• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to call for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal, adviser says

And how many of those got discharged for misconduct, and how many simply for being gay?

I'm not sure but I THINK being gay in the Navy IS considered misconduct.

There used to be an old joke they threw at us. 3000 sailors depart on tour. 1500 couples return. :rofl
 
And how many of those got discharged for misconduct, and how many simply for being gay?


I don't know what the break down was but if you admiited to being gay that i a violation of DADT.........I expect a lot of gays admitted to being gay even if they were not to get out of the Navy....
 
I'm not sure but I THINK being gay in the Navy IS considered misconduct.

There used to be an old joke they threw at us. 3000 sailors depart on tour. 1500 couples return. :rofl

Yeah, it's the problem with the question. Let me rephrase, how many of those got discharged for something other than simply being homosexual?

And when Clinton got elected shortly before I got out, the joke was "Navy, it's not just a job, it's a date".
 
Sorry Im just responding to the last page. As far as I can tell they can only kick you out if you disclose that you are a homosexual. You can be a flaming queer in the military and as long as nobody asks or nobody tells you are just fine.
 
I don't know what the break down was but if you admiited to being gay that i a violation of DADT.........I expect a lot of gays admitted to being gay even if they were not to get out of the Navy....

I knew some guys on the east coast that went UA and turned themselves in in San Diego just so they could go WesPac.

I also knew some guys that were straight as an arrow but would have no problem french kissing the old man if they thought they could get a discharge out of it. Kinda like Klinger on M.A.S.H. :roll:

I knew guys that would have NEVER smoked pot but did just so they could pop their piss test and get out.

I knew one guy, Rusty, that got buck naked and started firing his piece off into the water just so he could get out on a mental.

If all it takes to get out these days is to walk up and say, "I'm queer," how easy is that? I wonder if they have to prove it? Do they have to be Liza Minelli fans? Do they gotta blow the O.I.C., or what? :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Failing a drug test was the most common way to get yourself an easy discharge when I was in. The problem of course was that some people just had trouble getting their number called. We had one guy freely admitted every chance he got that he was smoking weed to get out, and yet he went 8 months(each with a random 20 % piss test) before his number finally got called. Then they held him for the duration of a full cruise before finalizing his discharge.
 
An advance, while on duty, can be considered sexual harrassment.

And easy to report and punish, again, making it something unlikely to happen often. It is even less likely than an advance made against female service members. Adults handle these things, right?
 
And unwanted advance is a violation of the UCMJ....It is obvious you have never served your country or you would know that....

You miss the point. Completely. It's a violation even among heterosexuals, yet they are allowed to serve, right?
 
And easy to report and punish, again, making it something unlikely to happen often. It is even less likely than an advance made against female service members. Adults handle these things, right?

You were in the service and I'm sure you saw just as many adults do stupid **** as I did.
 
You were in the service and I'm sure you saw just as many adults do stupid **** as I did.

That's true. See it in the civilian world as well. But that's no excuse to expect less than adult behavior, is it?
 
You were in the service and I'm sure you saw just as many adults do stupid **** as I did.

So what you are saying is that stupid behavior has nothing to do with orientation, which is something I agree with. We should not make policy based on the fact that stupid people will be stupid.
 
That's true. See it in the civilian world as well. But that's no excuse to expect less than adult behavior, is it?

It's not, but I think we both know that there ar people that can't/won't live up to those expectations and neither gender, nor sexual orientation exempts anyone from not meeting the standard.
 
So what you are saying is that stupid behavior has nothing to do with orientation, which is something I agree with. We should not make policy based on the fact that stupid people will be stupid.

Unfortunately, we're talking about an orginization that depends on a minimum of stupidity to remain functional. In the case of th military, I think we must base policies on the propensity of people to act stupid. When there were no co-ed units in the military, rapes and sexual harrassment were virtually non-existant.

It's a fact, that allowing gays to serve openly in the military that we will see an increase in sexual harrassment and EO charges. Like it, or not, it's going to happen. IMO, our service members have more important tasks to perform, than to deal with all that bull****.

When I was in the service, I knew senior NCO's that spent more time dealing with all that crap than they did leading and training their troops.
 
It's a fact, that allowing gays to serve openly in the military that we will see an increase in sexual harrassment and EO charges. Like it, or not, it's going to happen. IMO, our service members have more important tasks to perform, than to deal with all that bull****

Yay, for completely unsubstantiated assumptions!

Do you think putting the words "it's a fact" before you say something actually makes it a fact?

I love to listening people make arguments that prejudice should determine issues of national security.
 
It's not, but I think we both know that there ar people that can't/won't live up to those expectations and neither gender, nor sexual orientation exempts anyone from not meeting the standard.

I would suggest those are the people we don't need.
 
Unfortunately, we're talking about an orginization that depends on a minimum of stupidity to remain functional. In the case of th military, I think we must base policies on the propensity of people to act stupid. When there were no co-ed units in the military, rapes and sexual harrassment were virtually non-existant.

It's a fact, that allowing gays to serve openly in the military that we will see an increase in sexual harrassment and EO charges. Like it, or not, it's going to happen. IMO, our service members have more important tasks to perform, than to deal with all that bull****.

When I was in the service, I knew senior NCO's that spent more time dealing with all that crap than they did leading and training their troops.

You would only see an increase in sexual harassment charges if gays are more likely to commit sexual harassment, which I don't believe is true, and I am sure you cannot prove.
 
Yay, for completely unsubstantiated assumptions!

Do you think putting the words "it's a fact" before you say something actually makes it a fact?



Ok, when the military created co-ed units, did sexual harrassment incidents rise? They did, didn't they?

The same thing will happen with the abolition of DADT.

I love to listening people make arguments that prejudice should determine issues of national security.

What I love even more, is listening to people who think that political correctness and social experiments are more important than a functional military that is able to defend our nation, with as little combat loss as possible.
 
What I love even more, is listening to people who think that political correctness and social experiments are more important than a functional military that is able to defend our nation, with as little combat loss as possible.

Men women and gays seem to do fine serving together in the JDF.
 
You would only see an increase in sexual harassment charges if gays are more likely to commit sexual harassment, which I don't is true, and I am sure you cannot prove.

Well, as usual, you're only able to see things from a one demensional point of view. It's not going to be just gays committing sexual harrassment. It's going to be gay on gay, gay on straight, straight on gay, and so on. Just as likely, there are going to be gay on gay rapes, gay on straight rapes, straight on gay rapes, and that's not even taking into account the increased number of assaults that will take place. I think it's quite naive to believe that these scenarios won't exist.
 
I would suggest those are the people we don't need.

You're aboslutely right, but you know as well as I do how hard it is to kick a soldier out of the Army. When I was a platoon sgt. I dreamed everyday of the time when I could fire a soldier and send his worthless ass home.

I was written up one time for not persuing an AWOL soldier. My feelings were that his presence was nothing more than a waste time and tracking him down was even bigger waste of time.
 
Well, as usual, you're only able to see things from a one demensional point of view. It's not going to be just gays committing sexual harrassment. It's going to be gay on gay, gay on straight, straight on gay, and so on. Just as likely, there are going to be gay on gay rapes, gay on straight rapes, straight on gay rapes, and that's not even taking into account the increased number of assaults that will take place. I think it's quite naive to believe that these scenarios won't exist.

Straight men will hit on gay men? :confused:

Again, the people who are childish are the people we don't need, regardless of sexual orientation or gender. Adults can handle this.
 
You're aboslutely right, but you know as well as I do how hard it is to kick a soldier out of the Army. When I was a platoon sgt. I dreamed everyday of the time when I could fire a soldier and send his worthless ass home.

I was written up one time for not persuing an AWOL soldier. My feelings were that his presence was nothing more than a waste time and tracking him down was even bigger waste of time.

I know soldiers have rules to follow and there are punishments for breaking rules. Enough punishment, and even the childish will adjust their behavior in order to not be punished. The military actually adapts quite well, when order to do so.
 
I was written up one time for not persuing an AWOL soldier. My feelings were that his presence was nothing more than a waste time and tracking him down was even bigger waste of time.

Plus when he's caught and sent back, you can't do **** to them. It's such BS, I've about had it. I swear ACLU lawyers have infiltrated the JAG corps.
 
Back
Top Bottom