• 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!

Dont ask Dont tell Policy Ruled Unconstitutional

Thank you.
Thats what Ive been trying to point out, that he is using it all wrong.
You, Gunny... err.. sorry, Massa Saarge, and myself have all pointed that out to him now.

And Gunney is a real tight ass about military procedure usually.....

err... Massa sarge...sorry.

I keep wanting to call him Master Chief....
 
I keep wanting to call him Master Chief....

that reminded me of a conversation I had with my brother about inter service relationships.

My bro worked a fuel depot overseas where they fueled all sorts of ****, including upon occassion Marine Corps helicopters and ****, and worked at a base at one point where there was a Marine unit based there.

These Army folks, a small team of them running this depot detached from their main unit, mostly stuck to themselves, but upon this one occassion he still remembers, he had to deal with a Marine Staff Sergeant who, I would hope at that point, understood how the Army works as far as E-5 through E-7 being called "sergeant', yet the guy still got all up in arms about being called Sergeant by a Specialist who is obviously following his training and what has become 2nd nature to him.

I always think its funny how Marine NCOs feel the need to correct Army folks on this, even though it goes against our training and what would by this point be 2nd nature to us based upon the Army culture.
 
Yes, but he is using Fraternization all wrong. There is nothing to stop any officer from attending any wedding of another service member. Hell, there is nothing stopping officers from, on occasion, partying with enlisted members. My going away party when I got out had several officers present, including our skipper. His 12 years of service has not made him right.

Ya'll definitely need to learn more about how fraternization is defined. You should also learn how fraternization is defined, in relationship to chain of command.

AR 600-20:

(1) Compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command.

(2) Cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness.

(3) Involve, or appear to involve, the improper use of rank or position for personal gain.

(4) Are, or are perceived to be, exploitative or coercive in nature.

(5) Create an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/fraternization.-u3q.htm
 
Last edited:
I see the regulation, and what Redress said does not appear to compromise that list.
 
Where they get you on fraternization is with the "perceived" or "appears to" bull****. All it takes is for one whiney arsed, pansy, piece of crap to complain and holy**** batman...you've got perception and/or appearance of impropriety. Doesn't matter whether there is anything wrong going on or not...bastards
 
Where they get you on fraternization is with the "perceived" or "appears to" bull****. All it takes is for one whiney arsed, pansy, piece of crap to complain and holy**** batman...you've got perception and/or appearance of impropriety. Doesn't matter whether there is anything wrong going on or not...bastards

That's exactly right.

PFC Joe gets married on saturday and invites his company commander, Captain Bob. Monday morning, PFC Joe is promoted to Specialist. PFC Frank is pissed, because either he doesn't like Joe, he doesn't like Bob, felt like HE should have been promoted, or is just a whiney little asshole and marches his ass right up to the battalion commander's office and starts a whole truckload of ****.

This is why officers do not put themselves in these types of situations.
 
I see the regulation, and what Redress said does not appear to compromise that list.

Officers partying with enlisted men doesn't comprimise the regulations? You're just being obtuse, now. What about officers and enlisted men gambling?
 
That's exactly right.

PFC Joe gets married on saturday and invites his company commander, Captain Bob. Monday morning, PFC Joe is promoted to Specialist. PFC Frank is pissed, because either he doesn't like Joe, he doesn't like Bob, felt like HE should have been promoted, or is just a whiney little asshole and marches his ass right up to the battalion commander's office and starts a whole truckload of ****.

This is why officers do not put themselves in these types of situations.
Then they shut his stupid ass up when they remind him that Specialist promotion usually comes at the 24 month mark reguardless, unless you've been punished under UCMJ.
 
Then they shut his stupid ass up when they remind him that Specialist promotion usually comes at the 24 month mark reguardless, unless you've been punished under UCMJ.

true. the point is, if you are an officer you have to make damned sure that you don't allow yourself to get into situations where your actions can be questioned.

I see nothing wrong with officers attending social gatherings with enlisted. Where the problems come in is when the Company CO starts hanging out at Joe Snuffy's house on the weekend and going on fisihing trips with him.

Attending weddings, parties, etc should pose no problems and in most cases are beneficial to morale.
 
Then they shut his stupid ass up when they remind him that Specialist promotion usually comes at the 24 month mark reguardless, unless you've been punished under UCMJ.

Or, most probably, the battalion commander asks Captain Bob, what the hell he was doing associating with his enlisted men and reminds him of how that can very easily be, "perceived" as, or, "appear" to be, fraternization.
 
true. the point is, if you are an officer you have to make damned sure that you don't allow yourself to get into situations where your actions can be questioned.

I see nothing wrong with officers attending social gatherings with enlisted. Where the problems come in is when the Company CO starts hanging out at Joe Snuffy's house on the weekend and going on fisihing trips with him.

Attending weddings, parties, etc should pose no problems and in most cases are beneficial to morale.

Situations like that are MET-T.
 
Officers partying with enlisted men doesn't comprimise the regulations?

not unless the officer in question singles out a particular enlisted man for individualized attention. The simple act of attending a party where enlisted are present does not violate the regulation.

You're just being obtuse, now. What about officers and enlisted men gambling?
unless they are in vegas or at a casino, gambling of any sort is illegal.
 
true. the point is, if you are an officer you have to make damned sure that you don't allow yourself to get into situations where your actions can be questioned.

I see nothing wrong with officers attending social gatherings with enlisted. Where the problems come in is when the Company CO starts hanging out at Joe Snuffy's house on the weekend and going on fisihing trips with him.

Attending weddings, parties, etc should pose no problems and in most cases are beneficial to morale.

Exactly. The differnce, I see, is a Wedding is a special occasion and a time to celebrate, particularly things that the military values, Family. The start of every family begins (in theory) at the Wedding. Even though way to often folks have babies before and even with, never getting married.

Now, an Army Captain becoming drinking buddies with a PFC.... that would be bad.
Unfortunately, during my time, my XO (1LT) became drinking buddies with a SPC that worked with him regularly. It was sickening with said SPC got injuried in Iraq, the response the XO made because of it gave me a very interesting look into what an openly gay combat unit might look like :rofl
 
Situations like that are MET-T.

true and if it is a social event like a wedding or party where lots of people are in attendance, there is nothing wrong with an officer attending the wedding of one of his soldiers or attending a party with enlisted members of his unit. again, the problem arises when an officer singles out an individual soldier for "special" attention.
 
Ya'll definitely need to learn more about how fraternization is defined. You should also learn how fraternization is defined, in relationship to chain of command.

AR 600-20:

And you have proven me right. Nothing there says a CO could not, or should not attend a wedding.
 
Another voice of experience. What happens when that person turns out to be gay and is a heterophobe?

... a heterophobe? What the hell are you talking about? I'm assuming that means somebody who is 'afraid' of straight people? Well guess what cookie? They don't get to chose who they serve with either.

You all act as if the problem is about homophobic straights that are too prejudiced to serve with gay soldiers.

I can't believe that people who claim to so enligthened and intelligent are having such a hard time seeing the bigger picture.

Yes.....like heterophobes and stuff.
 
And you have proven me right. Nothing there says a CO could not, or should not attend a wedding.

There's no surprise that you don't understand.
 
There's no surprise that you don't understand.

You're the only one that understands right?

Even though every other vet around here disagrees with you.
 
There's no surprise that you don't understand.

I understand perfectly well. I understand you are factually and practically wrong.
 
Right! I don't know jack **** about the Army. Ok, got it!

What was your MOS, BTW? Class-9 clerk? Supply specialist?

Times have very much changed for the military my man. It's a different world today. Time in service, MOS, etc. just doesn't matter like it used to. My Father did 30 years in the Corps. Between his first year, being spent in Vietnam, and the year 2000 he lived in "peace." For just over 29 years, my Father saw no conflict. It all came down to being in the "wrong" units at the "wrong" time and the global environment. He began as a Grunt and retired as a Refrigeration Mechanic. Consider today's "soldier." Most may see foreign war torn soil twice in a single enlistment and it doesn't matter the MOS. Soldiers in the Army are constantly facing the enemy on convoys no matter their MOS. Marines find themselves constantly on patrols with the infantry no matter the MOS.

Personally, I started as a Field Wireman and today I'm a Comm Chief. Along the way I was a Radioman in Somalia & Haiti and led patrols on streets and to clear buildings in Iraq. And in my 19th year (next year) I am destined for Afghanistan (somebody's got to win that one).

Today's troop has been in a state of war since 9/11. It is imperative that he be educated as to what his enemy is and what the culture is. And we aren't talkng about a single country. We are talking about multiple ones with discreet cultures and grievances (though some grievances and cultures overlap due to Arab colonialism). These things tend to place things into proper perspective. In a time where "soldiers" are either headed to Iraq or Afghanistan from year to year and other undesignated places of Al-Queda presence, gays in the military and other such traditions have simply lost its horror. With the proper analysis, one can properly forecast one hell of a religious century ahead of us. Bigger things are the focus.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I started as a Field Wireman and today I'm a Comm Chief. Along the way I was a Radioman in Somalia & Haiti and led patrols on streets and to clear buildings in Iraq.

You are one tough MFer. I'm glad you are on our side.
 
You're the only one that understands right?

Even though every other vet around here disagrees with you.

Which vet diagrees with me? Redress? She was in the Navy. I'm speaking from the view point--as always--of a veteran member of an actual combat unit, not a pogues unit that never saw a single minute of trigger time.

So, basically, two-thirds of the vets on this thread tell you one thing, but we're all wrong? Again?
 
Which vet diagrees with me? Redress? She was in the Navy. I'm speaking from the view point--as always--of a veteran member of an actual combat unit, not a pogues unit that never saw a single minute of trigger time.

So, basically, two-thirds of the vets on this thread tell you one thing, but we're all wrong? Again?

I still fail to see how having homosexuals in combat units somehow hurts the unit.
 
Back
Top Bottom