Page 67 of 67 FirstFirst ... 1757656667
Results 661 to 663 of 663

Thread: DADT cloture passes

  1. #661
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: DADT cloture passes

    [QUOTE=apdst;1059186053]I hope you enjoyed your time in the Army, El-tee. You won't be there long.


    [quote]However I'm aware that forcing the issue on the spot may cause additional problems and until I can deal with the issue better accommodations will be made.

    And, at that point, you just lost the fight, sir.




    Wait! What? I'm just a dumb, unejumacated, homophobic racist nigger from the Louisiana piney woods and AR600-20 was one of the first regulations that I became familiar with. I suggest that you become familiar as hell with it in the next few weeks. That information just might save your career, Sir.



    Out of your paygrade, until that soldier's letter to his/her congressman says, "2LT Wiseone ordered me...", and, "2LT Wisone's PS, SSG. Brightone also issue an order that violates my rights as a soldier and Captain Smartone backed them both of them up, so on, so on and so forth...". Oh yeah, it'll be within your paygrade then, Sir.

    You think you're outta the woods if they don't find any violations with that soldier? Naw! They'll **** around your AO, til they do find something ****ed up.

    You may want to become very familiar with FM 27-1--if you're not already.
    This situation will be made on a case by case basis, I cannot afford to create a scene with a Soldier who is willing to disregard a lawful order because of his personal opinions about homosexuals, just as I wouldn't want that other Soldier to be forced to put up with the intolerant one. That also creates a situation where there's a good chance these Soldiers become involved in a physical altercation or due to staying up all night arguing or whatever else aren't as prepared for the mission the next day along with their leadership who has to put them down.

    The reason I'd separate the two if the issue came up immediately is because I'd picture myself standing in front of my commander when these two Soldiers beat the **** out of each other, or the gay one gets so angry after having to listen the first one bitch that he does something stupid, and trying to explain why I not only allowed but forced this two individuals to stay in a confined space all night when a switch could be made. Now that Soldier's openly anti-homosexual feelings will still be a issue, simply because I have to trust him to work as well with that gay Soldier as he would any other Soldier, and I can't have separately be the permanent solution since it makes my PLT less effective and efficient than it can and should be.

    When I say I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be, I don't mean I've never opened the cover after all I know where to find the section on homosexual conduct and you don't know my personal standard for familiarity so you have no idea on what it specifically means when I say I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be.

    Now again as for a Soldier writing their Congressmen, I know its their right and if a Soldier informed of his intent to do so I would not attempt to prevent him from doing that. However, I've still never heard of a Congressmen responding to a Soldier's sob story and I'll be damned if when the new regulations come out regarding billeting between straight and gay Soldiers that it'll read anywhere in there the commander does not have fully authority in this matter or that a Soldier has the right to not be billeted with another Soldier of the opposite sex.

    The Army has made clear in both its report and the Army times that regarding billeting the commander will have authority to move Soldiers to maintain good order and conduct, which could include separation based on a Soldier's opinion of homosexuality. However like I said before, I doubt many commanders will have either the resources or the will to do that specifically because I don't think any commander wants his Soldiers thinking of their fellow Soldiers as anything but their fellow Soldiers, same and no different to them in that regard, not as their fellow Soldiers plus "the gay one."

  2. #662
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,319

    Re: DADT cloture passes

    [QUOTE=Wiseone;1059186087][QUOTE=apdst;1059186053]I hope you enjoyed your time in the Army, El-tee. You won't be there long.


    However I'm aware that forcing the issue on the spot may cause additional problems and until I can deal with the issue better accommodations will be made.

    This situation will be made on a case by case basis, I cannot afford to create a scene with a Soldier who is willing to disregard a lawful order because of his personal opinions about homosexuals, just as I wouldn't want that other Soldier to be forced to put up with the intolerant one. That also creates a situation where there's a good chance these Soldiers become involved in a physical altercation or due to staying up all night arguing or whatever else aren't as prepared for the mission the next day along with their leadership who has to put them down.

    The reason I'd separate the two if the issue came up immediately is because I'd picture myself standing in front of my commander when these two Soldiers beat the **** out of each other, or the gay one gets so angry after having to listen the first one bitch that he does something stupid, and trying to explain why I not only allowed but forced this two individuals to stay in a confined space all night when a switch could be made. Now that Soldier's openly anti-homosexual feelings will still be a issue, simply because I have to trust him to work as well with that gay Soldier as he would any other Soldier, and I can't have separately be the permanent solution since it makes my PLT less effective and efficient than it can and should be.

    When I say I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be, I don't mean I've never opened the cover after all I know where to find the section on homosexual conduct and you don't know my personal standard for familiarity so you have no idea on what it specifically means when I say I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be.


    The Army has made clear in both its report and the Army times that regarding billeting the commander will have authority to move Soldiers to maintain good order and conduct, which could include separation based on a Soldier's opinion of homosexuality. However like I said before, I doubt many commanders will have either the resources or the will to do that specifically because I don't think any commander wants his Soldiers thinking of their fellow Soldiers as anything but their fellow Soldiers, same and no different to them in that regard, not as their fellow Soldiers plus "the gay one."
    You can afford even less to push an unlawful order. A congressional enquiry is going to send you into bancruptcy

    Now again as for a Soldier writing their Congressmen, I know its their right and if a Soldier informed of his intent to do so I would not attempt to prevent him from doing that. However, I've still never heard of a Congressmen responding to a Soldier's sob story and I'll be damned if when the new regulations come out regarding billeting between straight and gay Soldiers that it'll read anywhere in there the commander does not have fully authority in this matter or that a Soldier has the right to not be billeted with another Soldier of the opposite sex.
    You just may be, indeed, sir.

    I think you should start selecting a spot within the company area to be the designated bivouac site, for soldiers who refuse to billet with soldiers of a different sexual orientation. Might wanna start now, putting some thought into how your run CQ with that situation. A seperate CQ desk may be good idea. Maybe a TA312 to the main CQ?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #663
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: DADT cloture passes

    [QUOTE=apdst;1059186121][QUOTE=Wiseone;1059186087]
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I hope you enjoyed your time in the Army, El-tee. You won't be there long.
    You can afford even less to push an unlawful order. A congressional enquiry is going to send you into bancruptc

    You just may be, indeed, sir.

    I think you should start selecting a spot within the company area to be the designated bivouac site, for soldiers who refuse to billet with soldiers of a different sexual orientation. Might wanna start now, putting some thought into how your run CQ with that situation. A seperate CQ desk may be good idea. Maybe a TA312 to the main CQ?
    Well we'll have to wait and see exactly what the new regs will be and, assuming I'll have an openly gay Soldier, I'm not going to make a unilateral decision without guidance from the PSG and the CO, or anyone who might have some insight. I'm aware of the potential touchiness of the situation and I'm not an LT whos afraid to walk up to anyone, especially a subordinate, and ask for input. And I imagine the CO is going to want to set his own company policies, or maybe even the BN commander will make a decision, who knows. I'm going to see what comes down the line and execute it, but any freedom of movement in this matter I end up still having I'm going to use in a way towards making may PLT most effective and efficient at its mission, and I'm not afraid to break something thats already "workable"(like making these kind of additional accommodations a permanent feature) if I can break it and fix it to make it work better. And of course that'll be prioritized next to the long list of things I have to do and considerations I have, so until, and if, I'm confronted with this situation I can't tell you how specifically its going to be dealt with.

    The separate CQ is an excellent example of what I'd like to avoid, it means more resources being used and more Soldiers occupied with a task than if we had only one area. It may be workable but its not as efficient because I want to get the "mostest for the leastest."

    Additionally a separate bivouac site would probably unworkable anyway, there's likely not to be more than 1 or 2, if any, gay Soldiers in any given company. They are expected to make up less than 1% of the Army anyway, although of course no one knows for sure, and that number also assumes they all want to be openly gay since nothing will stop a Soldier from hiding his homosexuality if he wants to. This is why I doubt most COs are going to let 1 or 2 Soliders divide their company in half or into parts when it comes to billeting.

Page 67 of 67 FirstFirst ... 1757656667

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •