• 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!

2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

Uh, did it ever occur to you that a fairly large number of soldiers might not be eager to take orders from ANYONE?

Yet they do.

And like so many objections to gay soldiers, this one was used against letting blacks in the military too. After all, can you imagine a bunch of racist white boys taking orders from a negro? :rolleyes:

Deliberate...got it. Made the note...
 
Not being able to follow the orders from a flamboyantly gay officer is a disciplinary problem from the ones not following the orders. The origination of the problem does NOT come from the gay officer, but from those who cannot get past their homophobia, or macho man superiority complex.

If this is the problem that you're pointing out, explain to me how it is a problem that you attribute to gays? It seems to me the problem should be attributed to those who can't follow the chain of command.

Is this really your point?

And before you go on and write your response, please filter your ad homs out of your posts. I don't appreciate it.

Deliberate...got it.
 
Like I said if you don't like the rules don't enlist....But if you do enlist obey the rules....

Navy, can you please show where I have suggested any one should not follow military regulations? I have not, and will not. I di think the rules themselves need to be changed, both for the good of the services and the good of the country. This is a pretty key distinction.
 
You have proof this happened. If not it means nothing.

I provided a rather length source material earlier in the thread, which included a significant list of ways you can be discharged. In point of fact, being seen kissing or even holding hands with some one of the same sex can start a DADT inquiry, forcing the person to either lie or admit toi being gay.
 
I provided a rather length source material earlier in the thread, which included a significant list of ways you can be discharged. In point of fact, being seen kissing or even holding hands with some one of the same sex can start a DADT inquiry, forcing the person to either lie or admit toi being gay.

Does not mean it has happened or enforced in all cases
 
Does not mean it has happened or enforced in all cases

Depends on the command is my understanding. Some gays serve actually pretty openly, the command turns a blind eye. Some have to be very secretive, if word gets to their CO about even a possibility, a DADT investigation could be opened. Once a DADT investigation is opened, the person is in a very bad place.
 
It is a million miles closer to being turned over than it was even as recently as a couple of years ago.

It's still a million miles from being repealed. The reason for the two year study, is to kill time so the Democrats can get voted out and the issue can be file 13'ed.
 
Hey professor critical thought...I want you to close your eyes...think loving thoughts about your mom...your grandma...and then think what wonderful ways they liked to 'take it'...I mean...other than vaginally...because OF COURSE they must have. They wouldnt have been 'normal' otherwise...right?

They probably did. They were only human after all.

Why are you so ashamed of sexuality? Humans do it, and they do it in more ways than simply putting penis to vagina.
 
They probably did. They were only human after all.

Why are you so ashamed of sexuality? Humans do it, and they do it in more ways than simply putting penis to vagina.

According to the UCMJ, penis in vagina is the only legal sex act that exists.
 
According to the UCMJ, penis in vagina is the only legal sex act that exists.

And the reality is that hetero couples do more than just that too. If this was truly being enforced, even just investigations opened for those times when someone heard someone sharing about their experiences, we wouldn't have much of a military. I can't remember how many times I heard some guy I work with tell me how well the girl he was with gave head, or talked about whether or not the girl would take it anally. And girls aren't an exception. We used to talk amongst ourselves about who gave head and who didn't. That tells me that this is a outdated law that's main purpose is to use it against gay military members or as a way of getting the straights who gets caught somewhere on base extra punishment at the present time. It has nothing to do with good order and discipline, since almost everyone in the military, from E-1 to O-9 violates it. No one gives two cents if some guy in their unit got a bj from a girl or gave it to some girl anally, as long as guys aren't doing it to other guys. And that's a double standard.
 
According to the UCMJ, penis in vagina is the only legal sex act that exists.

This is not true, this is pure exaggeration. The wording of the sodomy rule is right here in this thread. It's also irrelevant since article 125 is not what is used to discharge most DADT violators.
 
This is not true, this is pure exaggeration. The wording of the sodomy rule is right here in this thread. It's also irrelevant since article 125 is not what is used to discharge most DADT violators.

Hell, let them claim it. They seem perfectly happy being hypocrites.
 
Flamboyant homosexuals are in the military now. Most are just responsible enough to keep that part of their life private.

You must not have a lot of faith in the men and women serving if you actually believe that repealing DADT will truly cause such a large problem in the military.

People need to stop thinking of this in terms of "the military". That is a generic and meaningless term that has no relevance to the actual issue at hand. Shift your focus to "combat units" and the potential problems become much easier to identify.

Now, I know this may be hard for some people to accept, but the grunts are not your typical American. You have to be a little crazy to volunteer to spend seven months in Iraq or Afghanistan. And when I say spend seven months in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't mean sitting inside a forward operating base, eating at the cafeteria and showering everyday. There is a world of difference...

19471_1305871560132_1030800090_30937399_4290189_n.jpg


So, yes, grunts are pretty nasty people, and, yes, they typically don't like gay guys. Forcing these combat units to accept gays is a terrible move, and will cause problems.

Luckily I have more. I've seen all the chiefs and officers, and most of the jr. enlisted of a department work very hard fighting to try to keep two highly intelligent and motivated sailors in the Navy. They actually had several boards among the upper chain of command to discuss whether or not to discharge them. Unfortunately, the circumstances behind the discovery of them being gay was too much against them. Most of the department was sad to see them go. Everyone knew one of them was gay, he didn't really hide it. It just wasn't a big deal. The only other person I knew that got out for being gay was a girl who turned herself in. We did have more in my department and in other departments on the ship, but it just wasn't a big deal.

For the most part, I found that most of the sailors I've ever worked with don't really care if gays can serve openly or not.

The policy should be changed so as to allow for commander's discretion. The zero tolerance policy we have now is nonsensical.

Now, I can't really speak for the other branches, but my husband was a Marine, and he says he could care less. He knew of at least one gay guy in his unit, but it really wasn't a big deal. According to him, as long as they can do their job and aren't trying to use the fact that they are gay to get some special privilege, then it doesn't matter to him.

What works for one unit may not work for another. Commander's need to have complete control over their men, and that includes the option of removing homosexuals from a volatile environment.
 
Does Ethereal still serve? If so, I think the military would have serious problems with his smoking marijuana. Because he smokes, it's okay to smoke. Because he's heterosexual, it's not okay to allow gay people to serve.

I no longer serve, and while I did I refrained from smoking marijuana. One, because it's not conducive to combat readiness, and, two, because it was against the rules. It didn't matter that I feel like I have a right to smoke marijuana; the military did not allow for it so I followed the rules. All service members have to make sacrifices...
 
And the reality is that hetero couples do more than just that too. If this was truly being enforced, even just investigations opened for those times when someone heard someone sharing about their experiences, we wouldn't have much of a military. I can't remember how many times I heard some guy I work with tell me how well the girl he was with gave head, or talked about whether or not the girl would take it anally. And girls aren't an exception. We used to talk amongst ourselves about who gave head and who didn't. That tells me that this is a outdated law that's main purpose is to use it against gay military members or as a way of getting the straights who gets caught somewhere on base extra punishment at the present time. It has nothing to do with good order and discipline, since almost everyone in the military, from E-1 to O-9 violates it. No one gives two cents if some guy in their unit got a bj from a girl or gave it to some girl anally, as long as guys aren't doing it to other guys. And that's a double standard.


The reality is also, that heteros are subject to the law forbidding sodomy, just like gays are. So, you can't imagine how wrong you are.
 
This is not true, this is pure exaggeration. The wording of the sodomy rule is right here in this thread. It's also irrelevant since article 125 is not what is used to discharge most DADT violators.

No it is not. Combine Article 125-Sodomy and Article 80-Attempts and you'll get the picture. Are you familiar with Article 80 and how a soldier can be convicted of attempted murder for simply pointing an unloaded weapon at another soldier and pulling the trigger as a joke? The same law precedence applies to sodomy.

Are you sure you were in the service? You don't seem to be very familiar with the UCMJ. What was your rate and rank?
 
I no longer serve, and while I did I refrained from smoking marijuana. One, because it's not conducive to combat readiness, and, two, because it was against the rules. It didn't matter that I feel like I have a right to smoke marijuana; the military did not allow for it so I followed the rules. All service members have to make sacrifices...

You do recognize that this statement is somewhat hypocritical, Ethereal. Just saying.
 
No it is not. Combine Article 125-Sodomy and Article 80-Attempts and you'll get the picture. Are you familiar with Article 80 and how a soldier can be convicted of attempted murder for simply pointing an unloaded weapon at another soldier and pulling the trigger as a joke? The same law precedence applies to sodomy.

Are you sure you were in the service? You don't seem to be very familiar with the UCMJ. What was your rate and rank?

You combine them and you still have no case. Article 125 required penetration. Discharges for DADT tend to not be under article 125 or article 80. You have no case.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom