• 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!

95% of Marines uncomfortable serving with openly gay troops

I like how he just called serving openly a "special right."

Yes, ladies in gentlemen, these people say being able to serve in the military without being forced to hide who you are is a SPECIAL RIGHT FOR GAAAAAAYS. Hhahahahaha.

Hey, uh, what happens to a straight soldier if he happens to mention he has a girlfriend?
 
You're not going to win this one. I have had personal experience with knowing people who were discharged for just being gay, that hurt our manning. The Navy offers Nukes $40K+ to reenlist and it costs over $1M to train one Navy Nuke. I personally received $30K, tax free, 7 years ago when I reenlisted and gave up $60K to reenlist again.

I knew 2 guys who would have been punished for what they were caught doing but still allowed to stay in the military if the military allowed gay personnel. I also knew a girl who signed the paperwork saying she was gay for the discharge because she found a job that offered complete spousal benefits for her partner. We talked often, and I know that she would have at least finished her enlistment had the opportunity not been given for her to get out under DADT. And if the military would have treated her partner the same that they do heterosexual partners, then she would have stayed in the Navy as her career. These are just people I knew personally. I'm sure there have been many others. And everyone knows that the military has discharged Arabic translators, who are vital while we're in conflicts with people in the ME, for being gay.

My department of more than 400 people aboard the carrier had at least a dozen guys that everyone knew were gay, including one of the two that I mentioned above. We had another 2 gay women and several women who were bi. All were open about their sexuality and no one cared. We were much more concerned with those people who weren't doing their job. Because that is what matters. It shouldn't matter who someone is attracted to or even how someone has sex in determining a person's ability to serve. What should matter is that the person can do their job and not interfere with others doing their jobs. And someone else being uncomfortable with a person being homosexual is the problem of the person who is uncomfortable with it, not the one who is homosexual.

There's no one in the service, that can't be replaced.
 
There's no one in the service, that can't be replaced.

Yeah, but it requires a lot more money to do so if you have to keep offering higher and higher enlistment and/or reenlistment bonuses.
 
Yeah, but it requires a lot more money to do so if you have to keep offering higher and higher enlistment and/or reenlistment bonuses.

Right now little to no bonuses are being offered...

And yet they are turning folks down.
 
There's no one in the service, that can't be replaced.

As a man with some apparent military experience you should know that replacements aren't instant and they aren't free.
 
Yeah, but it requires a lot more money to do so if you have to keep offering higher and higher enlistment and/or reenlistment bonuses.

All the more reason to lift all the other bans that are in place. Yes?
 
As a man with some apparent military experience you should know that replacements aren't instant and they aren't free.

There are BCT course getting kicked off, every week in this country. People are walking into a recruting station, every minute of the day, probably every second. Not once, did I ever serve in an under strength unit. All the units I served in were at 100%+ strength. Even in Desert Storm, we recieved newbies straight from AIT. They're purdy instant.

Perhaps, if gays wouldn't knowingly violate the law, the costs wouldn't be a problem.
 
Perhaps, if gays wouldn't knowingly violate the law, the costs wouldn't be a problem.

The law is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The military goes out of its way to root out gays even when they are not telling.
 
The law is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The military goes out of its way to root out gays even when they are not telling.

No it doesn't.

Currently, there is a ban on gays serving, openly in the military. Gays, join the military knowing that that ban is in place. Therefore, they're defrauding the government. When gays are discovered, they should be forced to back back every nickel that the government spent on them from the time they enlisted, to the time they were disharged.

Bet we'd hear a different tune, then.
 
No it doesn't.

I believe the federal court which found DADT unconstitutional indicated that as many as 20% of DADT discharges have been reported by third partys. I would say that when 1 out of every 5 discharges is the result of the military starting an investigation based on someone outside the military claiming someone in the military is gay, then the military is activiely trying to root out gay soldiers.

Colin Powell even specifically told Bill Clinton that this is not how the policy would be enforced. It means that even when you are on leave from the military, in your own home, you can be outed by someone not in any way involved with the military and be investigated and discharged for it.

Are you telling me that gays sign up so that they can be outed to the military when they never tell anyone in the military they are gay? Is that the law as you interpret it? How can you justify it?
 
Last edited:
I believe the federal court which found DADT unconstitutional indicated that as many as 20% of DADT discharges have been reported by third partys. I would say that when 1 out of every 5 discharges is the result of the military starting an investigation based on someone outside the military claiming someone in the military is gay, then the military is activiely trying to root out gay soldiers.

Colin Powell even specifically told Bill Clinton that this is not how the policy would be enforced. It means that even when you are on leave from the military, in your own home, you can be outed by someone not in any way involved with the military and be investigated and discharged for it.

Army Regulations specifically state that an investigation can only be launched, based on a credible third party report. I think where most gays go wrong, is when they are confronted, they take a gay pride pill and say, "you're damn right I'm gay!! Gay and proud of it!!!", instead of excercising their right under Don't ask, Don't Tell and shut the **** up, refusing to asnwer any questions regarding their sexuality. Saw a soldier do that once and he was never bothered about it, again.

Are you telling me that gays sign up so that they can be outed to the military when they never tell anyone in the military they are gay? Is that the law as you interpret it? How can you justify it?

No, I'm saying that when gays join the service, knowing that there is a ban on gays, they should be made to pay back every dollar spent on them, while they were there.
 
Army Regulations specifically state that an investigation can only be launched, based on a credible third party report. I think where most gays go wrong, is when they are confronted, they take a gay pride pill and say, "you're damn right I'm gay!! Gay and proud of it!!!", instead of excercising their right under Don't ask, Don't Tell and shut the **** up, refusing to asnwer any questions regarding their sexuality. Saw a soldier do that once and he was never bothered about it, again.

I think cases like these prove you wrong...

Jene Newsome Discharged: Rapid City Police Told Air Force That Sergeant Was Lesbian
Decorated Air Force nurse, barred over lesbianism, sues

The military has discharged people who have never outed themselves, but were outed by others. There is nothing wrong with being gay and in the military, the waste of money comes when the military allows third parties who are in no way affiliated with the military to out soldiers and then investigates and discharges them. The gay soldiers played by the rules, it was the military that went out of its way to kick them out.

Frankly, I think you have gone off the deep end. Most Americans do not support this policy, most troops don't care, it has been found to endanger national security and unit cohesion, it has been enforced in a way that violates Constitutional rights to privacy, and you are still trying to support it. What would it take for you to support repeal of DADT?
 
Last edited:

When I said that, "Army Regulations specifically state, that an investigation can only be launched, based on a credible third party report"; what did you think I meant? A cop could qualify as a, "credible third party". Yes?

The military has discharged people who have never outed themselves, but were outed by others. There is nothing wrong with being gay and in the military, the waste of money comes when the military allows third parties who are in no way affiliated with the military to out soldiers and then investigates and discharges them. The gay soldiers played by the rules, it was the military that went out of its way to kick them out.

Were you at the investigation? Do you have transcripts of the interview? Do you have the first clue what was said and by whom? You don't do you?

Frankly, I think you have gone off the deep end. Most Americans do not support this policy, most troops don't care, it has been found to endanger national security and unit cohesion, it has been enforced in a way that violates Constitutional rights to privacy, and you are still trying to support it. What would it take for you to support repeal of DADT?

Oh really?!? Gotta link for that??? :rofl

Oh and BTW, you'll never find where I support a ban on gays in the military. Nice try, though.
 
Last edited:
Right now little to no bonuses are being offered...

And yet they are turning folks down.

Even some rates in the reserves are getting bonuses. It all depends on the need for that rate.

New Navy Reenlistment Bonuses - Bonus Center - Military.com

*note: I don't know if everyone will be able to see this, because my computer auto signs me into this site

but it does confirm that there are definitely bonuses still being offered for many critical rates, in fact, it states that there are over 180 rates in the Navy that can get bonuses

And Navy nukes are still getting bonuses for enlisting and reenlisting. In fact, despite having almost 12 years of total time in the military, the last two being the reserves, I could go to a recruiter right now and get enlisted because of my past nuclear experience, according to the recruiters in Raleigh. And my husband met a few like me that did just that while he was in "boot camp" this past April. There are pretty high requirements for being a nuke however, so they won't consider offering it to people below the minimum ASVAB score or who can't show that they had at least a B average in some HS or college higher math class, like Algebra or Calc. And, nukes get a psychiatric eval during boot camp to try to keep those who might be at risk to commit suicide out of the program. They also need to be able to get a security clearance. These are generally reasons why many ratings are undermanned, because the average recruit cannot meet one or more of the requirements.
 
When I said that, "Army Regulations specifically state, that an investigation can only be launched, based on a credible third party report"; what did you think I meant? A cop could qualify as a, "credible third party". Yes?

I just wanted to point out how much bull it is for you to blame all gays who get discharged under DADT when many of them never told, they were outed, and often by people not even associated with the military.

Were you at the investigation? Do you have transcripts of the interview? Do you have the first clue what was said and by whom? You don't do you?

Do you?

Oh really?!? Gotta link for that??? :rofl

The findings of the federal judge who reviewed the policy and found it unconstitutional. In her ruling she explained that the policy doesn’t help military readiness and instead has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services by hurting recruitment efforts during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members who have critical skills and training. It is pretty self evident that when you are kicking out hundreds of Arab language specialists under this policy when there is a great demand for them, that it is going to have a deterious effect on our ability to collect intelligence and communicate with Iraqi forces. Now you are entitled to your, "everyone can be replaced" view but when "replaced" means someone else has to end up serving again and again, you are ignoring the fact that morale is going to suffer because the job still needs to be done.

Oh and BTW, you'll never find where I support a ban on gays in the military. Nice try, though.

Dude, you are the only person I see on this forum who is left arguing in support of this policy. Even NP said he does not care as long as the troops don't care. At a certain point, you just have to admit you are supporting a bad policy and let it go. If you can't do that, then maybe you ought to take a good long look at yourself and see if maybe this isn't about military policy or what is best for the nation but how you feel about gay people in general.
 
Last edited:
I just wanted to point out how much bull it is for you to blame all gays who get discharged under DADT when many of them never told, they were outed, and often by people not even associated with the military.



Do you?



The findings of the federal judge who reviewed the policy and found it unconstitutional. In her ruling she explained that the policy doesn’t help military readiness and instead has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services by hurting recruitment efforts during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members who have critical skills and training. It is pretty self evident that when you are kicking out hundreds of Arab language specialists under this policy when there is a great demand for them, that it is going to have a deterious effect on our ability to collect intelligence and communicate with Iraqi forces. Now you are entitled to your, "everyone can be replaced" view but when "replaced" means someone else has to end up serving again and again, you are ignoring the fact that morale is going to suffer because the job still needs to be done.



Dude, you are the only person I see on this forum who is left arguing in support of this policy. Even NP said he does not care as long as the troops don't care. At a certain point, you just have to admit you are supporting a bad policy and let it go. If you can't do that, then maybe you ought to take a good long look at yourself and see if maybe this isn't about military policy or what is best for the nation but how you feel about gay people in general.

At some point, those personel admitted to being gay. Unless you can provide a link, proving that anyone, who was discharged under DADT said, "But, I'm not gay. I was falsely accused", or, "Hey, I never admitted to anytying, therefore I can't be discharged", then you have no argument.

maybe you ought to take a good long look at yourself and see if maybe this isn't about military policy or what is best for the nation but how you feel about gay people in general.

So, after saying on umpteen threads, that I suggest lifting the ban on gays, but leaving the DADT policy in place, so as to provide protection for gays and straights alike form discrimination, you still want to label me a homophobe?

Ya'll have thrown that stupid assed argument out there so much, it doesn't even mean anything. Obviously, anyone who isn't in lockstep with the Libbo-genda is a racist, sexist, homophobe, or bigot.

It's the ultimate in dumb assery to put gay--and straight--soldiers in a position, where their commander can ask them about their sexual preferrence, thereby opening them up to discrimination. What kind of ****ing idiot would sit back and allow that environment to breed?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but you and I were actually in the service. What the hell do we know?

:rofl

What about the guys who HAVE been discharged for actions taken nowhere near a military base?
 
What about Obama?

Obama Lawyers Back Military Gay Ban at Supreme Court - Bloomberg

The Obama administration said the U.S. Supreme Court should let the military continue to bar openly gay people under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, arguing that a change in the law should come from Congress, not the courts.

Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, the administration’s top courtroom lawyer, today urged the justices not to reinstate a federal judge’s order that had temporarily suspended the law.
 
I'm in so late.
But whenever this subject comes up I REALLY can't believe that soldiers - especially marines - are WHINING.

"GRRR - Hooah! I'm rugged and tough! I can kill anyone with my bare hands! I hiked 100 miles through rain, sleet and snow - barefoot with a 100lb sack on my back! Hooah hooah hooah!"

Oh but *eeeew!* "You're gay, icky icky icky!"
 
I'm in so late.
But whenever this subject comes up I REALLY can't believe that soldiers - especially marines - are WHINING.

"GRRR - Hooah! I'm rugged and tough! I can kill anyone with my bare hands! I hiked 100 miles through rain, sleet and snow - barefoot with a 100lb sack on my back! Hooah hooah hooah!"

Oh but *eeeew!* "You're gay, icky icky icky!"



:lol: :thumbs:


but the real fact of the matter is its the morals (civillians) having this war, we, marines, soldiers, Airmen, and seamen.... especially the seamen, really don't care where another sticks his junk...... If you don't make your service about your genitalia, no one gives a ****.
 
I want nudists, transgender, sado's to have the same opportunity to serve along with gays. Let's be clear, all of these people can be open and still serve their country with the same pride and conviction that straights already have the luxury of enjoying. It's going to take a lot of work, sensitivity training, sissy training, but we can all join forces to acheive this landmark effort to embrace all lifestyles in the spirit of tolerance. I urge congress to have our top brass at the Pentagon live with nudists, gays, transgender and sado's so they can understand the plight and challenges of these people, brave Americans that only want the same rights as everyone else. Let's all join together and make the military great again!
 
I want nudists, transgender, sado's to have the same opportunity to serve along with gays. Let's be clear, all of these people can be open and still serve their country with the same pride and conviction that straights already have the luxury of enjoying. It's going to take a lot of work, sensitivity training, sissy training, but we can all join forces to acheive this landmark effort to embrace all lifestyles in the spirit of tolerance. I urge congress to have our top brass at the Pentagon live with nudists, gays, transgender and sado's so they can understand the plight and challenges of these people, brave Americans that only want the same rights as everyone else. Let's all join together and make the military great again!

Sados (I'm assuming you're talking about sado-masochists) already can serve openly. So can nudists. Both of these groups can tell their fellow servicemembers about both their sexual activities and/or how they spend their off-time completely naked, and have no fear of discharge due to what they are doing in their off-time as long as they are not hurting anyone else and doing their activities within the law. And they should allow transgendered persons to serve. Cross-dressers can serve, btw, they must wear the clothes of their biological sex on duty, on base, or at military functions, but the military cannot discharge a person for just being a crossdresser, especially if they are not bringing it to anyone's attention that they are in the military. And, there are actually more guys than you would believe, I'd bet, that underdress while in uniform.

So you really should find a better argument.
 
This week's Pentagon study showed widespread military acceptance, with the most resistant unit, the USMC, only 60% in favour of open gay service. The OP is mistaken at best.
 
Back
Top Bottom