• 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!

Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

Who said soldiers can't complain?

It's been stated in this thread numerous times. It's even been claimed by you.

It's been said here

Now allow me to introduce a novel concept to YOU. The army is NOT a free society. You have rules all over the place and one of them is about to be that YOU don't get to decide who YOU serve beside. When the POTUS, aka commander in chief, decides that DADT is a stupid and backwards policy not worthy of any great nation, YOU will suck it up and deal with it or YOU won't be serving at all.

How you like them apples?

And here

Exactly. A platoon does not get to vote whether they want Jews, blacks, Indians, Muslims, or Scientologists in their midst. Soldiers give up those bigotries and prejudices when they put on the uniform and swear an oath to their country. Those who refuse to get along are tossed out.

The bigots didn't like them apples. They've gotten over it.

They'll get over gays soon enough.

:rofl
 
And nothing in that entire document indicates a "right" to change billeting based on "comfort" of the soldier.

Just as I thought.


If a female is forced to share billets with a male soldier, she can petition a complaint to Congress to address that grevience. The same can happen with straight and gay soldiers who are uncomfortable, or feel intimidated with their billeting. It's commons sense kinda stuff.
 
If a female is forced to share billets with a male soldier, she can petition a complaint to Congress to address that grevience. The same can happen with straight and gay soldiers who are uncomfortable, or feel intimidated with their billeting. It's commons sense kinda stuff.

No one here is talking about men and women sharing billets except you.

Now where in that document does it say there is a right to change one's billeting based on "comfort"?

I'm waiting.
 
If a female is forced to share billets with a male soldier, she can petition a complaint to Congress to address that grevience. The same can happen with straight and gay soldiers who are uncomfortable, or feel intimidated with their billeting. It's commons sense kinda stuff.

Yeah, they can complain. Just like I can complain about anything I want to my congressman.

First off, no one said they couldn't. Secondly, doesn't the fact that they can completely nullify your 'argument'?

Where is the problem here?
 
No one here is talking about men and women sharing billets except you.

Now where in that document does it say there is a right to change one's billeting based on "comfort"?

I'm waiting.

I use it as an example of how gays and straights can't be forced to share billets.
 
Yeah, they can complain. Just like I can complain about anything I want to my congressman.

First off, no one said they couldn't. Secondly, doesn't the fact that they can completely nullify your 'argument'?

Where is the problem here?

You're mistaken. It's been stated several times that soldiers have to just, "suck it up", and have zero say so about their situation. "It's not a democracy", has been the term used most, I think.
 
:lol: When I was in, I was more interested in how well a person put lead down range than which d00ds where checking out the Good Reverend's awesomeness....
 
I use it as an example of how gays and straights can't be forced to share billets.

So then, there is no right to change billeting based on comfort? Just like I thought.

Look, bro, you presented a completely separate argument about men and women showering or sharing billets and then proceeded to tear that argument down. Well newsflash: we aren't talking about men and women sharing showers or billets. We're talking about homos serving their country. So you've really presented nothing at all in terms of relevance.

Come back when you got something. Until then, I intend to fully relish the deer in the headlights reaction you have to the realization that homos are about to be another step closer to being completely equal to you in every way. :mrgreen:
 
:lol: When I was in, I was more interested in how well a person put lead down range than which d00ds where checking out the Good Reverend's awesomeness....

I was more interested in soldiers being able to shoot, move and communicate as a cohesive unit. Firepower is only a part of a unit's combat power. Without unit integrity, all that firepower is wasted, the enemy will out maneuver you and kill you.

So then, there is no right to change billeting based on comfort? Just like I thought.

yes, there is. If a soldier is made to feel uncomfortable due to sexual harrassment, then they have the right to complain, regardless of his, or her sexual preferrence. I've seen soldiers get written up for running around the barracks nekkid, after their fellow soldiers compalined about it.
 
I wonder if they're going put the same job restictions on gays that they have on females: no combat arms, no submarines, etc.
 
I wonder if they're going put the same job restictions on gays that they have on females: no combat arms, no submarines, etc.

I wonder if you are ever going to come up with a rational thought?
 
yes, there is. If a soldier is made to feel uncomfortable due to sexual harrassment, then they have the right to complain, regardless of his, or her sexual preferrence. I've seen soldiers get written up for running around the barracks nekkid, after their fellow soldiers compalined about it.

OK, that has nothing to do with changing billeting. That's a sexual harassment issue.

Well before we can even address that, we need a homo to sexually harass you for having such a purty mouth and sweet little behind first.
 
You're mistaken. It's been stated several times that soldiers have to just, "suck it up", and have zero say so about their situation. "It's not a democracy", has been the term used most, I think.

No one said they couldn't complain.

You're the only one who said they could just change their barracks based on their perception of comfort, and what you quoted doesn't say that at all. It says they can complain. Doubtful that complaining will get anywhere, but they certainly have the right to try.
 
You're mistaken. It's been stated several times that soldiers have to just, "suck it up", and have zero say so about their situation. "It's not a democracy", has been the term used most, I think.

So you are saying soldiers get to vote on where they are deployed? :rofl How about P.T., do they get to vote on that one too :rofl

That is why YES, soldiers have LIMITED RIGHTS.

If a soldier complains that an officer told him to stand at attention, he would get laughed out of the room.

I am laughing my ass off at you arguing for the sake of arguing. You know damn well there are certain things that YES, a soldier is told to suck it up and drive are.

Where do you think that comment came from?

Did you complain about every order you didn't like even if it was a lawful order? Gimme a break.
 
:lol: When I was in, I was more interested in how well a person put lead down range than which d00ds where checking out the Good Reverend's awesomeness....

When you think about it, it's really kind of flattering. The first time a lesbian hit on me, I was a little thrown off my game, and then I thought, "Who wouldn't want to hit this?"
 
Yeah, it is too much to ask. I love this whole "don't put it in my face because I don't put it in yours" argument we hear all the time. It's a bull**** argument at it's foundation because all heteros ever do is announce how hetero they are. They hold hands ("We're heteros!!!"), the show affection (We're heteros!!!!), they announce their marriages in the papers (Hey, world!!! We're heteros!!!), they have an expectation of acceptance of their husbands and wives (Hey, love my fellow hetero, too!!!!), they have their Valentine's Days (Hallmark recognize us heteros!!!!), they have their weddings (Bring us gifts because we're heteros!!!!), their babyshowers (We made babehz like good heteros!!!!), etc, etc, etc.

And you want someone to either not serve their country or serve their country in silence and shame using the argument that we should just "shut up"?

Fvck. That.
:3oops:


Yeah. I don't like those outward traditional public exhibitions either. I might be wrong but it seems that all that stuff you mentioned is designed to appease affection starved females.
:2wave:
 
When you think about it, it's really kind of flattering. The first time a lesbian hit on me, I was a little thrown off my game, and then I thought, "Who wouldn't want to hit this?"




Welcome to the Good Reverend's world, shorty. :mrgreen:
 
:3oops:


Yeah. I don't like those outward traditional public exhibitions either. I might be wrong but it seems that all that stuff you mentioned is designed to appease affection starved females.
:2wave:

You think that lowly of marriage? Really?
 
I was more interested in soldiers being able to shoot, move and communicate as a cohesive unit. Firepower is only a part of a unit's combat power. Without unit integrity, all that firepower is wasted, the enemy will out maneuver you and kill you.


I have been attached to units that had known but not told gay members in it. I never noticed, they did all those things you suggested and were a cohesive unit.





yes, there is. If a soldier is made to feel uncomfortable due to sexual harrassment, then they have the right to complain, regardless of his, or her sexual preferrence. I've seen soldiers get written up for running around the barracks nekkid, after their fellow soldiers compalined about it.




If I ever felt "sexually harrassed" by a dood, I'd punch him. Problem solved.

I wouldn't punch a chick though, I like them. :lol:
 
Last edited:
OK, that has nothing to do with changing billeting. That's a sexual harassment issue.

hence the reason for seperate billeting of males and females.

Well before we can even address that, we need a homo to sexually harass you for having such a purty mouth and sweet little behind first.

And, what if a gay soldiers is harrassed and requests seperate billets? You're automatically assuming that the harrassment will be gay on straight, but seem to refuse to consider the harrassment the other way around. How would you feel if a soldier with the proclivaty of predetorial conduct and harrasses another soldier who is more submissive and both of those soldiers are gay? I'm sure your first reaction is to kick someone out of the service, but how long does that continue as the reaction to such conduct before you find yourself cashiering too many service members? It's the reason that males and females don't billet together, it wouldn't take long for there not to be anyone left to discharge.

You are aware that a male soldier can burned for looking at a female soldier the wrong way. Right? When a soldier complains that he/she is being harrassed, it's going to have to be addressed. The chain of commands response to that cannot be, "just suck itup, troop", or to ingore it, unless of course that NCO, or officer wants to see an early end to his, or her career. The solution to same sex sexual harrassment can't be to force those two soldiers to live in the same room together. That's just asking for trouble.

If you check out Article 134 of the UCMJ, you'll see that the offense of, "intent to rape", doesn't have to include physical contact with the victim.

I believe alot of folks on this thread have over-simplified things, mostly from a lack of understanding of military rules, regulations and laws.
 
If I ever felt "sexually harrassed" by a dood, I'd punch him. Problem solved.

I wouldn't punch a chick though, I like them. :lol:

I think that those who are the most likely to be intimidated by the thought of having a gay person (male or female) attracted to them are those who don't have a wealth of experience in dealing with the opposite sex.

I work in a male-dominated field, and have been hit on daily/weekly for almost 20 years. I flirt with the guys I work with, and they flirt back, and we have a damn good time. No one takes it seriously, and no one gets hurt. No harm, no foul.

Anyone who is attractive is going to deal with people being attracted to them, of both genders. It REALLY is not as big a deal as some of you seem to think it is. You just handle it. Mostly, I handle it with a smile. It's flattering.

Just because someone thinks you have a cute ass doesn't mean that there is pressure on you to act on your latent homosexual urges, apdst. Really. I promise. No means no.

Just say "Thanks, but no thanks" and go about your business.
 
hence the reason for seperate billeting of males and females.

No one here is discussing males and females sleeping and showering together except you. Move on.

And, what if a gay soldiers is harrassed and requests seperate billets? You're automatically assuming that the harrassment will be gay on straight, but seem to refuse to consider the harrassment the other way around.

I thought we were talking about sexual harassment. Now why in the world would a straight man sexually harass another man? :confused:

How would you feel if a soldier with the proclivaty of predetorial conduct and harrasses another soldier who is more submissive and both of those soldiers are gay?

The same way I would feel if a male soldier was predatorial with any other soldier.

I'm sure your first reaction is to kick someone out of the service, but how long does that continue as the reaction to such conduct before you find yourself cashiering too many service members?

My first reaction isn't discharge and neither is the military's. Disciplinary proceedings are my first reaction, followed by stripping of rank, and finally discharge if the behavior is not corrected.

It's the reason that males and females don't billet together, it wouldn't take long for there not to be anyone left to discharge.

No one here is discussing men and women billeting together except you.

You are aware that a male soldier can burned for looking at a female soldier the wrong way. Right? When a soldier complains that he/she is being harrassed, it's going to have to be addressed. The chain of commands response to that cannot be, "just suck itup, troop", or to ingore it, unless of course that NCO, or officer wants to see an early end to his, or her career. The solution to same sex sexual harrassment can't be to force those two soldiers to live in the same room together. That's just asking for trouble.

First you are assuming that sexual harassment will be rampant or more rampant than it currently is. Second, you are assuming that measures will be more drastic following DADT. There is nothing to indicate this. Not one shred of empirical evidence.

If you check out Article 134 of the UCMJ, you'll see that the offense of, "intent to rape", doesn't have to include physical contact with the victim.

I believe alot of folks on this thread have over-simplified things, mostly from a lack of understanding of military rules, regulations and laws.

So now we're right back a t a "don't drop the soap" prison rape scenario? What makes you think that this is going to become some issue? Are you afraid the homos are going to start forcibly dipping their sticks in your honey pots spontaneously at the repealing of DADT?
 
Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und
If I ever felt "sexually harrassed" by a dood, I'd punch him. Problem solved.

And, you would find yourself in the stockade. The charges would stack up a mile high if you assaulted a gay soldier. Besides assault, you would probably get hit with descrimination, intent to rape and possibly intent to commit manslaughter. Those two soldiers who got smacked with double digit sentences in that other thread probably got smacked with intent to rape and that's why their sentences were so long.
 
Back
Top Bottom