Chukpike
Banned
Will be interesting to see what kind of Political Correctness will be needed to accommodate them. Maybe Paisley curtains in the barracks or pink submarines.
Definitely the desert camo will have to go, maybe chartreuse camo? :lol:
If you are in the military or have been how do you feel about Don't Ask Don't Tell?
Will be interesting to see what kind of Political Correctness will be needed to accommodate them. Maybe Paisley curtains in the barracks or pink submarines.
Definitely the desert camo will have to go, maybe chartreuse camo? :lol:
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Will be interesting to see what kind of Political Correctness will be needed to accommodate them. Maybe Paisley curtains in the barracks or pink submarines.
Definitely the desert camo will have to go, maybe chartreuse camo? :lol:
They can go back to the way it was ... illegal within the command, on base, post etc. What goes on on the beach, stays there ..... the UCMJ will rule as it used to.
The experiment can go where it should have gone to start with ... in File 13.
Chukpike
Banned
Ahhhh, that ship has sailed, past me by! Wait! I don't mean bi, bi, I meant it is past my time. :lol: Whooh that was close.
MZPalmerii
New Member
Hopefully they use that time to do it right, not just CBT's. It'd be nice to see the cost estimate as well.
rattler
Active member
In my time in Germany (early 70s) it was not even discussed: Being gay was considered a security risk and had you out (many used this argument to avoid our obligatory mil service).
Later, because so many made use of this to avoid consription, in the late 70s it was decided that you could serve as gay (*obliged to state so* if you were) but could not become officer or instructor.
In 1999 this changed, after a regional administrative court ruled that the prohibition to have a guy that had been outed by the MAD to be gay become professional (at that time it was obligatory to say you were gay, the idea behind it being that the Army could then better assess security risks) was violating constitution.
In 2000 then it was decided that homosexuals could serve in any position in the Armed Forces, and it became an obligation for superiors to "energically" make front against any kind of sexual discrimination, this also under the aspect that women were allowed into fighting formations at that time ("Führungshilfe für Vorgesetzte", Bd.2.,A,III,7).
Since 2004 now *all* forms of interpersonal relations are officially "considered absolutely and exlusively private matters", which also skipped the prohibition of "fraternisation", i.e. ranks relating with officers (ZDv 14/3 Anlage B 173 , translation by me):
FWIW,
Rattler
Later, because so many made use of this to avoid consription, in the late 70s it was decided that you could serve as gay (*obliged to state so* if you were) but could not become officer or instructor.
In 1999 this changed, after a regional administrative court ruled that the prohibition to have a guy that had been outed by the MAD to be gay become professional (at that time it was obligatory to say you were gay, the idea behind it being that the Army could then better assess security risks) was violating constitution.
In 2000 then it was decided that homosexuals could serve in any position in the Armed Forces, and it became an obligation for superiors to "energically" make front against any kind of sexual discrimination, this also under the aspect that women were allowed into fighting formations at that time ("Führungshilfe für Vorgesetzte", Bd.2.,A,III,7).
Since 2004 now *all* forms of interpersonal relations are officially "considered absolutely and exlusively private matters", which also skipped the prohibition of "fraternisation", i.e. ranks relating with officers (ZDv 14/3 Anlage B 173 , translation by me):
I have not heard of any problems from my serving colleagues, heterosexual sexual assaults on service women seems to be the way bigger problem.
FWIW,
Rattler
Last edited:
Themaster1955
New Member
After twenty in the army and sixteen retired. I have one hell of an opinion. I did not care for the females becoming part of the regular Army let alone this. Not because I do not like females. Just the opposite. But I can say the ten % of females in the military are a privilege to serve with. I even had one Female commander I would have followed into hell. I remember her fondly even today. Can't say that about three quarters of my male leaders. But the rest, just more problems for the RMR Leadership. Dare I say Love boat. The same will become of this present situation. Its real easy for Officers and Politicos to sit on high, wave there hands and declare it problem solved. But we who are and have served know how rough the road is because we are where the rubber meets it. This is going to hurt the armed services on so many levels. There isn't enough space to list them all. I can hardly wait to hear about the two guys that get married to get out of the barracks and have a great party house on Uncle Sam's dime. When confronted state we are Bi and experimenting. Opening Pandora box on the assumption of fairness still lets lose the night mare. It's hard at peace time Doing this at a time of WAR is madness. You Junior leaders have prayers.
Last edited:
But I really think that it can be an issue for some.
I'm very open minded, I even have gay friends...
But I dont feel as comfortable when it comes to things like sharing a shower room with them...
The situation is clear around straight men... You can take out your clothes in a shower room, nobody cares...
And it's not obvious around homosexuals... You just dont feel as comfortable...
And I'm here just talking about sharing a shower room or a locker room... I dont know how it would be if I had to wrestle with them weekly in training...
I'm very open minded, I even have gay friends...
But I dont feel as comfortable when it comes to things like sharing a shower room with them...
The situation is clear around straight men... You can take out your clothes in a shower room, nobody cares...
And it's not obvious around homosexuals... You just dont feel as comfortable...
And I'm here just talking about sharing a shower room or a locker room... I dont know how it would be if I had to wrestle with them weekly in training...
OMG, It feels so nice to be accepted... I will bash homosexuals more often... Joke aside... I dont feel offtopic in the other threads, I just like to push things further.
A bit like here, why just speak about "dont ask dont tell" when we could speak about the REAL issues who are at the source of such rules.
And I can even move to speak about religion on this topic. The separation between church and state is total, so how come we still see homosexuality as a weird bahavior?
Or "who is next?" are we going to accept communists in the army now?
A bit like here, why just speak about "dont ask dont tell" when we could speak about the REAL issues who are at the source of such rules.
And I can even move to speak about religion on this topic. The separation between church and state is total, so how come we still see homosexuality as a weird bahavior?
Or "who is next?" are we going to accept communists in the army now?
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
Last edited:
GHR
Active member
When there is peace and no danger, it has to me no great significance whether you are gay or not. But when the S*** hits the fan then the situation is very different.
You need to be real real real good buddies in combat…..and homosexuality, regardless of what one might say in politically correct company, is a divisive force among alpha males…who make up most of the combat troops. Cohesion of the unit is simply the guarantee of survival. We must be able to rely 100% on each other. If just one is considered a weak link, then the cohesion is in danger and thus the unit is also in danger.
I know that it sure sounds stupid in the civil world, but in our world, it's basically about survival.
You need to be real real real good buddies in combat…..and homosexuality, regardless of what one might say in politically correct company, is a divisive force among alpha males…who make up most of the combat troops. Cohesion of the unit is simply the guarantee of survival. We must be able to rely 100% on each other. If just one is considered a weak link, then the cohesion is in danger and thus the unit is also in danger.
I know that it sure sounds stupid in the civil world, but in our world, it's basically about survival.
GHR, you are using some very "animal" words, like "alpha male"...
These are the basic and "low" instincts we try to fight to be "civilized"...
It was said by much wiser men that semi-civilized people make the best warriors...
But dont you think that in this era of information, we have a chance to change this situation and to start building civilized warriors?
And my knowledge on this part of history is very limited, but cant we say that homosexuality was common in Greek/Macedonian history... And some one as "gay" than Alexander the great built a huge empire...
Is it different? Or can we say that "love between men" can make the men rely on each others... I said love, because there is love without sex, like the love between brothers or even brother/sister...
Because we start to have women on the field, slowly, but surely... And all over the world, even Tchechen terrorists are using women.
So even if I "feel" like you on this one GHR, I really dont think that it's an universal truth, it might be true in your very situation, in your cultural configuration... But man, this way of thinking is done...
The next generation of leadership wants women and homosexuals on the battlefield... They need hands to carry guns.
And they will take everything capable of driving a tank, flying a helicopter, calling fire missions etc...
I just hope that they wont go too far like hiring criminals... Or others SOBs with no law or faith...
(no comparison here between women/homosexuals and criminals/SOBs, just that the motivation to change things come more often from looking for profits etc...)
These are the basic and "low" instincts we try to fight to be "civilized"...
It was said by much wiser men that semi-civilized people make the best warriors...
But dont you think that in this era of information, we have a chance to change this situation and to start building civilized warriors?
And my knowledge on this part of history is very limited, but cant we say that homosexuality was common in Greek/Macedonian history... And some one as "gay" than Alexander the great built a huge empire...
Is it different? Or can we say that "love between men" can make the men rely on each others... I said love, because there is love without sex, like the love between brothers or even brother/sister...
Because we start to have women on the field, slowly, but surely... And all over the world, even Tchechen terrorists are using women.
So even if I "feel" like you on this one GHR, I really dont think that it's an universal truth, it might be true in your very situation, in your cultural configuration... But man, this way of thinking is done...
The next generation of leadership wants women and homosexuals on the battlefield... They need hands to carry guns.
And they will take everything capable of driving a tank, flying a helicopter, calling fire missions etc...
I just hope that they wont go too far like hiring criminals... Or others SOBs with no law or faith...
(no comparison here between women/homosexuals and criminals/SOBs, just that the motivation to change things come more often from looking for profits etc...)
c/Commander
Active member
I think this about sums it up for you Combat Arms types who insist that you're different...
Also, for the record, there are gays who would not perform well in a military environment just as there are straights who wouldn't. The image of the "flaming queer" is not as all-encompassing as you seem to think. There are plenty of people who are gay that you would honestly not be able to identify as such without being told.
Also, for the record, there are gays who would not perform well in a military environment just as there are straights who wouldn't. The image of the "flaming queer" is not as all-encompassing as you seem to think. There are plenty of people who are gay that you would honestly not be able to identify as such without being told.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Yeah those guys I'm alright with.
I just met FAR too many flaming types in my life and yes I actually lived with homosexuals (College, random dorm assignments...) so it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about. So basically the number of gays I met is pretty much well over fifty. I met like ONE chill dude the whole time.
Fan of Terminal Lance? :lol:
c/Commander
Active member
TurboChainSaw
New Member
I've only came into contact with 2 gay solider in the CF. One is a top notch infantier and has great fitness. He was made fun of and tased a lot about his orientation but he just throws it off and doesn't let it bother him. This other homo was the complete oppsite.
Personally I have more of a problem with women in Combats arm trades than gay men. Women in CA are usually sluts and 7 out of 10 will cause bad drama ending up with male collagues charged. Never had that happen with any gays that I know of.
Personally I have more of a problem with women in Combats arm trades than gay men. Women in CA are usually sluts and 7 out of 10 will cause bad drama ending up with male collagues charged. Never had that happen with any gays that I know of.