to serve, willing to do the job. When the U.S. civilian unemployment gets under control again, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps recruiting will most probably suffer; it most probably will be inadequate to meet the needs of the military. Women have helped since they were integrated in the 70's. We need women in the military; they make a major contribution in numbers and talent. In the future we will also need not only all the heterosexuals we can recruit but also all the homosexuals we can recruit to maintain a professional, all- volunteer military in adequate numbers and talent. We can do it. We have proven we can do it. Those homosexuals who serve silently under DADT prove every day that they can do it. Sadly, most of those discovered and who are forced out of the military have proven they could do it. Again, our officers, non-commissioned officers and troops can do it. We all can meet the challenge through professionalism and leadership.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As a retired Army combat [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]decorated [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]officer (Infantry-Airborne), I have to agree with Chief Bones and some others here. Hetero and homo sexual sex or the related behavior has no place in the military unit. You leave it at home. If either is a problem, distracts from mission and discipline or threatens unit cohesion, there is a leadership challenge to stop it it through the chain of command using education, persuasion, discipline and if necessary punitive actions. From an informed, studied, experienced position I believe me need and can integrate open homosexuals in the armed forces. As I will mention, it is a two way effort, not just on those discriminated against. Concerning other nations, most have done it and have learned to deal with it; it is no longer an issue. The ones that have not done it for the most part are those known for their human rights abuses. For the U.S. military it would be a question of leadership and professionalism. We have been there before and succeeded, as one example armed forces integration began out of need especially in WWII and by executive order in the late 1940's. Imagine a military without that integration. For me I would not have had the opportunity to serve with many talented professional officers, non-commissioned officers and troops.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Personally, I remember when women were integrated into the total force in the 1970s. There were some men who were prejudiced and some that thought it would ruin the Army. And, there were some women who abused it either in shirking demanding duties and a few trying to use their womanly charms to seek favor while on duty. As leaders and professionals most of us dealt with it, effectively and impartially both ways. As leaders we dealt with those men and women that didn't understand that shirking and seeking favors, or those acting prejudiced towards women, would not be tolerated. Personally, the transition tested me as a leader at times and took extra effort but I did my part as a professional to make it work. I have no regrets and as a result I had the opportunity to serve with some very remarkable women, not just remarkable men in my career. Also as a result, today women fill many ranks that probably would be empty, contributing to a defeat of the all-volunteer force. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Fortunately, I was brought up not to discriminate against anyone and not to prejudge anyone be it for race, religion, national origin or sex. The worth of someone was their goodness, work ethic, trustworthiness and dependability. Their behavior, manners, and respect for others also played a part in how I thought of them. After my military active duty (almost 11 years), as a civilian, women were already common in the work place. And, like in the Army initially, there were some men that joked about women, didn't respect them as they should have and always attributed a woman's success to using her charms. As a co-worker, soon a manager and then an executive, I judged everyone on their worth as a productive member of a team and how they contributed to the economic success of the firm. It was real estate and many of the top producers who paid the firm's bills and made it a profit were women. For those women that rose to the top, I can clearly attribute it to their superior performance, dedication, persistence and motivation - It wasn't easy for them. It [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]was hard work; and, proved once again that discrimination based on sex, race, creed, etc. is fool hardy and counter to success of the endeavor at hand, be it military or civilian. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Were I today actively serving in the Army and DADT ended with homosexuals openly accepted, I would again be a professional, a leader. I would continue to assure that sex and sexual behavior stayed out of the unit and its missions, be it hetro or homo sexual. I would continue to judge each soldier regardless of sexual orientation based on their performance, dedication, persistence and motivation as a contributing member of the unit team. As a civilian in business I met open homosexuals not just open heterosexuals. There was no place for "sexual" behavior in the firm. On occasion I had to deal with it just like in the Army through intervention, education and persuasion; and, in worse case I was forced to use disciplinary measures. While withholding judgment I learned that most homosexuals are just like anyone else, like you and I, trying to do an honest job, contributing to the firm, someone with demonstrated good performance, dedication, persistence and motivation; and, yes, good behavior, manners, and respect for others. A few were good friends and sex was never an issue for us. Those I met were not perverts or hitting on men in the company. And, you could depend on them, trust them just as much as anyone else. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Lastly, the U.S. armed forces need people, especially the Army and the Marine Corps, the reserves and National Guard; and, especially if the United States is confronted with a much larger mission than Iraq or Afghanistan. We cannot afford to discriminate against those willing and able to serve, willing to do the job. When the U.S. civilian unemployment gets under control again, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps recruiting will most probably suffer; it most probably will be inadequate to meet the needs of the military. Women have helped since they were integrated in the 70's. We need women in the military; they make a major contribution in numbers and talent. In the future we will also need not only all the heterosexuals we can recruit but also all the homosexuals we can recruit to maintain a professional, all- volunteer military in adequate numbers and talent. We can do it. We have proven we can do it. Those homosexuals who serve silently under DADT prove every day that they can do it. Sadly, most of those discovered and who are forced out of the military have proven they could do it. Again, our officers, non-commissioned officers and troops can do it. We all can meet the challenge through professionalism and leadership.[/FONT]
Last edited:
Big_Z
MilForum Recon
AZ_Infantry makes a good point and probably the most significant.
Peer acceptance is everything in the military. These are people you are around every day, all the time. If you fail to meet their approval life is going to be rough.... I can only speak from combat arms units but if you slip up and get labled a scumbag things are going to turn very nasty for you. Your CO, 1sg, nor Army Regs can save you either.....
Peer acceptance is everything in the military. These are people you are around every day, all the time. If you fail to meet their approval life is going to be rough.... I can only speak from combat arms units but if you slip up and get labled a scumbag things are going to turn very nasty for you. Your CO, 1sg, nor Army Regs can save you either.....
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
I personally believe that those who are the most in opposition to gays in the military, suffer from homophobia.
Historically, homosexuals have served in every army since the dawn of time .. and .. it is ONLY a recent advent, that there has been an iron ban to their serving their country.
A gay who quietly goes about carrying out his/her duty, deserves as much respect and forbearance as their heterosexual counterpart.
Historically, homosexuals have served in every army since the dawn of time .. and .. it is ONLY a recent advent, that there has been an iron ban to their serving their country.
A gay who quietly goes about carrying out his/her duty, deserves as much respect and forbearance as their heterosexual counterpart.
AZ_Infantry
Active member
I resent the implication of "homophobia."
Some of us are concerned with logistics, unit cohesion and morale. How the hell does that translate into a phobia?
I don't want women in Combat Arms. Does that make me have femalephobia (shhh, don't tell my wife, lol)?
I don't want mentally weak people in Combat Arms. So I suffer from wimpphobia?
I don't want undisciplined people in Combat Arms. I can't even label that phobia.
I don't want people who aren't team players in Combat Arms. Anarchistaphobia?
I am really sick and tired of not being able to state a disagreement without a personal attack of bias or racism slandering my character. Racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot... I've been called all that by people who refuse to accept the fact that I simply disagree with their position.
You seem to be an intelligent, friendly guy with a lot of wisdom to share. So share your wisdom - don't dismiss those those of us who disagree by attacking us in that manner. That's not wisdom. Wisdom is providing facts in a debate that help others find flaws in their line of reasoning in a personable, friendly and respectful and polite way.
I couldn't give a hoot who does what in the privacy of their own bedroom. What I fear are special interest groups and lobbyists vying for special treatment in units where everyone is expected to lose their individual identity in order to have a single, common bond of unity. Homosexuals have constantly used their position through legal precedence to force special treatment - a fact I presented before that has thus far gone uncontested.
Do I need to present it again? Maybe in outline format? Not being smarmy or facetious. I am trying to make an honest attempt to get you to understand my concerns and address THEM, not some made up phobia.
Would you like to compare all the problems we faced when females were introduced into line units? All the adultery? Pregnancies reducing a deploying unit's strength? The piss poor training standards compared to CA?
If homosexuals want to serve as equals, I would be all for it. But their track record speaks for itself: clearly "equality" to them means everyone else conforming to their desires. That's special interest and has zero place in my Infantry.
Some of us are concerned with logistics, unit cohesion and morale. How the hell does that translate into a phobia?
I don't want women in Combat Arms. Does that make me have femalephobia (shhh, don't tell my wife, lol)?
I don't want mentally weak people in Combat Arms. So I suffer from wimpphobia?
I don't want undisciplined people in Combat Arms. I can't even label that phobia.
I don't want people who aren't team players in Combat Arms. Anarchistaphobia?
I am really sick and tired of not being able to state a disagreement without a personal attack of bias or racism slandering my character. Racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot... I've been called all that by people who refuse to accept the fact that I simply disagree with their position.
You seem to be an intelligent, friendly guy with a lot of wisdom to share. So share your wisdom - don't dismiss those those of us who disagree by attacking us in that manner. That's not wisdom. Wisdom is providing facts in a debate that help others find flaws in their line of reasoning in a personable, friendly and respectful and polite way.
I couldn't give a hoot who does what in the privacy of their own bedroom. What I fear are special interest groups and lobbyists vying for special treatment in units where everyone is expected to lose their individual identity in order to have a single, common bond of unity. Homosexuals have constantly used their position through legal precedence to force special treatment - a fact I presented before that has thus far gone uncontested.
Do I need to present it again? Maybe in outline format? Not being smarmy or facetious. I am trying to make an honest attempt to get you to understand my concerns and address THEM, not some made up phobia.
Would you like to compare all the problems we faced when females were introduced into line units? All the adultery? Pregnancies reducing a deploying unit's strength? The piss poor training standards compared to CA?
If homosexuals want to serve as equals, I would be all for it. But their track record speaks for itself: clearly "equality" to them means everyone else conforming to their desires. That's special interest and has zero place in my Infantry.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Note the "most" in my comment .......
AZ .....
Note the "most" in my comment. I agree, not everyone who is opposed to gays in the military are homophobes ... just the MOST vocal opponents (the same as in the civilian world).
I am sorry that you have taken offense to my post ... like you, I am 'just' posting my opinion. (Backed by a long list of studies by a long list of experts [military & civilian] .. and .. my own experience with those gays who I served with).
I realize you could also come up with a list of studies and experts in support of your comments .. however ... let's agree that we BOTH want what is good for the military and NOT get into a war of experts. I ALSO agree 'special' interest groups have no place in the military.
What I want to see, is gays receiving the same treatment as their heterosexual counterparts - nothing more nor nothing less ... which is nothing more than them receiving their Constitutional guarantees (the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).
AZ .....
Note the "most" in my comment. I agree, not everyone who is opposed to gays in the military are homophobes ... just the MOST vocal opponents (the same as in the civilian world).
I am sorry that you have taken offense to my post ... like you, I am 'just' posting my opinion. (Backed by a long list of studies by a long list of experts [military & civilian] .. and .. my own experience with those gays who I served with).
I realize you could also come up with a list of studies and experts in support of your comments .. however ... let's agree that we BOTH want what is good for the military and NOT get into a war of experts. I ALSO agree 'special' interest groups have no place in the military.
What I want to see, is gays receiving the same treatment as their heterosexual counterparts - nothing more nor nothing less ... which is nothing more than them receiving their Constitutional guarantees (the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).
HokieMSG
Active member
Chief Bones and PeterJohn:
To back up ChuckPike here. In order to make the repeal of DADT work, a fundamental and complete overhaul of the MCM (Manual of Courts Martial) will have to be undertaken.
If the soldiers enlisted before DADT and they later come out they will be in violation of the following articles:
Article 83 - Fraudulent Enlistment, appointment or separation
Article 84 - Effecting unlawful enlistment, apopintment or separation
Article 107 - False official statements
After DADT was signed into law if the person admits to a homosexual relationship they will violate:
Article 125 - Sodomy
NOTE: This applies to hetero relationships that are oral or **** in execution also.
If DADT is replealed it will still be a violation of Article 125 if they admit they are in a homosexual relationship with a sexual element.
Reference 2008 Edition of the MCM (Manual for Courts Martial)
So this will require not only a shift in thinking in the Military Culture but ALL regulations will have to be examined as well and this represents a significant undertaking.
To back up ChuckPike here. In order to make the repeal of DADT work, a fundamental and complete overhaul of the MCM (Manual of Courts Martial) will have to be undertaken.
If the soldiers enlisted before DADT and they later come out they will be in violation of the following articles:
Article 83 - Fraudulent Enlistment, appointment or separation
Article 84 - Effecting unlawful enlistment, apopintment or separation
Article 107 - False official statements
After DADT was signed into law if the person admits to a homosexual relationship they will violate:
Article 125 - Sodomy
NOTE: This applies to hetero relationships that are oral or **** in execution also.
If DADT is replealed it will still be a violation of Article 125 if they admit they are in a homosexual relationship with a sexual element.
Reference 2008 Edition of the MCM (Manual for Courts Martial)
So this will require not only a shift in thinking in the Military Culture but ALL regulations will have to be examined as well and this represents a significant undertaking.