264,600 may quit military: McCain

[wildfirepower]

WASHINGTON – As the commanders of the Army, Air Force and Marines cautioned the U.S. Senate against abruptly repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, critics are also warning that accepting open homosexuality and pro-homosexual "reprogramming" could drive massive numbers of troops out of the service.

Said McCain, "If 12.6 percent of the military left earlier, that translates into 264,600 men and women who would leave the military earlier than they had planned … Do you think that's a good idea to replace 265,000 troops … in a time of war?"

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=235797

[Agorism]

Well we need to downsize the federal workforce although I doubt that what he is saying is true.

[speciallyblend]

talk about blowing alot of smoke!!!

[denison]

let all of them quit or send their asses home. anything to end our mass genocides activities abroad.

[Fredom101]

let all of them quit or send their asses home. anything to end our mass genocides activities abroad.

Exactly. I hope they ALL quit and stop the genocide.

[MelissaWV]

I doubt that many would quit the military. When you quit, you don't get your benefits (depending on what's meant by "quit"), and it really does not look good on your resume to do so. You also wouldn't be able to finish out your scholarship, if that's what you went into the military for, if you were no longer military.

Quitting over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would have a huge impact on that soldier's income, family, career marketability, and general future. It's not like quitting a cubicle job because you don't like your coworkers.

[speciallyblend]

I doubt that many would quit the military. When you quit, you don't get your benefits (depending on what's meant by "quit"), and it really does not look good on your resume to do so. You also wouldn't be able to finish out your scholarship, if that's what you went into the military for, if you were no longer military.

Quitting over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would have a huge impact on that soldier's income, family, career marketability, and general future. It's not like quitting a cubicle job because you don't like your coworkers.

^^^^^^^^^ yep, this whole story is just blowing smoke. Though i suggest making straight units for those that might be offended by someone's private life feelings!! That way the straight units can be sent to the front line combat to hopefully correct the gene pool a lil!!!

[malkusm]

In a time of war?"

This is always the excuse...."We're in a war! We can't do this now!" And the funny thing is, we're not even in a war.

[wildfirepower]

let all of them quit or send their asses home. anything to end our mass genocides activities abroad.
I agree, all of them should quit if USA does not withdraw from Afghanistan immediately.

If Russia could not win in Afghanistan so will USA not win in Afghanistan.

[pcosmar]

Said McCain, "If 12.6 percent of the military left earlier, that translates into 264,600 men and women who would leave the military earlier than they had planned …

He says that like it's a bad thing.
:confused:

[wildfirepower]

talk about blowing alot of smoke!!!
There is always smoke before a fire and sometimes fire turns into massive wildfire destroying everything. A small fire can turn into a big fire within minutes. I have seen this.

[speciallyblend]

There is always smoke before a fire and sometimes fire turns into massive wildfire destroying everything. A small fire can turn into a big fire within minutes. I have seen this.

Sustainable Lifestyle should be the primary focus(which i need to do more of). This country i believe is beyond saving thanks to the republicans and dems!!

all i can expect now is to save money(while it still has some value) and drop off-grid(if i can afford that) and hopefully become sustainable!

[speciallyblend]

There is always smoke before a fire and sometimes fire turns into massive wildfire destroying everything. A small fire can turn into a big fire within minutes. I have seen this.

send all the homophobes to the front line combat!!

[wildfirepower]

send all the homophobes to the front line combat!!
I agree 100% and also send all the sex maniacs/addicts to front line combat.

[pcosmar]

I agree 100% and also send all the sex maniacs/addicts to front line combat.

:confused:
Sex addict?
isn't that like being an Air addict, or a food and water addict?

[speciallyblend]

I agree 100% and also send all the sex maniacs/addicts to front line combat.

personally my wife likes my sex addiction:) so you lost me on the sex addicts:) i perfer to send the non-sex addicts to the front line:)

[vita3]

Bring 150,000 home from Afghanistan & Iraq & then let 'em quit.

It's a shame McCain is still in the Senate.

[wildfirepower]

personally my wife likes my sex addiction:) so you lost me on the sex addicts:) i perfer to send the non-sex addicts to the front line:)
I mean sex maniacs/addicts who are not loyal to their partner.

[Rael]

send all the homophobes to the front line combat!!

Oh come on. Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a "homophobe". This term has been abused and turned into an insult for people who dont buy into the gay agenda

[MelissaWV]

Oh come on. Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a "homophobe". This term has been abused and turned into an insult for people who dont buy into the gay agenda

True, but if you're going to screw over your family, your future, your career, and "your country" (since many in the military claim they are fighting "for their country") in order to get away from potentially having to serve in the same military as an openly homosexual person who is not doing anything to actually harm you... you have a high probability of being a tad homophobic.

[Koz]

Unfortunately not many would leave the military. The economy sucks too bad and they wouldn't be able to find jobs. It's too bad, because it would be nice to end the wars because of lack of troops.

[speciallyblend]

Oh come on. Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a "homophobe". This term has been abused and turned into an insult for people who dont buy into the gay agenda

if your scared to march next to a gay or serve next to one. I would easily call that homophobia!! I totally disagree people who want to judge peoples personal lifes or fear them because they might turn them gay are basically homophobia! which includes alot of folks!! I am not gay nor do i promote a gay agenda. There is no one promoting a gay agenda in the military! They are just asking to serve like anyone else and not be judged because they are gay! People who think gay is a choice should only worry about themselves becoming gay!!Seems to be a personal problem with non-gays who have this idea they will become gay around gays!!

[JoshLowry]

Oh come on. Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a "homophobe". This term has been abused and turned into an insult for people who dont buy into the gay agenda

He was being sarcastic.

[coastie]

Interesting...because the USCG let a shitload of people out of their contracts early(Honorable Discharge) right before I got out in summer '10. I dont have numbers handy, but I know at least 6 left my unit of 30 people, mostly E-3's and below, and one E-5, and others of higher rank I know of throughout the USCG as well. You would think letting thousands out of a service of only 50,000 or so would have an impact on that...not like the CG's gonna do shit if the fit hit the shan anyway.:rolleyes: We were always told that our big boats were white to make a clearer target than the gray Navy boats during at sea war. That was always a comforting thought 700 miles offshore.:pHmmmm...wait, I wonder if that was part of the plan? Knowing that liberty minded folks would be the first to go??? Trimmin the fat out of the military, so to speak???:eek:

As someone else said, he's just blowing smoke. They keep the economy tanking, and people will keep joining.

[Anti Federalist]

Good, let them get all worked up, hope the whole damn system falls apart over this:

http://guanabee.com/epoca.6.5.08.jpg

[Vessol]

This is always the excuse...."We're in a war! We can't do this now!" And the funny thing is, we're not even in a war.

We've been in a "state of war" since the 1940's :\.

As for McCain..I wish what he said was real. I'd support repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" more than anything.

[sofia]

it is unfair for our troops to have to bunk with open sodomites....

Dont they have enough shit to put up with?

[Vessol]

it is unfair for our troops to have to bunk with open sodomites....

Dont they have enough shit to put up with?

I think it's more unfair for soldiers to have to bunk with open sociopaths. I imagine there are 10 times more sociopaths then there homosexuals within the military.

[coastie]

it is unfair for our troops to have to bunk with open sodomites....

Dont they have enough shit to put up with?


Having to bunk with and having to have sex with are two different things here, get your head out of the gutter.

What, do gays really just walk around in a lustfull, must have the first asshole I see around my junk asap dream state or something? none that I ever met.

[FrankRep]

He says that like it's a bad thing.
:confused:

Even Ron Paul supports a Strong National Defense.
We need the military, just not the exploitation of it.

[Rael]

if your scared to march next to a gay or serve next to one. I would easily call that homophobia!! I totally disagree people who want to judge peoples personal lifes or fear them because they might turn them gay are basically homophobia! which includes alot of folks!! I am not gay nor do i promote a gay agenda. There is no one promoting a gay agenda in the military! They are just asking to serve like anyone else and not be judged because they are gay! People who think gay is a choice should only worry about themselves becoming gay!!Seems to be a personal problem with non-gays who have this idea they will become gay around gays!!

I don't think very many people are scared to serve with them or think they will become gay. I think they just don't like gay people.

If you don't want to be judged, why not keep quiet about your sexual orientation? Gays are still allowed to serve. How can you expect not to be judged for your behavior? People make judgments about everything, even silly things like what kind of car you drive. Repealing don't ask don't tell is not going to make more people accept their behavior, which is what they really want.

[MelissaWV]

I don't think very many people are scared to serve with them or think they will become gay. I think they just don't like gay people.

If you don't want to be judged, why not keep quiet about your sexual orientation? Gays are still allowed to serve. How can you expect not to be judged for your behavior? People make judgments about everything, even silly things like what kind of car you drive. Repealing don't ask don't tell is not going to make more people accept their behavior, which is what they really want.

Okay. It is also, then, an offense worthy of dismissal to say that you have a wife, or girlfriend, or that you've had sex with women, or that you think a woman is sexy. It is also, then, an offense worthy of dismissal to have a photo that might be considered indicative of orientation, or a calendar, or to whistle or catcall when some "sexy" popstar shows up to support the troops.

:D

Anyhow, my point was that if "not liking gay people" is enough reason to quit the military, it's probable that the grudge is big enough to nudge into the realm of homophobia. I don't think the disgust over bunking with someone who has a picture of their boyfriend and talks about going home to Dave instead of Daisy is enough to make the average military person renounce all the goodies they would usually qualify for.

[heavenlyboy34]

I doubt that many would quit the military. When you quit, you don't get your benefits (depending on what's meant by "quit"), and it really does not look good on your resume to do so. You also wouldn't be able to finish out your scholarship, if that's what you went into the military for, if you were no longer military.

Quitting over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would have a huge impact on that soldier's income, family, career marketability, and general future. It's not like quitting a cubicle job because you don't like your coworkers.

Sure about that? My father has "honorable discharge" on his resume, and he was always able to find work.

[MelissaWV]

Sure about that? My father has "honorable discharge" on his resume, and he was always able to find work.

Which is why I said "depending on what's meant by 'quit'." If the implication is that people will be disgusted and just storm in one day and go "I QUIT!" without any verifiable excuse that renders their discharge honorable, it doesn't look good. When you put down that you were in the military, it's par for the course that you put down how you left the military. Dishonorable discharge does not look good. Court marshalls might await some if they quit in certain circumstances. You get the idea....

[coastie]

Which is why I said "depending on what's meant by 'quit'." If the implication is that people will be disgusted and just storm in one day and go "I QUIT!" without any verifiable excuse that renders their discharge honorable, it doesn't look good. When you put down that you were in the military, it's par for the course that you put down how you left the military. Dishonorable discharge does not look good. Court marshalls might await some if they quit in certain circumstances. You get the idea....

I highly doubt it would be a Dishonorable Discharge. General at best, Bad Conduct at worst. You have to really fuck up to get a Dishonorable.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Someone needs to get a decorated ACTIVE MILITARY member to meet McCain and give him a big kiss for the cameras.

Sandbag the old fossil... anyway, the military is laying off because the projected departures are not happening (getting top heavy). Even the military members know the US Depression sucks.

[libertybrewcity]

just a scare tactic.

[Uriel999]

hey that would actually work out great! The Marine Corps has been legislated to drop from 205k to 165k troops but everybody who is in doesn't necessarily want to leave. This could be a catalyst. It's retarded though, the military has lots of homosexuals in it already and it hasn't fallen apart.

[1000-points-of-fright]

What if all the gays in the military quit if they don't repeal DADT? Some say that 7-10% of the population is gay. Can the military afford to lose 10% right now?

In fact, they shouldn't quit... they should just all come out at the same time. Is the military really going to go through the hassle of discharging that many people in the middle of 2-4 "wars"?

[fisharmor]

I wish they'd be honest with this.
A repeal of DADT actually would be catastrophic for the military.
Their perfect tie-in with the "Christianity" which buys into the state hegemony heresy would end overnight.
How many chaplains do you think the military would have, if they were instructed from above to turn a blind eye to this?
The conservative ones (ie, the ones that still believe something) would disappear.
Then the whole state-god mythos would topple.
What will it really matter that 22 year old Joe Blow got a flag and some spent shells, when they will have destroyed the state-god?
How many parents would be willing to sacrifice their children to this particular Moloch, after they have pulled back the curtain and shown that he never had anything to do with Christ?

[JP2010]

True, but if you're going to screw over your family, your future, your career, and "your country" (since many in the military claim they are fighting "for their country") in order to get away from potentially having to serve in the same military as an openly homosexual person who is not doing anything to actually harm you... you have a high probability of being a tad homophobic.

You've obviously never been in the military.

All that matters is that you get your honorable discharge, whether you did 4 years or 16.

Also, guys in the military have to share an apartment with another man (or dorm, if you like). This will not mesh well with the straight guys that come home after working their shift to see his roommate making butt jam with his boyfriend. That alone would make any sane man leave the military.

Try sticking to topics where you have an ounce of knowledge.

[wildfirepower]

Congress hasn't declared war since Pearl Harbor. Is this true?

[Pericles]

Congress hasn't declared war since Pearl Harbor. Is this true?
True - the US has had 5 declared wars.

Great Britain 1812
Mexico 1846
Spain 1898
Germany 1917
Japan, Germany, Italy 1941

[Fox McCloud]

I have a more utilitarian view of repeal...I suppose.

if it would enhance the strength of the US military and be an overall net positive, I'd definitely oppose it.

If it, however, would be detrimental to the US military (such as what McCain has mentioned) then I'd likely support it, merely it'll cause less expenditures to be used overseas.

[wildfirepower]

True - the US has had 5 declared wars.

Great Britain 1812
Mexico 1846
Spain 1898
Germany 1917
Japan, Germany, Italy 1941
So USA is fighting wars since 200 years.

[Liberty_Mike]

McCain is a stooge. Plain and simple.
First off, I'd like to see the size of our military decrease, so if what McCain is saying is actually true, GOOD! However, I do not blieve that members of the military would "quit" if DADT is repealed.
McCain is a joke. I hope no one here voted for him in '08...

[MelissaWV]

You've obviously never been in the military.

All that matters is that you get your honorable discharge, whether you did 4 years or 16.

Also, guys in the military have to share an apartment with another man (or dorm, if you like). This will not mesh well with the straight guys that come home after working their shift to see his roommate making butt jam with his boyfriend. That alone would make any sane man leave the military.

Try sticking to topics where you have an ounce of knowledge.

Try sticking to responding when you have an ounce of reading comprehension.

What I have been saying in this thread, repeatedly, is the fact that someone would not go for a dishonorable discharge (ie - QUIT THE MILITARY without a reason that gets them an honorable discharge) over the fact that the military allows gays.

If there is a problem with your roommate being disrespectful and having sex in a place you can see them, guess what? This would be a problem if they were heterosexual, too. You might not be as offended, but depending on the circumstances it might a no-no as well. Since we're informing one another:


The military has many other rules on sexual conduct that apply to everyone -- gay or straight. Officers are not permitted to fraternize with enlistees. Sex is barred on bases except for married personnel in their living quarters. Even off-site sex is regulated. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, anal and oral intercourse are prohibited anywhere, anytime, by anybody. But each of these rules speaks to conduct, not sexual orientation -- and the last rule goes largely unenforced.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977680,00.html#ixzz17CeSfzRq

So your roommate "making butt jam" would still be unacceptable even if they repealed DADT tomorrow.

Somehow, people seem to equate someone being able to say they have a boyfriend with turning the military into one huge gay orgy. What's that say about the person who thinks that? :rolleyes: There are already rules in place to keep you from seeing your roommate making butt jam, whether the jar is male or female.

[Rael]

Anyhow, my point was that if "not liking gay people" is enough reason to quit the military, it's probable that the grudge is big enough to nudge into the realm of homophobia. I don't think the disgust over bunking with someone who has a picture of their boyfriend and talks about going home to Dave instead of Daisy is enough to make the average military person renounce all the goodies they would usually qualify for.

I really don't see many people leaving the military over this. They will threaten to and grumble and bitch about it but in the end they will stay. Although if this causes a mass exodus from the military I think it would be a good thing.

[Pauls' Revere]

let all of them quit or send their asses home. anything to end our mass genocides activities abroad.

^

This.

[MelissaWV]

I really don't see many people leaving the military over this. They will threaten to and grumble and bitch about it but in the end they will stay. Although if this causes a mass exodus from the military I think it would be a good thing.

^ The shorter, smarter version of my opinion :D

[libertarian4321]

it is unfair for our troops to have to bunk with open sodomites....

Dont they have enough shit to put up with?

McCain is an idiot, he's just throwing feces against the wall hoping something will stick.

Most soldiers do NOT live in situations where "gays" would have any real effect on them at all.

Contrary to what you see in movies, soldiers rarely live in those old open bay barracks.

All officers have their own house or, at worst, room. Most senior enlisted have the same arrangement.

For junior enlisted, unmarried personnel, they live in "barracks," but they are NOT the open bay barracks you see in movies. They are either single rooms or maybe doubles- similar to a college dorm room.

About the only people serving in open bays are guys in basic training, and I guarantee you those guys are TOO DAMNED TIRED to be worrying about the sexual preference of the guy in the next bunk (besides, those gay guys are ALREADY SERVING- we are only talking about whether they can be thrown out if the are "outed."

Sofia, I suspect you've never served a day in the military.

I've served almost 30 years, and my estimate is less than 0.1% of the military would leave because of the change.

Some soldiers wouldn't like the change, but it wouldn't be a big enough factor for them to get out. I suspect most soldiers (including myself) would see it as no big deal one way or the other.

Hell, gay guys shower with straight guys in every college dorm in the USA, and in every gym in the USA.

What makes you think that soldiers are such tender, fragile creatures that they'd fall apart if "forced" to shower with gays, when college boys, high school kids, and everyday Americans DO IT EVERY DAY with no consequence?

The whole "soldiers would quit if they had to shower/bunk with gays" is, well, BUNK!

[libertarian4321]

You've obviously never been in the military.

Well, try me, then. I'll have 30 years in the Army, active and reserve, as of next August.


Also, guys in the military have to share an apartment with another man (or dorm, if you like). This will not mesh well with the straight guys that come home after working their shift to see his roommate making butt jam with his boyfriend. That alone would make any sane man leave the military.

I've never heard of any installation/unit where OF ANY KIND is allowed among single junior enlisted soldiers in the barracks. Hence, the gay soldier could be disciplined/discharged the same as if his roomate caught him "making butt jam" with a female (FYI, it's not just gays that engage in sodomy- it's pretty common among straight folks, too).

Again, wimpy straight college boys manage to survive the "trauma" of living with gays in every dorm in the country.

Are you saying soldiers and marines are more fragile and sensitive than some college puke, and unable to handle the "stress" of living with gays?

If you think soldiers are weaker than college boys, I'd have to question whether you'd ever served.

The more I think about it, the more I realize letting gays serve openly would be no big deal.

[JP2010]

I've never heard of any installation/unit where OF ANY KIND is allowed among single junior enlisted soldiers in the barracks.

We were put up in rooms, 2 to a room and shared a single bathroom with the adjoining unit. I guess you really didn't learn everything about the military in those 30 years.

[JP2010]

What I have been saying in this thread, repeatedly, is the fact that someone would not go for a dishonorable discharge (ie - QUIT THE MILITARY without a reason that gets them an honorable discharge) over the fact that the military allows gays.

More empty can rattling from the know-nothing crowd.

You can't quit the military.

Stick to topics you have at least a modicum of knowledge.

[MelissaWV]

More empty can rattling.

You can't quit the military.

Ways to Quit the Military:


Unlike most jobs, quitting the military is not an easy or often viable option. However, all things must eventually come to an end. Here is how you and the military can potentially part company.

1
Meet the standards of conduct and performance and get an "Honorable Discharge." The commanding official will characterize your service as honorable and you will separate from service. In addition to completing your contractual obligations, you may receive this discharge due to a medical or psychological condition. Under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, a you may also receive an honorable discharge if you are homosexual. You are now considered a veteran and eligible for all benefits.

2
Get a "General Discharge (Under Honorable Conditions)." You did not meet the standards of conduct and performance. The overall character of service was good with just a few episodes of bad conduct that were not egregious enough to warrant further punitive action. You are eligible for some veterans' benefits.

3
Take an "Other Than Honorable Discharge." You did not meet the standards of conduct and performance. There was dishonorable and possibly criminal behavior. You do not receive veterans' benefits.

4
Be discharged due to an inability to adjust to the social, mental and physical demands of military life within the first 180 days of active duty. This is Entry Level Separation. This is a particular service characterization that is not honorable, general or dishonorable. You do not receive veterans' benefits.

5
Volunteer for "Voluntary Discharge." You may request separation for many reason including family hardship, pregnancy, sole surviving son/daughter, pursue an education, conscientious objection and release to inactive reserve status. Each of these requests has specific conditions and a process for determination. There is no guarantee that voluntary requests will be approved. You are not eligible for veterans' benefits.

6
Get a "Bad Conduct & Dishonorable Discharge." You did not meet standards of conduct and performance. Criminal behavior resulted in a special or general court-martial and further punitive actions. You would not only be ineligible for benefits but may also lose rights accorded to other citizens such as voting and bearing of firearms. You may also have to disclose these statuses on job and school applications as well as other important documents.

Read more: How to Get Out of the U.S. Military | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_2053497_get-out-us-military.html#ixzz17FU16A2m

Please note that, in order for these 264,600 to quit the military and be let go with an Honorable Discharge, there'd have to be an awful lot of scrambling around and conditions met. It seems unlikely to me.

You could also just be a deserter. Depending on the circumstances of someone "quitting," they may wind up with a Dishonorable Discharge. Leaving the military without prior notice, going through the proper process, and generally disregarding your obligations, over the fact that someone in your unit "came out," is not going to be excused in a combat zone, which is where some of these 264,600 are bound to be.

I suppose you're also going to ignore how your "butt jam" post was addressed, and continue to be rude and ignorant? That's a shame. I wonder why you are here?

[MelissaWV]

We were put up in rooms, 2 to a room and shared a single bathroom with the adjoining unit. I guess you really didn't learn everything about the military in those 30 years.

The man forgot the word "fraternization" in his post. Or are you saying you shared more than a bathroom? ;) Or are you saying that sharing a bathroom with a homosexual is akin to "making buttjam" with them? Really, you're just getting silly.

[JP2010]

The man forgot the word "fraternization" in his post. Or are you saying you shared more than a bathroom? ;) Or are you saying that sharing a bathroom with a homosexual is akin to "making buttjam" with them? Really, you're just getting silly.
Don't hate because you decided to take up the torch of open gays in the military when you have absolutely no knowledge about the military and how it operates.

Again, stick to topics you know something about...or I guess you could just keep throwing infantile insinuations around.

[JP2010]

Ways to Quit the Military:



Please note that, in order for these 264,600 to quit the military and be let go with an Honorable Discharge, there'd have to be an awful lot of scrambling around and conditions met. It seems unlikely to me.

You could also just be a deserter. Depending on the circumstances of someone "quitting," they may wind up with a Dishonorable Discharge. Leaving the military without prior notice, going through the proper process, and generally disregarding your obligations, over the fact that someone in your unit "came out," is not going to be excused in a combat zone, which is where some of these 264,600 are bound to be.

I suppose you're also going to ignore how your "butt jam" post was addressed, and continue to be rude and ignorant? That's a shame. I wonder why you are here?
Good god you think you know something because you can google. Pathetic, really.

[MelissaWV]

It's amazing the assumptions people will make because one takes the time to post documentation, and cite the Code of Conduct that utterly shreds their theory, rather than just post "nu-uh you don't know what you're talking about!" over and over again.

The summary version, then:

The behavior is still going to be against the rules. It is against the rules for "straights," too, but not enforced as often as it could be.

It has been against the rules for a long time. The hypothetical situation involving roommates has nothing to do with DADT.

You can be discharged from the military at any time, honorably, dishonorably, or anything in between. McCain is implying people will just leave whatever post they're at and go home over this. That implies that people would be so disgusted over gays in the military that they would abandon some or all benefits, face Court Marshall, or other consequences rather than potentially serve with someone who's openly gay (which might well be someone who was already in the unit, and serving with them for years).

I know, I know; there'll be a post shortly going "you don't know anything about the military," making more assumptions. Maybe I just want a good laugh or two this morning.


I suppose you're also going to ignore how your "butt jam" post was addressed, and continue to be rude and ignorant? That's a shame. I wonder why you are here?

Question left unanswered for various posts... yep... smells like troll.

[JP2010]

It's amazing the assumptions people will make because one takes the time to post documentation, and cite the Code of Conduct that utterly shreds their theory, rather than just post "nu-uh you don't know what you're talking about!" over and over again.
You're synaptic nerves must be clogged with coal dust.


The summary version, then:

The behavior is still going to be against the rules. It is against the rules for "straights," too, but not enforced as often as it could be.
There is a difference between coming home and seeing your roommate with a woman and coming home to see your roommate with a man. For one, you don't know what is going on under the sheets (vaginal or anal) when it is a heterosexual couple having sex. When it is two men, you know exactly what is going on.



It has been against the rules for a long time. The hypothetical situation involving roommates has nothing to do with DADT.
The rules you cite about as enforced as jaywalking laws. They're on the books but they don't get enforced. Your argument that it is against the law is laughable



You can be discharged from the military at any time, honorably, dishonorably, or anything in between.
Exactly. But you cannot quit, as you seem to think people can. Your examples of how to "quit" the military can very well land you in prison until the end of your tour. You can't just walk in and quit. Imbecile.


McCain is implying people will just leave whatever post they're at and go home over this. That implies that people would be so disgusted over gays in the military that they would abandon some or all benefits, face Court Marshall, or other consequences rather than potentially serve with someone who's openly gay (which might well be someone who was already in the unit, and serving with them for years).
I can definitely see where McCain is coming from. Just picture it: 18 year old men, coming home after work, and being witness to two men going at it in the apartment they are forced to share with another man. And I'm not talking an apartment like civies think. These are a single room that serves as both men's bedroom, living room, and storage lockers.



I know, I know; there'll be a post shortly going "you don't know anything about the military," making more assumptions. Maybe I just want a good laugh or two this morning.
You really don't know what you're talking about, but you keep stubbornly implying that you know how it is. Maybe I shouldn't be upset with you. Maybe I should simply give pity.




Question left unanswered for various posts... yep... smells like troll.
Unlike some people, I have a family to spend time with, so I didn't get back to you as soon as you wanted. My apologies for not being like you [ http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=5764561 ] My God you spend alot of time here. You must be alone.

[fisharmor]

Is the military responsible for your manners?

[guitarlifter]

Hmm . . . let's look at the facts here:

- "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is repealed, which is an unconstitutional law
- 264,000 troops go home, effectively:
- Downsizing the government - constitutional
- gets rid of part of the taxes and costs of an unconstitutional war

Sounds good to me. And we even get rid of all of the hateful people in service. There is actually quite a bit of abuse going on between men and women in service because of things like others being bisexual, gay or lesbian. McCain is an idiot. Who is the only player left on the chess board? It's the US, so there's no use staying in Iraq, nor was there any use in going there in the first place.

[MelissaWV]

You're synaptic nerves must be clogged with coal dust.

An interesting "insult" which must refer to the fact I lived in West Virginia for a short period of time over two years ago.


There is a difference between coming home and seeing your roommate with a woman and coming home to see your roommate with a man. For one, you don't know what is going on under the sheets (vaginal or anal) when it is a heterosexual couple having sex. When it is two men, you know exactly what is going on.

I am not responsible for your lack of imagination.


The rules you cite about as enforced as jaywalking laws. They're on the books but they don't get enforced. Your argument that it is against the law is laughable

If what you are saying is true, though, the laws are easily enforced against people who are engaging in homosexual behavior, as it is disruptive and is much more likely to be reported. It's already on the books. What you are arguing is that, in addition to not being able to have sex in that puny apartment, the person should also forego having pictures of their significant other, talking about boyfriends back home, and so on. I wonder if you would be so keen on hiding pictures of a girlfriend or wife, or being required to remove your wedding ring?


Exactly. But you cannot quit, as you seem to think people can. Your examples of how to "quit" the military can very well land you in prison until the end of your tour. You can't just walk in and quit. Imbecile.

Yep, it can land you in prison, which is precisely why I said that I find the idea of so many people quitting the military to be ridiculous. Who the hell is so insecure that they would rather go to jail, risk a dishonorable discharge, etc., over someone in their unit being gay? You haven't answered that, and in fact seem to suggest that people would be justified in quitting (even though, of course, they can't quit)...


I can definitely see where McCain is coming from. Just picture it: 18 year old men, coming home after work, and being witness to two men going at it in the apartment they are forced to share with another man. And I'm not talking an apartment like civies think. These are a single room that serves as both men's bedroom, living room, and storage lockers.

Yes, it's akin to the studio apartment from hell. Your implication seems to be that someone walking in and seeing a guy and a girl going at it wouldn't be bothered at all. Most of those situations are likely handled privately, but if the sodomy bothers you, it seems only logical it'd bother you regardless of gender. Oh and who has sex UNDER the sheets? Is it ridiculously cold in the room or something?


You really don't know what you're talking about, but you keep stubbornly implying that you know how it is. Maybe I shouldn't be upset with you. Maybe I should simply give pity.

You're upset over a forum post? Yeesh. If you really can't engage in intelligent discourse with someone without getting upset, it is I who pity you.


Unlike some people, I have a family to spend time with, so I didn't get back to you as soon as you wanted. My apologies for not being like you [ http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=5764561 ] My God you spend alot of time here. You must be alone.

Hollow and silly, which is what people will see it for. You've responded various times, but have (and as of this post still have) ignored the question I posed to you. It would have taken less time than it took you to talk about your family, find that link, paste it, and come up with what you no doubt felt was a clever retort :)

[PreDeadMan]

that's it only 264,600? I'll take Bill Hicks' position about "gays in the military" lol

YouTube - Bill Hicks- Gays in the Military (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np6_b-72H3E)

[JP2010]

Yep, it can land you in prison, which is precisely why I said that I find the idea of so many people quitting the military to be ridiculous. Who the hell is so insecure that they would rather go to jail, risk a dishonorable discharge, etc., over someone in their unit being gay? You haven't answered that, and in fact seem to suggest that people would be justified in quitting (even though, of course, they can't quit)...
Always the apologist that claims not wanting to come home to find two men going at it as insecurity, rather than disgust. Another feminazi that "knows whats best" for the lot of us. How original.




Yes, it's akin to the studio apartment from hell. Your implication seems to be that someone walking in and seeing a guy and a girl going at it wouldn't be bothered at all.

Actually it wouldn't. It would be comedic. Maybe YOU would be bothered, but not a young man.



Most of those situations are likely handled privately, but if the sodomy bothers yoIts not the sodomy that would bother them, it would be the fact that it was happening between two men in the same room where they sleep.u, it seems only logical it'd bother you regardless of gender.

It's not the act, but the act between two men that would bother a great many men in the military; which is exactly why dadt is in place



Oh and who has sex UNDER the sheets? Is it ridiculously cold in the room or something?
I care not where your solo escapades happen.






You're upset over a forum post? Yeesh. If you really can't engage in intelligent discourse with someone without getting upset, it is I who pity you.
No, just dealing with someone that knows nothing about the situation at hand and think they're an expert because they can google. You don't know jack shit about the military and have proven as much in the past 24 hours.




Hollow and silly, which is what people will see it for. You've responded various times, but have (and as of this post still have) ignored the question I posed to you. It would have taken less time than it took you to talk about your family, find that link, paste it, and come up with what you no doubt felt was a clever retort :)
Which elusive question that I am failing to answer is bother you so?

[JP2010]

double post

[MelissaWV]

Temper, temper. It seems that the more rabid a poster becomes, the less tidy his posts.

I have addressed the fact that the action is already against the rules, and could be prosecuted as such. Therefore what you are left with is someone's very state of being, without an overt act, being the grounds for your disgust and cries for dismissal. You have skirted the issue, and talked about how stupid I am for thinking that someone openly engaging in sex which bothers the roommate would report it happening, knowing it is against the rules.

I lamented earlier that you had left me without a laugh for the evening, yet here you are. I thank you for that inadvertant brightening of my evening. I'm sure you're quite charming... in person.


Quitting over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would have a huge impact on that soldier's income, family, career marketability, and general future. It's not like quitting a cubicle job because you don't like your coworkers.

Regardless of which way one twists my words, that was the first post of mine in this thread, and it's still the thesis of my discussion.

You may be "disgusted" all you'd like, and report it, but yet DADT isn't about overt acts. It's about simply "being" gay. I keep bringing up wedding rings, photographs, and the like... but you have no retort for such. Is it that you'd be so disgusted by someone you've served with for years turning out to be gay, that you'd force them to withhold photographic evidence of their happiness at home, rather than have to see two men holding hands in a photograph where your imagination fills in the sexual blanks?

I think that it is, simply based on your posts in this thread. You're rude, you're wrong, and you've yet to demonstrate precisely why I'm so ignorant (other than your statement of such in just about every post you address to me).

Once more, though, thanks for the laughs :) I hope you get a hug tonight, really.

[Vessol]

It's good to see the social conservatives who wish to enforce their beliefs by gunpoint are coming out and about :).

[mczerone]

WASHINGTON – As the commanders of the Army, Air Force and Marines cautioned the U.S. Senate against abruptly repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, critics are also warning that accepting open homosexuality and pro-homosexual "reprogramming" could drive massive numbers of troops out of the service.

Said McCain, "If 12.6 percent of the military left earlier, that translates into 264,600 men and women who would leave the military earlier than they had planned … Do you think that's a good idea to replace 265,000 troops … in a time of war?"

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=235797

Great! Let he homophobes walk off the job. They probably aren't as valuable of assets as the tolerant soldiers anyway.

And who says that they should be replaced? If McCain can't find willing bodies to go fight his wars, why doesn't he take his immobile arms out there and get himself captured again.

[Vessol]

It's funny. I live in a marine town. I've asked a few marines what they think about "dont ask dont tell". The majority of them seriously don't give a fuck. Some of them don't like homosexuals, but even then they just shrugged it off. Most of them are worried about losing health care or reup bonuses.

The only people who really care about this are three people:

1) Higher officers, the political whores of the military who are trying to lick the balls of old white conservative politicians to keep funding up.
2) Old white social conservative politicians who are trying to appease the social conservative voters.
3) Armchair social conservatives who've never met a homosexual in their life and believe that all homosexuals have raging hormones and rape any hole they see.

[mczerone]

I agree, all of them should quit if USA does not withdraw from Afghanistan immediately.

If Russia, Great Britain, the Chinese, the Ottoman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, The Huns, The Romans, or The Greeks could not win in Afghanistan so will USA not win in Afghanistan.

Fixed that for you

[mczerone]

It's funny. I live in a marine town. I've asked a few marines what they think about "dont ask dont tell". The majority of them seriously don't give a fuck. Some of them don't like homosexuals, but even then they just shrugged it off. Most of them are worried about losing health care or reup bonuses.

The only people who really care about this are three people:

1) Higher officers, the political whores of the military who are trying to lick the balls of old white conservative politicians to keep funding up.
2) Old white social conservative politicians who are trying to appease the social conservative voters.
3) Armchair social conservatives who've never met a homosexual in their life and believe that all homosexuals have raging hormones and rape any hole they see.

Don't forget:

4) Social conservatives that have been told their whole life that being gay is a moral abomination, so they stifle their own homosexuality to the point of developing a mental disorder, and desire more than anything to rape any hole they see.

[speciallyblend]

McCain is an idiot, he's just throwing feces against the wall hoping something will stick.

Most soldiers do NOT live in situations where "gays" would have any real effect on them at all.

Contrary to what you see in movies, soldiers rarely live in those old open bay barracks.

All officers have their own house or, at worst, room. Most senior enlisted have the same arrangement.

For junior enlisted, unmarried personnel, they live in "barracks," but they are NOT the open bay barracks you see in movies. They are either single rooms or maybe doubles- similar to a college dorm room.

About the only people serving in open bays are guys in basic training, and I guarantee you those guys are TOO DAMNED TIRED to be worrying about the sexual preference of the guy in the next bunk (besides, those gay guys are ALREADY SERVING- we are only talking about whether they can be thrown out if the are "outed."

Sofia, I suspect you've never served a day in the military.

I've served almost 30 years, and my estimate is less than 0.1% of the military would leave because of the change.

Some soldiers wouldn't like the change, but it wouldn't be a big enough factor for them to get out. I suspect most soldiers (including myself) would see it as no big deal one way or the other.

Hell, gay guys shower with straight guys in every college dorm in the USA, and in every gym in the USA.

What makes you think that soldiers are such tender, fragile creatures that they'd fall apart if "forced" to shower with gays, when college boys, high school kids, and everyday Americans DO IT EVERY DAY with no consequence?

The whole "soldiers would quit if they had to shower/bunk with gays" is, well, BUNK!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this post reminded me of AF bootcamp Lackland TX, people could of been going at it the next bunk over and i would of been sound asleep! One thing i learned in boot camp! I will never fold a sock,underwear or ever make a bed again in my lifetime:)

[JP2010]

Temper, temper. It seems that the more rabid a poster becomes, the less tidy his posts.

I have addressed the fact that the action is already against the rules, and could be prosecuted as such.
And I have pointed out that that never happens. It is akin to the laws that some states have over the very same thing. It is on the books but never enforced.


Therefore what you are left with is someone's very state of being, without an overt act, being the grounds for your disgust and cries for dismissal. You have skirted the issue, and talked about how stupid I am for thinking that someone openly engaging in sex which bothers the roommate would report it happening, knowing it is against the rules.
And here is where your lack of being in the military comes into play. When you are assigned a place to live, you do not choose who you get to live with. You do not get to move from said room. You have to live there, like it or not.

There was one time I had a roommate that never showered. Day in and day out, he would never shower. He would never brush his teeth. The entire room that the two of us slept in smelled of his funk. It took me a good six months to finally get him kicked out of the room.

Now replace a guy that never showers with a man that has his boyfriend over all the time. It will not work. Sure, you may be able to run around and ask a few people how it would affect them and they say it won't. Yes, because they won't be in the very situation that would cause them any discomfort.



I lamented earlier that you had left me without a laugh for the evening, yet here you are. I thank you for that inadvertant brightening of my evening. I'm sure you're quite charming... in person.
At least someone did. After I leave this post, I have a family to go to. You enjoy your ice cream and forum life.



You may be "disgusted" all you'd like, and report it, but yet DADT isn't about overt acts. It's about simply "being" gay. I keep bringing up wedding rings, photographs, and the like... but you have no retort for such. Is it that you'd be so disgusted by someone you've served with for years turning out to be gay, that you'd force them to withhold photographic evidence of their happiness at home, rather than have to see two men holding hands in a photograph where your imagination fills in the sexual blanks?
Again, you seem to think repealing dadt will make everything sunshine and rainbows, but fail to grasp the simple concept of men having to live with other men that may be gay. I have no problem with gay men, but, when I was 20 years old and in the military, I sure wouldn't want to share a room with one.



I think that it is, simply based on your posts in this thread. You're rude, you're wrong, and you've yet to demonstrate precisely why I'm so ignorant (other than your statement of such in just about every post you address to me).

Once more, though, thanks for the laughs :) I hope you get a hug tonight, really.
Pretty sad that your only outlet in life is a forum. From the time I see that you spend on this site alone, you must be a very lonely person. Oh, and I'll get a hug tonight, from my wife and children. Maybe you can get one from your pillow.

[speciallyblend]

And I have pointed out that that never happens. It is akin to the laws that some states have over the very same thing. It is on the books but never enforced.


And here is where your lack of being in the military comes into play. When you are assigned a place to live, you do not choose who you get to live with. You do not get to move from said room. You have to live there, like it or not.

There was one time I had a roommate that never showered. Day in and day out, he would never shower. He would never brush his teeth. The entire room that the two of us slept in smelled of his funk. It took me a good six months to finally get him kicked out of the room.

Now replace a guy that never showers with a man that has his boyfriend over all the time. It will not work. Sure, you may be able to run around and ask a few people how it would affect them and they say it won't. Yes, because they won't be in the very situation that would cause them any discomfort.


At least someone did. After I leave this post, I have a family to go to. You enjoy your ice cream and forum life.


Again, you seem to think repealing dadt will make everything sunshine and rainbows, but fail to grasp the simple concept of men having to live with other men that may be gay. I have no problem with gay men, but, when I was 20 years old and in the military, I sure wouldn't want to share a room with one.


Pretty sad that your only outlet in life is a forum. From the time I see that you spend on this site alone, you must be a very lonely person.

you might become gay being near a gay;) be careful or in reality if you become gay odds are you were gay!! being gay has nothing to do with serving in the military. sound like a bunch of homophobes! being gay or not should have 0 bearing in the military!! we should just send the homophobes to the front line of combat!

[mczerone]

And I have pointed out that that never happens. It is akin to the laws that some states have over the very same thing. It is on the books but never enforced.


And here is where your lack of being in the military comes into play. When you are assigned a place to live, you do not choose who you get to live with. You do not get to move from said room. You have to live there, like it or not.

There was one time I had a roommate that never showered. Day in and day out, he would never shower. He would never brush his teeth. The entire room that the two of us slept in smelled of his funk. It took me a good six months to finally get him kicked out of the room.

Now replace a guy that never showers with a man that has his boyfriend over all the time. It will not work. Sure, you may be able to run around and ask a few people how it would affect them and they say it won't. Yes, because they won't be in the very situation that would cause them any discomfort.


At least someone did. After I leave this post, I have a family to go to. You enjoy your ice cream and forum life.


Again, you seem to think repealing dadt will make everything sunshine and rainbows, but fail to grasp the simple concept of men having to live with other men that may be gay. I have no problem with gay men, but, when I was 20 years old and in the military, I sure wouldn't want to share a room with one.


Pretty sad that your only outlet in life is a forum. From the time I see that you spend on this site alone, you must be a very lonely person. Oh, and I'll get a hug tonight, from my wife and children. Maybe you can get one from your pillow.

You missed her points, you avoided her questions, and you called her a rather vulgar name.

Welcome to ignore, and your post has been reported.

ETA: Oh - you changed your "c u next Tuesday" to a more palatable diatribe about how you're sure your life is so much better than hers.

[JP2010]

being gay has nothing to do with serving in the military. sound like a bunch of homophobes! being gay or not should have 0 bearing in the military!! we should just send the homophobes to the front line of combat!
You're right. Being gay has nothing to do with being in the military. But repealing DADT will open a whole can of worms when it comes to living quarters. To deny that is being intellectually dishonest and that is what bothers me when people talk about repealing DADT either know nothing about how life is in the military and they no longer care because it would not affect them.

[mczerone]

You're right. Being gay has nothing to do with being in the military. But repealing DADT will open a whole can of worms when it comes to living quarters. To deny that is being intellectually dishonest and that is what bothers me when people talk about repealing DADT either know nothing about how life is in the military and they no longer care because it would not affect them.

Wasn't your "stinky" roommate far worse than one who had a boyfriend back home? Didn't you admit that?

Therefore, the military should bar anyone who doesn't believe in Deodorant or Showers.

At least there is some outward effect that can be measured in that case. You just want to keep people from admitting they like people who have the same reproductive organs, regardless of actions taken.

[MelissaWV]

And I have pointed out that that never happens. It is akin to the laws that some states have over the very same thing. It is on the books but never enforced.

And here is where your lack of being in the military comes into play. When you are assigned a place to live, you do not choose who you get to live with. You do not get to move from said room. You have to live there, like it or not.

There was one time I had a roommate that never showered. Day in and day out, he would never shower. He would never brush his teeth. The entire room that the two of us slept in smelled of his funk. It took me a good six months to finally get him kicked out of the room.

Now replace a guy that never showers with a man that has his boyfriend over all the time. It will not work. Sure, you may be able to run around and ask a few people how it would affect them and they say it won't. Yes, because they won't be in the very situation that would cause them any discomfort.


At least someone did. After I leave this post, I have a family to go to. You enjoy your ice cream and forum life.


Again, you seem to think repealing dadt will make everything sunshine and rainbows, but fail to grasp the simple concept of men having to live with other men that may be gay. I have no problem with gay men, but, when I was 20 years old and in the military, I sure wouldn't want to share a room with one.


Pretty sad that your only outlet in life is a forum. From the time I see that you spend on this site alone, you must be a very lonely person. Oh, and I'll get a hug tonight, from my wife and children. Maybe you can get one from your pillow.

The bolded parts contradict one another. If you can't move, or get someone kicked out, then how did you get someone kicked out? Moreover, you got them kicked out for something that wasn't even remotely against the rules. It stands to reason that someone having sex in your small shared space and making you uncomfortable by doing so, while simultaneously breaking the rules, would be moved out even faster... and possibly even kicked out of the military depending on the circumstances. Either the military is completely populated by idiots (who don't mind the sodomy, since they are unwilling or unable to use the laws on the books already to kick them out), or you are trolling. Either option seems possible at the moment, but only one seems probable :)

It's interesting that you, almost 24 hours ago, were bemoaning my singleness and my participation on this website. What were you doing on, arguing with someone on the internet, with that lovely wife and those amazing children waiting for you at almost 10pm? The snarky touch where you said I liked ice cream like it was a bad thing was clever. Everyone knows that people who like ice cream are just... terrible.

There's some food for thought, even in your own experiences, but it's doubtful it will get through to you. When you were 20 and in the military, and roomed with other men, those men were not necessarily straight. You can try to convince yourself all day long that they were 100% heterosexual, but you don't know. If DADT were repealed, the "gay soldiers" would not be flocking to recruitment. They are already serving. They have already served. Some of them even shared rooms with straight people and resisted the urge to have all-night gay orgies in a small, confined, shared space (consideration? by homosexuals? unheard of!).

No, repealing DADT won't make everything sunshine. I have no idea where you got that from. Refuting the arguments made in this thread because they are illogical doesn't mean that repealing DADT overnight is a great idea by any stretch of the imagination. The fact you've already decided I think such speaks almost as loudly to your bias as your repeated insults directed towards me.

[jmdrake]

I wish they'd be honest with this.
A repeal of DADT actually would be catastrophic for the military.
Their perfect tie-in with the "Christianity" which buys into the state hegemony heresy would end overnight.
How many chaplains do you think the military would have, if they were instructed from above to turn a blind eye to this?
The conservative ones (ie, the ones that still believe something) would disappear.
Then the whole state-god mythos would topple.
What will it really matter that 22 year old Joe Blow got a flag and some spent shells, when they will have destroyed the state-god?
How many parents would be willing to sacrifice their children to this particular Moloch, after they have pulled back the curtain and shown that he never had anything to do with Christ?

Good post. With DADT repealed you'd see the Westboro Baptist crowd go mainstream.

[jmdrake]

As for the OP, there would be MAJOR pressure on congress to let soldiers leave with an honorable discharge who had a problem with gays in the military just like the current DADT policy lets gays get honorable discharges. And then there's loss by attrition.

[oyarde]

I doubt that many would quit the military. When you quit, you don't get your benefits (depending on what's meant by "quit"), and it really does not look good on your resume to do so. You also wouldn't be able to finish out your scholarship, if that's what you went into the military for, if you were no longer military.

Quitting over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would have a huge impact on that soldier's income, family, career marketability, and general future. It's not like quitting a cubicle job because you don't like your coworkers.

Not quitting , I think , but not re enlisting . Most of those that would not re enlist would be young guys , combat arms with four years or less served , probably with a couple of tours in Afghanistan . They do not make much money and can replace the income they have with a private sector entry level job . These people are not easily replaced .

[oyarde]

Sure about that? My father has "honorable discharge" on his resume, and he was always able to find work.

I have four , I never re enlisted , I got out , went back three months later on a one year extension. I extended like that several times and they usually sent me a discharge when it was up . I do not think having any of that on a resume hurt me . All jobs I have had have been leadership / management .

[MelissaWV]

Not quitting , I think , but not re enlisting . Most of those that would not re enlist would be young guys , combat arms with four years or less served , probably with a couple of tours in Afghanistan . They do not make much money and can replace the income they have with a private sector entry level job . These people are not easily replaced .

Yep, and that part of the article is likely correct. The entire thing got way off topic, and I helped it get there, but whatcha gonna do....

Anyhow, they do come up with myriad reasons as to why openly homosexual soldiers will ruin the military. The real kicker, to me, is the "reprogramming" programs that will be put into place. That isn't free. That's a waste of time and money when our country can't afford to waste either one. Some of the reasons are just smoke and hysteria, though, and those tend to be the loudest ones.


Ever since George Washington the military has been programmed to believe homosexuals are disruptive to morale and unit cohesiveness, and are a readiness problem....does not really make a great argument, to me, as to why DADT should remain in place. "Oh that's how it's always been" could have been used to keep the military split by perceived race, or bar women from serving (I think they should serve but have to pass the same physical and mental tests their male counterparts do, with no bending the bar).

Anecdotally, I don't see this being such a huge deal. I wonder how many of those people answering that they'd quit or leave early already wanted to, but needed an excuse?

[oyarde]

Yep, and that part of the article is likely correct. The entire thing got way off topic, and I helped it get there, but whatcha gonna do....

Anyhow, they do come up with myriad reasons as to why openly homosexual soldiers will ruin the military. The real kicker, to me, is the "reprogramming" programs that will be put into place. That isn't free. That's a waste of time and money when our country can't afford to waste either one. Some of the reasons are just smoke and hysteria, though, and those tend to be the loudest ones.

...does not really make a great argument, to me, as to why DADT should remain in place. "Oh that's how it's always been" could have been used to keep the military split by perceived race, or bar women from serving (I think they should serve but have to pass the same physical and mental tests their male counterparts do, with no bending the bar).

Anecdotally, I don't see this being such a huge deal. I wonder how many of those people answering that they'd quit or leave early already wanted to, but needed an excuse?
I believe that part of the article to be correct as well .What I would do is open up the non combat arms jobs and see how it goes . It may not make everyone happy , but it would work . If states had the Guard like they should , individual states could open the Guard if the Commanders thought it prudent .

[JP2010]

The bolded parts contradict one another. If you can't move, or get someone kicked out, then how did you get someone kicked out?
it took 6 months of pleading to my shirt and to his to get him finally removed from my room and into his own. You see, there are only so many places for people to live and thats why we got roommates. You would know that if you had some actual experience on the subject, but you dont.



Moreover, you got them kicked out for something that wasn't even remotely against the rules.
And wrong again. That seems to be your M.O. Not keeping up with hygiene is against the rules. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Google does not make up for real world experience.


Big shock, I know!

[libertarian4321]

We were put up in rooms, 2 to a room and shared a single bathroom with the adjoining unit. I guess you really didn't learn everything about the military in those 30 years.

I left out the word SEX- sex is not allowed in the barracks.

Other than that, you've just described a dorm room (actually, its better than a dorm room, since most of those usually have communal bathrooms/showers shared by dozens of guys, both gay and straight.

So what is it about soldiers and marines that makes them, in your opinion, so soft and weak that they would collapse under the strain of sharing a bathroom with a gay guy, when college pukes manage to do it every day?

[libertarian4321]

More empty can rattling from the know-nothing crowd.

You can't quit the military.

Stick to topics you have at least a modicum of knowledge.

Yes, you can quit the military in many cases.

For example, officers can resign at any time after their obligation is over (e.g. time owed due to an ROTC or service academy commitment).

You probably didn't know that, because my guess is that if you were junior enlisted (you don't sound like officer material).

There are also lots of ways enlisted soldiers can get out before their enlistment time expires, but it is harder- Melissa listed some of them.

Of course, any guy who is so insecure in his manhood that he feels he'll just die if he has to serve next to gays could just declare that he's gay before the new policy goes into effect...

[libertarian4321]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this post reminded me of AF bootcamp Lackland TX, people could of been going at it the next bunk over and i would of been sound asleep! One thing i learned in boot camp! I will never fold a sock,underwear or ever make a bed again in my lifetime:)

I never used to even lay under the covers once I had my bed right, I'd just lay on top of it and tighten it up every day. Too much of a pain in the ass to fix the damned thing every day if I slept under the covers. I was usually so damned tired I was asleep in less than a minute anyway.

And I too, never make my be now- what a complete waste of time.

[libertarian4321]

And I have pointed out that that never happens. It is akin to the laws that some states have over the very same thing. It is on the books but never enforced.


It's never enforced because it's hard to catch people unless a guy is a dick head and turns in his room mate.

You seem like you'd be just the kind of guy who would rat out a fellow soldier, hence you could get rid of someone who offended your delicate sensibilities.


Again, you seem to think repealing dadt will make everything sunshine and rainbows, but fail to grasp the simple concept of men having to live with other men that may be gay. I have no problem with gay men, but, when I was 20 years old and in the military, I sure wouldn't want to share a room with one.

I'll ask again. Why were you so much softer and delicate than a college kid?

College kids live in dorms with no more privacy (and often less) than you had as a soldier (or airman or whatever)- yet they manage to survive.

Why are you so tender, soft, and delicate?

I'm pretty sure most soldiers are made of stronger stuff than college kids, even if you are not, and could manage to live with the "trauma" of serving with gays.

[libertarian4321]

You're right. Being gay has nothing to do with being in the military. But repealing DADT will open a whole can of worms when it comes to living quarters. To deny that is being intellectually dishonest and that is what bothers me when people talk about repealing DADT either know nothing about how life is in the military and they no longer care because it would not affect them.

I deny it, and I'll put my intellectual credentials against yours anytime (I'm taking a big risk here... or maybe not, lol).

College kids live with it. Soldiers in most modern western armies live with it.

If they can do it, I'm sure American soldiers will manage.

[libertarian4321]

As for the OP, there would be MAJOR pressure on congress to let soldiers leave with an honorable discharge who had a problem with gays in the military just like the current DADT policy lets gays get honorable discharges. And then there's loss by attrition.

Yup, they could easily allow a one-time waiver of service obligation.

I suspect very few soldiers would take advantage of it- a few of the really weak ones and extreme homophobes would, but they are a tiny minority- and then only the junior enlisted would leave, the professionals (NCOs, Warrants, and commissioned officers) won't leave.

[libertarian4321]

it took 6 months of pleading to my shirt and to his to get him finally removed from my room and into his own. You see, there are only so many places for people to live and thats why we got roommates. You would know that if you had some actual experience on the subject, but you dont.




This post confirms my suspicions that this guy was junior enlisted- the youngest, least educated, and least secure soldiers, and therefore the most likely homophobes.

Single junior enlisted soldiers get put in dorm room style barracks- usually E-5 and below.

Commissioned Officers get their own housing.

Married soldiers get their own housing.

Even single senior enlisted (E6 and above) get their own room (if a soldier has his stuff together, he'll probably make E6 before he is 25).

[Pericles]

Yep, and that part of the article is likely correct. The entire thing got way off topic, and I helped it get there, but whatcha gonna do....

Anyhow, they do come up with myriad reasons as to why openly homosexual soldiers will ruin the military. The real kicker, to me, is the "reprogramming" programs that will be put into place. That isn't free. That's a waste of time and money when our country can't afford to waste either one. Some of the reasons are just smoke and hysteria, though, and those tend to be the loudest ones.

...does not really make a great argument, to me, as to why DADT should remain in place. "Oh that's how it's always been" could have been used to keep the military split by perceived race, or bar women from serving (I think they should serve but have to pass the same physical and mental tests their male counterparts do, with no bending the bar).

Anecdotally, I don't see this being such a huge deal. I wonder how many of those people answering that they'd quit or leave early already wanted to, but needed an excuse?

Juat a couple of FWIW comments. This difference between this and women in combat units (for that matter) and race is the following. In the days of segregation the Army had all black infantry, armor, and artillery units and other infantry, armor, and artillery units - integration meant assigning the soldier to any unit with his skill. The army does not have all women or sexual orientation infantry, armor, and special forces units to integrate in the same manner.

The survey showed that opposition to having openly homosexual soldiers is highest in the combat arms units, which make up less than 10% of the soldiers in the Army. IS some of that opposition irrational? Yep. But, this is where you get someone else's blood on you when that someone else is shot or blown up. The guys taking a high degree of risk with their lives, are generally spooked about anything that looks like it might add to the risk.

[oyarde]

I never used to even lay under the covers once I had my bed right, I'd just lay on top of it and tighten it up every day. Too much of a pain in the ass to fix the damned thing every day if I slept under the covers. I was usually so damned tired I was asleep in less than a minute anyway.

And I too, never make my be now- what a complete waste of time.

Ha , I slept on top of my made bunk too in basic .

[Feeding the Abscess]

Good, let them quit.

If they're too insecure and womanly to be able to perform their duties because a big, bad, scary homosexual might possibly be nearby, they don't need to be paid by taxpayer dollars.

[Pericles]

Good, let them quit.

If they're too insecure and womanly to be able to perform their duties because a big, bad, scary homosexual might possibly be nearby, they don't need to be paid by taxpayer dollars.

Maybe they are too creeped out by spending too much time in Afghanistan:


Western forces fighting in southern Afghanistan (http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/Afghanistan) had a problem. Too often, soldiers on patrol passed an older man walking hand-in-hand with a pretty young boy. Their behavior suggested he was not the boy's father. Then, British soldiers found that young Afghan men were actually trying to "touch and fondle them," military investigator AnnaMaria Cardinalli told me. "The soldiers didn't understand."



All of this was so disconcerting that the Defense Department (http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/United_States_Department_of_Defense) hired Cardinalli, a social scientist, to examine this mystery. Her report, "Pashtun (http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/Pashtun_people) Sexuality," startled not even one Afghan. But Western forces were shocked - and repulsed.



For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar (http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/Kandahar) and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means "boy player." The men like to boast about it.


"Having a boy has become a custom for us," Enayatullah, a 42-year-old in Baghlan province, told a Reuters reporter. "Whoever wants to show off should have a boy."


Baghlan province is in the northeast, but Afghans say pedophilia is most prevalent among Pashtun men in the south. The Pashtun are Afghanistan's most important tribe. For centuries, the nation's leaders have been Pashtun.


President Hamid Karzai (http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/Hamid_Karzai) is Pashtun, from a village near Kandahar, and he has six brothers. So the natural question arises: Has anyone in the Karzai family been bacha baz? Two Afghans with close connections to the Karzai family told me they know that at least one family member and perhaps two were bacha baz. Afraid of retribution, both declined to be identified and would not be more specific for publication.


As for Karzai, an American who worked in and around his palace in an official capacity for many months told me that homosexual behavior "was rampant" among "soldiers and guys on the security detail. They talked about boys all the time."

[libertarian4321]

The survey showed that opposition to having openly homosexual soldiers is highest in the combat arms units, which make up less than 10% of the soldiers in the Army. IS some of that opposition irrational? Yep. But, this is where you get someone else's blood on you when that someone else is shot or blown up. The guys taking a high degree of risk with their lives, are generally spooked about anything that looks like it might add to the risk.

This is a good point.

Most of the opposition is related about how it would affect the grunts.

Which is why I think a great idea would be to initially open the military to gays EXCEPT in ground pounder units (infantry, armor, artillery, etc). I would open up all non-combat units and "combat" slots like pilots, etc that are not involved in close order combat.

That would probably open more than 90% of the military slots to gays. Once that had been in place a few years, with no major problems, we could integrate the entire military.

[oyarde]

This is a good point.

Most of the opposition is related about how it would affect the grunts.

Which is why I think a great idea would be to initially open the military to gays EXCEPT in ground pounder units (infantry, armor, artillery, etc). I would open up all non-combat units and "combat" slots like pilots, etc that are not involved in close order combat.

That would probably open more than 90% of the military slots to gays. Once that had been in place a few years, with no major problems, we could integrate the entire military.

These are pretty much my thoughts as well.

[MelissaWV]

This is a good point.

Most of the opposition is related about how it would affect the grunts.

Which is why I think a great idea would be to initially open the military to gays EXCEPT in ground pounder units (infantry, armor, artillery, etc). I would open up all non-combat units and "combat" slots like pilots, etc that are not involved in close order combat.

That would probably open more than 90% of the military slots to gays. Once that had been in place a few years, with no major problems, we could integrate the entire military.

Indeed, and those are valid concerns (even if they are a little "silly" to others, they aren't "silly" to the soldiers involved in those situations at this time). If there are enough openly gay folks to start a unit of gay soldiers, it shouldn't be a problem to keep them alive and give them a chance to train and serve. The problem will arise when the military is ordered to be politically correct, and have separate bunks and showers and this and that and the other for homosexuals. Hurray for taxpayer expense? Bah.

[wildfirepower]

This thread is on fire.

[Tennanja]

So if our soldiers have this much trouble handling working with gays just imagine what these "fine upstanding citizens" will be like when they have to work along side other people when they get out of the military, maybe we should tell them now there are gays in civilian life too.

[TheeVagabond]

Sigh, being prior USMC I can comment on this. I don't see the big deal, military service already makes you gay, because if you can't "take it up the ass?" What good are you?

Sorry, I had to say it. :D

[Pericles]

So if our soldiers have this much trouble handling working with gays just imagine what these "fine upstanding citizens" will be like when they have to work along side other people when they get out of the military, maybe we should tell them now there are gays in civilian life too.

The main thing I learned from my Army experience is that there are very few problems that occur that could not be rapidly solved by the judicious use of automatic weapons.:D

Unfortunately, most of the Army recruiting propaganda leads people to think of the Army as a job, competing for labor with the rest of the employment market. There are few "jobs" that may require you to get killed as an expectation of job performance. There are few jobs that may require you to be at work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. There are some jobs where you give up many of your civil rights as a condition of employment. As a commander, the only limits to my authority to give orders to people in my unit were (A) the missions assigned to me (B) maintaining good order and discipline of my unit. A commander is responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do. This is a tremendous amount of responsibility and power to entrust to a person. Doing that task well is hard enough as it is.

As a practical matter, you have a number of young people in your unit (except for reserve and HQ units) 90% of which will be under 40 and with a fair number of teens in the mix, the sex drive will be high as a rule. Adding girl GIs to the mix makes the leaders task more difficult (google "queen for a year"). Too much commanders time is used to sort out was it consentual and who was using who. Adding "gay" soldiers to that mix makes commanders (which the Armys is already losing at a rapid rate) jobs even more of a PITA than it already is in getting the real job done.

The reason to have an Army is to defend the country and fight those wars the citizens think necessary. Personnel policies that promote individual career enhancement, and various social objectives either make that Army mission easier or more difficult. Racial integration enhanced efficiency, sexual integration hasn't.

Therefore, comments such as yours don't add much to the debate. You can contribute an opinion as a citizen on what kind of Army you would like to have, but the people who have to deal with the reality of making it happen have a much better understanding of the implications of those decisions.

[jtstellar]

quit and flip burgers or quit to go to med school like my friend after he quit? i suspect the prior

which begs the question why they would quit, or would they.

[AxisMundi]

WASHINGTON – As the commanders of the Army, Air Force and Marines cautioned the U.S. Senate against abruptly repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, critics are also warning that accepting open homosexuality and pro-homosexual "reprogramming" could drive massive numbers of troops out of the service.

Said McCain, "If 12.6 percent of the military left earlier, that translates into 264,600 men and women who would leave the military earlier than they had planned … Do you think that's a good idea to replace 265,000 troops … in a time of war?"

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=235797

I've not read the thread, sorry if this has been covered already...

While a US citizen gives up several rights to serve his or her Country, being a homophobe is not a right in and of itself.

Racists serve next to people of other races. Evangelicals serve next to Atheists and non-Abrahamic Theists. Misogynists serve next to women, and militant feminists along side men.

There is no logical, rational reason why gays should be somehow shunned, and forced to hide their natures when they choose to serve this Nation alongside their fellow citizens.

And I seriously doubt that the honorable Mr. McCain's "statistics" are anything but simple hysteria generated to attempt to scare people into keeping the present, out-dated, discriminatory and illegal DADT policy.

[oyarde]

I've not read the thread, sorry if this has been covered already...

While a US citizen gives up several rights to serve his or her Country, being a homophobe is not a right in and of itself.

Racists serve next to people of other races. Evangelicals serve next to Atheists and non-Abrahamic Theists. Misogynists serve next to women, and militant feminists along side men.

There is no logical, rational reason why gays should be somehow shunned, and forced to hide their natures when they choose to serve this Nation alongside their fellow citizens.

And I seriously doubt that the honorable Mr. McCain's "statistics" are anything but simple hysteria generated to attempt to scare people into keeping the present, out-dated, discriminatory and illegal DADT policy.

While I agree with what you say to an extent , I will say his statistics are probably very realistic .

[AxisMundi]

While I agree with what you say to an extent , I will say his statistics are probably very realistic .

Perhaps I missed his citation for the source of these numbers?

Even if this satistic was the result of a legitimate poll of armed service members, people talk, especially when change to the status quo is imminent.

I seriously doubt that even a quarter of the nubmer McCain states would "leave early", as if one could annul their enlistment contract. And to be frank, good riddance as those who do leave would probrably be the same fundamentalists that are responsible for prosetylizing in Arab countries and attempting to ship thousands of bibles into Afstan.

[oyarde]

Perhaps I missed his citation for the source of these numbers?

Even if this satistic was the result of a legitimate poll of armed service members, people talk, especially when change to the status quo is imminent.

I seriously doubt that even a quarter of the nubmer McCain states would "leave early", as if one could annul their enlistment contract. And to be frank, good riddance as those who do leave would probrably be the same fundamentalists that are responsible for prosetylizing in Arab countries and attempting to ship thousands of bibles into Afstan.

Well , there will probably be no changes made , yes , there have been polls taken . The leave early thing would probably be , if changes were made , they would offer an option out ? I think the polls I saw from Army times were people who would not re enlist which closely resembled the data he gave .

[klamath]

The main thing I learned from my Army experience is that there are very few problems that occur that could not be rapidly solved by the judicious use of automatic weapons.:D

Unfortunately, most of the Army recruiting propaganda leads people to think of the Army as a job, competing for labor with the rest of the employment market. There are few "jobs" that may require you to get killed as an expectation of job performance. There are few jobs that may require you to be at work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. There are some jobs where you give up many of your civil rights as a condition of employment. As a commander, the only limits to my authority to give orders to people in my unit were (A) the missions assigned to me (B) maintaining good order and discipline of my unit. A commander is responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do. This is a tremendous amount of responsibility and power to entrust to a person. Doing that task well is hard enough as it is.

As a practical matter, you have a number of young people in your unit (except for reserve and HQ units) 90% of which will be under 40 and with a fair number of teens in the mix, the sex drive will be high as a rule. Adding girl GIs to the mix makes the leaders task more difficult (google "queen for a year"). Too much commanders time is used to sort out was it consentual and who was using who. Adding "gay" soldiers to that mix makes commanders (which the Armys is already losing at a rapid rate) jobs even more of a PITA than it already is in getting the real job done.

The reason to have an Army is to defend the country and fight those wars the citizens think necessary. Personnel policies that promote individual career enhancement, and various social objectives either make that Army mission easier or more difficult. Racial integration enhanced efficiency, sexual integration hasn't.

Therefore, comments such as yours don't add much to the debate. You can contribute an opinion as a citizen on what kind of Army you would like to have, but the people who have to deal with the reality of making it happen have a much better understanding of the implications of those decisions.
I served in Iraq with a aviation support battalion. We had a female bn comander XO, S1, S2 S3 and sgt major. Some joker even listed the Bn in pink on the list for deploying units. A great deal of the admins time was spent trying to prosecute 5 minute stands in the hooches. One of the biggest problems I had was having to quit productive work to take the manditory EEOC, sexual harressment sexual assualt and and other kinder and gentler military classes every little while.

[Pericles]

I served in Iraq with a aviation support battalion. We had a female bn comander XO, S1, S2 S3 and sgt major. Some joker even listed the Bn in pink on the list for deploying units.

Sorry, but as an Armor guy I have to LMAO at that.

[AxisMundi]

Well , there will probably be no changes made , yes , there have been polls taken . The leave early thing would probably be , if changes were made , they would offer an option out ? I think the polls I saw from Army times were people who would not re enlist which closely resembled the data he gave .

To be quite frank, if someone is so homophobic that they cannot serve their country besides a gay person, they shouldn't be in uniform representing this Nation, IMHO.

As far as the Army Times poll...

The Military Times poll showed that troops generally are satisfied with the current policy banning open service by gays, but that opposition to repeal is steadily dropping.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/military_dontask_survey_070710w/

As I stated, I imagine many are voicing only a halfhearted opposition merely due to the change in the status quo.

[oyarde]

To be quite frank, if someone is so homophobic that they cannot serve their country besides a gay person, they shouldn't be in uniform representing this Nation, IMHO.

As far as the Army Times poll...

The Military Times poll showed that troops generally are satisfied with the current policy banning open service by gays, but that opposition to repeal is steadily dropping.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/military_dontask_survey_070710w/

As I stated, I imagine many are voicing only a halfhearted opposition merely due to the change in the status quo.

The only real threat is combat arms . It is all that matters . In an economy like this , all the gravy jobs that are held by lower enlisted could be filled ( still costs money to do the training ) . Those young E 4 's & E 5's in combat arms with 4 or 5 years experience are the people who would be influenced by this and frankly , the military is not in a position to do without them . How many Liberty People or gays will volunteer for those jobs ? very few . Will the unemployment recover next year ? if it does that would just add to the problem. In the end , this decision should be left to the Generals . They are the only people who will be required to make it work and held accountable . If it was me , I would open up the non combat arms and give it a try .

[AxisMundi]

The only real threat is combat arms . It is all that matters . In an economy like this , all the gravy jobs that are held by lower enlisted could be filled ( still costs money to do the training ) . Those young E 4 's & E 5's in combat arms with 4 or 5 years experience are the people who would be influenced by this and frankly , the military is not in a position to do without them . How many Liberty People or gays will volunteer for those jobs ? very few . Will the unemployment recover next year ? if it does that would just add to the problem. In the end , this decision should be left to the Generals . They are the only people who will be required to make it work and held accountable . If it was me , I would open up the non combat arms and give it a try .

Look, I'm sorry, but there simply is no reason or rationality to continue a clearly discriminatory policy in the armed forces of a Nation that supposedly prides herself on the ideals of Liberty, Freedom, and Equality. And people's careers have been ruined by the mere accusation of being gay as well.

Will we loose a few people in the military? Sure, and good riddance. If these people are so intolerant that they cannot serve next to gays, they should not be representing our Nation overseas. If they cannot at least serve next to people they hate, how then can they do their jobs effectively in areas with cultures they cannot respect?

Will we cripple our military forces as has been the claim? No, we will not, this is mere hysterical propaganda. Just as when desegregation policies created units of mixed races, there are people who will complain, there are people who will threaten to "leave early" as well, and yes, some will indeed leave.

And we were a better, stronger military for those bigots leaving.

[klamath]

Look, I'm sorry, but there simply is no reason or rationality to continue a clearly discriminatory policy in the armed forces of a Nation that supposedly prides herself on the ideals of Liberty, Freedom, and Equality. And people's careers have been ruined by the mere accusation of being gay as well.

Will we loose a few people in the military? Sure, and good riddance. If these people are so intolerant that they cannot serve next to gays, they should not be representing our Nation overseas. If they cannot at least serve next to people they hate, how then can they do their jobs effectively in areas with cultures they cannot respect?
Will we cripple our military forces as has been the claim? No, we will not, this is mere hysterical propaganda. Just as when desegregation policies created units of mixed races, there are people who will complain, there are people who will threaten to "leave early" as well, and yes, some will indeed leave.

And we were a better, stronger military for those bigots leaving.

Would people call women bigots if they started leaving the military because they were forced to share showers with men oogling them?

[AxisMundi]

Would people call women bigots if they started leaving the military because they were forced to share showers with men oogling them?

Any other non sequiturs you'd like to bring to the table?

[klamath]

Any other non sequiturs you'd like to bring to the table?

Care to answer the question? You are quick to call people bigots but you don't seem to be able to answer the question.

[AxisMundi]

Care to answer the question? You are quick to call people bigots but you don't seem to be able to answer the question.

I didn't bother trying to ask your "question" because it didn't deserve an answer.

If you can locate a movement to force men and women to shower together, bring it into the discussion.

Otherwise, it is completely unrelated to this discussion, and a usual tactic of those who really do not have any standing upon which to base their opinions and arguments, ie the tactic of simple distraction.

[klamath]

I didn't bother trying to ask your "question" because it didn't deserve an answer.

If you can locate a movement to force men and women to shower together, bring it into the discussion.

Otherwise, it is completely unrelated to this discussion, and a usual tactic of those who really do not have any standing upon which to base their opinions and arguments, ie the tactic of simple distraction.
The comparison is that you have a movement to move openly gay men and women, into straight military shower facilities. Why do they seperate male and female shower facilities now? For that matter why should taxpayers have to pay for seperate sex restrooms?
A lot of men that might leave may not be bigots as you call them but would rather not share showers with openly gay men oogling them. If men are moved into female showers do you think the women would be bigots because they don't want to be naked in a shower with sex deprived men staring at them? A lot of people are not comfortable being exposed to the opposite sex or the same sex if that person is looking at their naked body with sexual desire. Does that make them bigots? Having spent 20 years in the military I can say I know a little about how things are run.

[AxisMundi]

The comparison is that you have a movement to move openly gay men and women, into straight military shower facilities. Why do they seperate male and female shower facilities now? For that matter why should taxpayers have to pay for seperate sex restrooms?
A lot of men that might leave may not be bigots as you call them but would rather not share showers with openly gay men oogling them. If men are moved into female showers do you think the women would be bigots because they don't want to be naked in a shower with sex deprived men staring at them? A lot of people are not comfortable being exposed to the opposite sex or the same sex if that person is looking at their naked body with sexual desire. Does that make them bigots? Having spent 20 years in the military I can say I know a little about how things are run.

There already ARE gay men and women in military showers. What, you think gays have separate shower facilities, or that their comrades don't know they are gay already? Kind of difficult for a gay man to hide the fact when he doesn't look at pretty women like his straight buddies do.

This is why your argument just keeps failing, and remains a simple distraction. Being open about one's sexuality does not change day to day behaviors. Gay men won't suddenly all turn flamboyantly gay and put sequins on their uniforms. There wouldn't be a sudden rash of ass grabbing in the showers. There will be a complete absence of roving gangs of gays dragging straights off into the night for a gang rape.

The ONLY things that will change is that people will not have their careers ruined by even accusations of being gay.

BTW, there are two forms of discrimination, justified and unjustified. Separate facilities for women are justified from a simple safety viewpoint.

Forcing a person willing to put their lives on the line to serve their country to live a lie merely because a fraction of the military would be "uncomfortable" is absolutely unjustified. Especially when "openly hetero" behaviors, and relationships (within DOD guidelines) are perfectly acceptable.

And yes, like the word or not, by definition those who would leave because of the repeal of the unconstitutional DADT policy are indeed bigots.

Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

If the word offends you, then perhaps it should.

[klamath]

There already ARE gay men and women in military showers. What, you think gays have separate shower facilities, or that their comrades don't know they are gay already? Kind of difficult for a gay man to hide the fact when he doesn't look at pretty women like his straight buddies do.

This is why your argument just keeps failing, and remains a simple distraction. Being open about one's sexuality does not change day to day behaviors. Gay men won't suddenly all turn flamboyantly gay and put sequins on their uniforms. There wouldn't be a sudden rash of ass grabbing in the showers. There will be a complete absence of roving gangs of gays dragging straights off into the night for a gang rape.

The ONLY things that will change is that people will not have their careers ruined by even accusations of being gay.

BTW, there are two forms of discrimination, justified and unjustified. Separate facilities for women are justified from a simple safety viewpoint.
Forcing a person willing to put their lives on the line to serve their country to live a lie merely because a fraction of the military would be "uncomfortable" is absolutely unjustified. Especially when "openly hetero" behaviors, and relationships (within DOD guidelines) are perfectly acceptable.

And yes, like the word or not, by definition those who would leave because of the repeal of the unconstitutional DADT policy are indeed bigots.

Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

If the word offends you, then perhaps it should.

Explain. What is the safety issue?