Should gays be allowed to serve openly in the military?

[SpooK]

Never said they were.

Well, apparently you think we are guarenteed all of our constitutional rights, despite being proved wrong over and over.

Several were repeats of other things you already said. Some I ignored because I wanted to. You have already done the same so whoopidee do.

Ignored because you had no reply, which is why you wanted to. If I did the same, it was completely accidental.

A. I learned something today, useless knowledge anyhow, being as I wasn't a part of the Navy.

Well, I am glad. It would make more sense though to ask the person instead of indirectly telling them they are wrong in multiple posts, when you yourself know you dont have the answer.

B. I am glad I was never a part of the Navy cause it sounds like (no offense) that everyone has a stick up their *** there. More specifically anyone with any sort of authority. From what I have seen between Navy folks and Marines, it appears that ever single NCO and Above has the "I was picked on and beat up in high school" complex when it comes to being in charge. Thats okay, the Army has their fair share of them too. I have learned that "true" respect is much more valuable than "respect of the rank" alone.

Maybe some of us Navy guys are getting a little frustrated with people who don't know what they are talking about trying to tell us how it is. Picked on and beat up complex? Lol. I know nothing of what exactly that means. Perhaps you could share with us your personal experiences.

C. I thought I asked you to show me an example of when it was used in the past 10 years....:doh

Well, I know it's happened at least 5 or 6 times since March (on my ship) and they don't exactly put it in the newspaper (but then again, you wouldnt know).

A Texas woman convicted of neglecting two
horses in her care has been sentenced to serve 30 days in jail — the first
three of which will be spent with a diet of only bread and water, a judge
said Tuesday.

link 1

Nope. Your bringing UCMJ into this, when it has nothing to do with that. Simple fact. You have freedom of speech, but what you say can get you in trouble. Simple. Basic. And I never tried to compare them on any other level except.

Why wouldnt I bring the UCMJ into this. Let's think about it Caine. How are you going to say I have freedom of speech? Of course I am going to say I can get in trouble. Why can I get in trouble? Oh, for violating the law (per UCMJ). Just because I can speak, doesnt mean I have the freedom. If we used you logic, how would anyone not have freedom of speech? My voice box would have to be ripped out. Do you have freedom to murder? It's against the law but you can still do it, right? Doesnt make any sense. UCMJ takes away my rights which are guarenteed to me in the constitution. How does it do that? Oh right, I am in the military.

So? Your missing the point. Although you have the freedom of speech, you can be punished. Period. Regardless of HOW. Im not trying to compare the UCMJ to an employer punishing its employee, or some guy using "fighting words" and getting arrested (yes there is a charge for that under the disorderly conduct statues).

Of course you dont want to include the UCMJ. Why would you? It proves my point. I dont see how you are trying to say that because sometimes an employer could say something to get fired and me violating the LAW is one in the same. Dont even try to say, oh well just because you get punished doesnt mean you dont have the freedom. Yes it does because I am violating a law.

I made one SIMPLE statement.. and its obvious you are grasping at straws to be different.

Grasping at straws for pointing out how moot your point is? Dont make me say it again. If it was guarenteed to me by the constitution, it wouldnt be punishable by law. Period.

I bet you are one of those military folks who look at civilians in disgust huh?

Now who is grasping for straws? A comment like that really doesnt deserve a reply, but I will do so anyway.

For one thing, I have a lot more civilian friends than I do military. I only date civilian women. I have spent much more of my time living in civilian life than military.

And you were given a copy of the document where it explicitly said you are giving up your rights? Not a document saying that you are now subject to UCMJ. That would be different. And, if so, Then the Navy is really gay (not homo gay either).

Sigh.

 

[RightinNYC]

You continually claim that being gay is innate and NOT a choice. You claim that no one would CHOOSE to be gay because of the social taboo. You continually discount testimonies of gays gone straight and straights gone gay with the mother of all copouts. You make assumptions that people who were "straight" were only that way because of the evil "gay-bashers"; give me a break.

• There is no scientific evidence that points to someone being born gay, as opposed to them being born black, or white.
  
• The majorities (if not all) of gays only become so after a tragic experience as a child or a homosexual experience.
  
• Many gays will break from their disgusting habit and become "straight" once again, raising a family and marrying a spouse.
  
• Being gay is a personal decision made by a host of confused and broken individuals (usually after a divorce, or tragic breakup)

Homosexuality is a disease. Much like crack/cocaine/heroin/ecstasy sex is addicting and when used wrongly can become harmful and misused. However there is a cure, I have read many testimonies of people who have been cured of this illness and experienced many first hand. You constantly bring up that we should not care what other people do, let them live their lives, it is their choice let them make it. Well I say to you let's do the same of drug users. Let them make their choice to be a crack addict or not, who are you or the government to step and call that action illegal or immoral? Why not live and let live? The moment our society degrades into such a lack of morality and lawlessness is the day we can stop calling ourselves America. I feel that with every breath that people like you and 1069 breathe is one step closer to that tragic fate.

Please, for your own sake and for mine, educate yourself. You do a disservice to all that call themselves conservatives by spouting this ignorant crap.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You continually claim that being gay is innate and NOT a choice. You claim that no one would CHOOSE to be gay because of the social taboo. You continually discount testimonies of gays gone straight and straights gone gay with the mother of all copouts. You make assumptions that people who were "straight" were only that way because of the evil "gay-bashers"; give me a break.

• There is no scientific evidence that points to someone being born gay, as opposed to them being born black, or white.
• The majorities (if not all) of gays only become so after a tragic experience as a child or a homosexual experience.
• Many gays will break from their disgusting habit and become "straight" once again, raising a family and marrying a spouse.
• Being gay is a personal decision made by a host of confused and broken individuals (usually after a divorce, or tragic breakup)

Homosexuality is a disease. Much like crack/cocaine/heroin/ecstasy sex is addicting and when used wrongly can become harmful and misused. However there is a cure, I have read many testimonies of people who have been cured of this illness and experienced many first hand. You constantly bring up that we should not care what other people do, let them live their lives, it is their choice let them make it. Well I say to you let's do the same of drug users. Let them make their choice to be a crack addict or not, who are you or the government to step and call that action illegal or immoral? Why not live and let live? The moment our society degrades into such a lack of morality and lawlessness is the day we can stop calling ourselves America. I feel that with every breath that people like you and 1069 breathe is one step closer to that tragic fate.

This is without question one of the most ill-informed and totally wrong posts on this site. You offer no evidence for anything you say here. I, on the other had, can offer a massive amount of evidence to prove you wrong...and have on a number of other threads.

Put up some evidence from non-biased sources, or stand down. Or, put up some evidence from un-biased sources and be prepared to get :beat

Edit: On second thought...this would be off topic. Either start a new topic, or do some reading/research so you can actually understand this issue.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Amen my friend, Amen.......

Navy, you do realize you are agreeing with totally a fallacious premise backed, not only with no evidence, but, contrarily, shown to be totally false through opposing substantiation, don't you?

 

[Caine]

Again no one is being discriminated against.....Its not a right to join the military, its a privilege..........

Its also a "privilege" to be capable of obtaining a driver's license.

Yet we don't say, "You can't drive if yer gay!" Now do we????

 

[Caine]

Well, apparently you think we are guarenteed all of our constitutional rights, despite being proved wrong over and over.

You still have your constitutional rights. But they can be taken from you if you act negligently.
I've never stated anything else have I?

Ignored because you had no reply, which is why you wanted to. If I did the same, it was completely accidental.

I'm still waiting to hear what Navy Policy states you are not allowed to OWN (not "possess on base") a firearm.

Picked on and beat up complex? Lol. I know nothing of what exactly that means. Perhaps you could share with us your personal experiences.

I worked along side of serveral of these types of NCOs. Its basically where you punish a soldier for some minuscule ridiculous reasons just because you can. (Like, wahh, we were all joking around and then he hurt my feelings, Ima get him for insubordination). Or some gay **** like this... (Oh, I don't like that kid at all, Ima make him push for a few hours, I just gotta find a reason......., Oh crap a button isn't buttoned on his BDU top! Oh Joy!). I never had a NCO above me like that, and I was definately the polar opposite of that. And I got a lot more "true" respect from my joes by treating them like humans instead of slaves.

Sigh.

As for the rest of your post. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. You have the freedom to speak your mind, you must be tactful about it or you can be punished for being disrespectful. A civilian has the freedom to speak their mind, if they are not tactful, they could lose their job. The level of risk you take when opening your mouth to say something disrespectful without thinking changes between the two. But its the basic principle that you are free to say what you want to as long as it doesn't cross a line. Your still trying to make a comparison between the two that I never went to, and for good reason. But you continue to think that way, it will sure help you when you are writing some kid up for saying a small harmless joke about whoever is President at the time. But when that day comes, remember about the "Picked on in high school kid", because that would be you.

 

[Caine]

One is lack of understanding of how gays react with strait people in a work environment...

And this is unprecedented in America? PFFFT....

two would a gay supervisor be able to fairly rate a strait soldier with a gay soldier in the element of his command...

Can you provide some reasons why they could not do so????

Are there two types of gay men, a famine and a masculine or do gays not apply to opposites attract? Could the famine gay perform as well as a masculine gay if such differences exist...?

And how exactly does this apply to working in a military environment? And why should it be used as a reason for discrimination?

Damn I have a lot of reasons other than the two you offered.

Yes, and they are all worthless. NEXT!!!!!!!!

 

[Topsez]

And this is unprecedented in America? PFFFT....

I had to look up PFFFT in the Urban Dictionary... guess I'm out of touch... I worked in fine carpentry after ending my employment with the Coast Guard here in PR and had a gay customer I did a lot of work for. He specialized in ceramics and is quite creative and had two employees. I made a lot of plaque blanks for ceramics to be mounted for HP factory employee awards and custom made a bed for him among other jobs. We had a very normal working relationship and his employees seemed to work well with him also. One day I brought a wind chime by to him to see if he could make a nice clinger for it from ceramics... I noted to him in front of his employees, wow that's a terrible cold sore you have, maybe you should see a doctor... just making conversation... he answered something to the line of; Yea, and in my line of work it is a show stopper... I noticed both employees roll their eyes in disgust and I left and haven't returned for my wind chime because I got sick at my stomach and disgusted.

Can you provide some reasons why they could not do so????

No I have no reference... when I entered the army black soldiers weren't being promoted by merit equally to white soldiers when supervised by white leaders... The result was quota promotions forcing bigot leaders to promote a certain percentage of black soldiers.

And how exactly does this apply to working in a military environment? And why should it be used as a reason for discrimination?

I don't know about gays so I don't know how a gay macho would handle situations with a gay girlieman... I can only relate with how I dealt with soldiers that happened to be female... the platoon sergeant tells me take these three soldiers and unload those GP medium tents and the soldiers were all female... I unloaded the low center of gravity tents as the females unloaded the tend stakes... I would have preferred to have done the whole job alone but I was assigned their supervisor.

Yes, and they are all worthless. NEXT!!!!!!!!

Perhaps a segregated gay unit could be established similar to black and female units prior to being intergrated... there the above questions could be addressed within the group and promotions would be fair. Many black and women units excelled and in the case of black fighter pilots had better records than white fighter pilots in WWII. Perhaps we need to see them work together to see how they will work mixed within the ranks better. After a few years each brigade could have a gay company and when that company maintained equality in performance then intergrate them into the brigade or another brigade.

 

[1069]

I had to look up PFFFT in the Urban Dictionary...

It's an onomatopoeia: a word that imitates the sound it is describing, such as "pow" or "bang" or "meow" or "moo".
The sound it's intended to represent is that incredulous, exasperated farting noise people make with their lips when they believe somebody is feeding them a line of bull.
Ex: "Pfft, whatever." :roll:

 

[Navy Pride]

You stated that being in the military is a privilege and connected that idea to gays not being allowed to openly serve, but you now say that you don't believe heterosexuals are more privileged than gays? Which is it? Furthermore, what valid reasons do you have for gays not being allowed to openly serve? I believe that you are creating second-class citizens for no other reason than to satisfy your own ego. This is one way people like you try to put themselves above as many people as they can. Its a self-esteem issue. You are no better than anyone else and gays are just as capable of serving in the military as you are.

They are really 2 different things.........It is a privilege to serve in the military..Evryone that trys to join is not accepted for various reasons..........

There are many valid reasons why gays can not serve openly in the military and I have listed them...........They are especially true aboard Navy ships where living conditions are very crowded and long periods of time are spent at sea.........I served on 6 ships during my naval career and saw many gays kicked out of the service because the made unwanted sexual advances to straight sailors...............I was personally involved in 3 or 4 court martials as a witness to these unwanted sexual advances.........I don't even blame the gay guys.........A gay guy aboard ship is like a kid in a candy store.............I equate it to a straight guy serving on a ship with a crew of women.......Living closely together, showering and undressing............It just does not work........

You say you served openly in the U.S. Military but I doubt very seriously if you department head or commanding officer new you were gay...............

 

[Navy Pride]

Navy, you do realize you are agreeing with totally a fallacious premise backed, not only with no evidence, but, contrarily, shown to be totally false through opposing substantiation, don't you?

No I don't..............I don't know if gays are born that way and neither do you............I know African Americans are born that way........There is no argument about that..........African Americans can not change what they are..........Gays can...there are documented cases to prove it.............

 

[Navy Pride]

Its also a "privilege" to be capable of obtaining a driver's license.

Yet we don't say, "You can't drive if yer gay!" Now do we????

a red herring nothing more nothing less...............Two completely difference issues...........

 

[nort_12345]

a red herring nothing more nothing less...............Two completely difference issues...........

there is no good reason for a gay person to not be allowed to serve in the military because they are gay.

 

[disneydude]

No I don't..............I don't know if gays are born that way and neither do you............I know African Americans are born that way........There is no argument about that..........African Americans can not change what they are..........Gays can...there are documented cases to prove it.............

A gay person cannot change their sexual orientation any more than a black person can change their ethnicity.
Its like Michael Jackson--- you can have plastic surgery and skin bleaching to make yourself look more caucasion....but you are still black.

Documented cases that prove gays can change?
Hardly....have you seen any of these so-called reformation groups like Evergreen. The guys that claim to have "changed" their sexual orientation are clearly gay. That is not to say that if they want to live that way they shouldn't be able to. Personally, I don't think it is fair to their "wives" or families.
I should also note that there are many cases in which founders of these reformation groups have ended up "reverting" back to homosexuality with their clients......so change? No.

Anyone can live a lie....its just easier for homsexuals to hide their orientation which is exactly what the military requires. To me....this seems crazy. Lie and we will let you serve. Be honest and you cannot. This is why it make much more sense to punish the acts (gay or straight) not the orientation.

Navy....if you think for a minute that there are no gays in the military you are fooling yourself. The only issue is whether they can be honest about it or whether they have to lie. I personally believe that "honesty is the best policy".

 

[1069]

To me....this seems crazy. Lie and we will let you serve. Be honest and you cannot. This is why it make much more sense to punish the acts (gay or straight) not the orientation.

Exactly; I thought honesty and personal integrity were qualities the military claims to promote.
I've seen no evidence that if you live a lie long enough, the lie comes true.
If that were the case, any of us could become whatever we wanted to be, not through hard work but by simply lying and saying we were something else, until we somehow magically morphed into the thing we were claiming to be...

It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Navy Pride]

A gay person cannot change their sexual orientation any more than a black person can change their ethnicity.
Its like Michael Jackson--- you can have plastic surgery and skin bleaching to make yourself look more caucasion....but you are still black.

You should tell that to people who have changed their sexual orientation like Ann Heche or the female Colonel in the Washington NG......They strongly disagree with you......

Michael Jackson is a nut case, a joke........You lose all creditability when you use him as and example........

Anyone can live a lie....its just easier for homsexuals to hide their orientation which is exactly what the military requires. To me....this seems crazy. Lie and we will let you serve. Be honest and you cannot. This is why it make much more sense to punish the acts (gay or straight) not the orientation.

That is becasue you are clueless about what its like to live on a Navy ship

Navy....if you think for a minute that there are no gays in the military you are fooling yourself.

What a stupid statement.......I know their are gays in the military....Hell I saw dozens kicked out for making sexual advancements at straight sailors.........I was even involved as a witness in several courtmartials of gays.............

 

[SpooK]

You still have your constitutional rights. But they can be taken from you if you act negligently.
I've never stated anything else have I?

Honestly, I want to know what you dont understand about this. All personnel serving in the military are held to the UCMJ. We have a wide variety of laws that we must follow. Otherwise, we are imprisoned. Period. Many in which are contradictory to the constitution. This is not debatable. It is a fact. If you dont believe it, I suggest reading the UCMJ.

I worked along side of serveral of these types of NCOs. Its basically where you punish a soldier for some minuscule ridiculous reasons just because you can. (Like, wahh, we were all joking around and then he hurt my feelings, Ima get him for insubordination). Or some gay **** like this... (Oh, I don't like that kid at all, Ima make him push for a few hours, I just gotta find a reason......., Oh crap a button isn't buttoned on his BDU top! Oh Joy!). I never had a NCO above me like that, and I was definately the polar opposite of that. And I got a lot more "true" respect from my joes by treating them like humans instead of slaves.

So how does this relate to the debate? Certainly, there are some people like this but not majority.

As for the rest of your post. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

The thing is you cannot disagree because what I am saying is factual. Military personnel are subject to the UCMJ which contradicts some of the constitution. Therefore, one can easily determine that the military is not guarenteed every right in the constitution. Non-debatable.

You have the freedom to speak your mind, you must be tactful about it or you can be punished for being disrespectful. A civilian has the freedom to speak their mind, if they are not tactful, they could lose their job.

Just because someone physically can speak (ie not having their voice box ripped out of their throat), doesnt mean they have the freedom. Just because you can commit murder, or rob a bank, or still a car doesnt mean that you have the freedom to do so.

The level of risk you take when opening your mouth to say something disrespectful without thinking changes between the two. But its the basic principle that you are free to say what you want to as long as it doesn't cross a line. Your still trying to make a comparison between the two that I never went to, and for good reason.

It has nothing to do with the level of risk. The point is one is violating a law and one is only being disrespectful. BIG DIFFERENCE. If it is guarenteed to me by law, how then could I be punished by law? Oh, I guess it's not guarenteed.

But you continue to think that way, it will sure help you when you are writing some kid up for saying a small harmless joke about whoever is President at the time. But when that day comes, remember about the "Picked on in high school kid", because that would be you.

Stop with your strawman. It sounds to me like your the one who understand exactly what picked on in high school felt like.

 

[SpooK]

Lie and we will let you serve. Be honest and you cannot.

No one is asking anyone to lie. There is no lying or honesty involved. It is a dont ask dont tell policy. No one is asking, no one is lying.

 

[SpooK]

Exactly; I thought honesty and personal integrity were qualities the military claims to promote.
I've seen no evidence that if you live a lie long enough, the lie comes true.

Honesty and personal integrity are qualities promoted by the military. As I just said above, no one is asked to lie about their sexuality. We have an effective policy. No one is asking them if they are gay. Therefore, no one is forced to lie.

 

[SpooK]

there is no good reason for a gay person to not be allowed to serve in the military because they are gay.

Why not make some points or answer some of the already made ones, instead of making an unsupported statement?

 

[shuamort]

Unless being gay and talking about it is tantamount to treasonous activity or breaching a specific military/governmental secret, I don't see any reason to not give the folks fighting for our rights the right to free speech.

 

[SpooK]

Unless being gay and talking about it is tantamount to treasonous activity or breaching a specific military/governmental secret, I don't see any reason to not give the folks fighting for our rights the right to free speech.

For starters, people in the military are not guarenteed freedom of speech and other rights that are guareneteed from the constitution. All military members are subject to the rules and regulations of the UCMJ. Many of these rules and regulations contradict the constitution.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is it will decrease overall military effectivness. Ive said it 100 times now: whether it is morally right or wrong doesnt matter. Military effectiveness is the bottom line. If people would feel uncomfortable around openly gay people, wouldnt trust them, or whatever the case may be -- it will decrease overall effectiveness.

I am yet to see someone claim that military effectiveness isnt the number one priority.

 

[Navy Pride]

"Feel Good Liberals" want to make the military a social experiment...Either they don't know or don't care the real reason for having a military and it is not for social experimentation..........

 

[shuamort]

For starters, people in the military are not guarenteed freedom of speech and other rights that are guareneteed from the constitution. All military members are subject to the rules and regulations of the UCMJ. Many of these rules and regulations contradict the constitution.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is it will decrease overall military effectivness. Ive said it 100 times now: whether it is morally right or wrong doesnt matter. Military effectiveness is the bottom line. If people would feel uncomfortable around openly gay people, wouldnt trust them, or whatever the case may be -- it will decrease overall effectiveness.

I am yet to see someone claim that military effectiveness isnt the number one priority.

"Feel Good Liberals" want to make the military a social experiment...Either they don't know or don't care the real reason for having a military and it is not for social experimentation..........

Simple 3 word answer:

Executive Order 9981

 

[Navy Pride]

Simple 3 word answer:

Executive Order 9981

And there is equality more then any profession in this country..That is a fact................