With whom would you rather serve?

[cherokee]

If the guy isn’t a rapist, serial killer or some other criminal like that then it falls down to this.

When the chit hits the fan and assholes are trying to kill you the ONLY thing that matters is your buddy next to you that has your back.
Politics, sex, and even god fly out the window.
All you think about is killing the sob’s in front of you and getting out of the chit alive.

 

[Caine]

Maybe you were smoking dope or snorting crack then because your wrong......

Yeah that too.....:

Fine... If you insist.... I'll find you reliable military websites to backup my claim... it might take a while.....

 

[Caine]

Fine... If you insist.... I'll find you reliable military websites to backup my claim... it might take a while.....

Well, its not a "military website" but it is a Law website.

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that— (A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.


(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

Now, I won't be surprised if you lack the capability to understand or follow this policy.....


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000654----000-.html

 

[Calm2Chaos]

So, to be against this issue is more than just homophobic?

What.. its so important to have a comfortable 1 1/2 min shower in basic training?

C'mon... everyone claims its not about homophobia... then what IS it then?

Nobody has explained it yet.

First off if it is homophobia thats fine..... Who the hell are you or anyone else to tell me I have to be tolerant of something I might find offensive. But in the end I think you should seperate gays and straight for the same reason you seperate men and woman. I think doing this 1. Keeps people more comfortable. 2. I think it reduce the amount of harrassment charges you will get. 3. It's hopefully a compromise everyone can live with etc etc etc.....pretty simple, and it's pretty straight forward. It allows everybody to be comfortable in the situation. Course you can say screw it Im going ot shove it in there. Then I think your going ot run into the problems I mentioned before.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

If the guy isn’t a rapist, serial killer or some other criminal like that then it falls down to this.

When the chit hits the fan and assholes are trying to kill you the ONLY thing that matters is your buddy next to you that has your back.
Politics, sex, and even god fly out the window.
All you think about is killing the sob’s in front of you and getting out of the chit alive.

Yep... Gotta agree with that

 

[Captain America]

All you think about is killing the sob’s in front of you and getting out of the chit alive.

That and taking a shower. :mrgreen:

 

[Caine]

Course you can say screw it Im going ot shove it in there. Then I think your going ot run into the problems I mentioned before.

See, this is why I think DADT was genius, in that, it allowed people to "ease into" the whole serving with gays thing.

I think its time we moved on to the next step. I would say that maybe opening up non-combat jobs to openly serving gays would be a good next step. I mean, men and women have to serve along side of each other in these fields, so I believe that putting openly serving gays in these fields wouldn't be that much of a difference. As, in these fields, usually living conditions are so that you never have to share a shower with someone else (except when deployed). And the potential for sexual harrassment will be no higher than normal, since men and women were already serving anyways.

That could be the next step to "ease" into it.

 

[Caine]

That and taking a shower. :mrgreen:

BWUAUHAHAHAHAHA :rofl

 

[Calm2Chaos]

See, this is why I think DADT was genius, in that, it allowed people to "ease into" the whole serving with gays thing.

I think its time we moved on to the next step. I would say that maybe opening up non-combat jobs to openly serving gays would be a good next step. I mean, men and women have to serve along side of each other in these fields, so I believe that putting openly serving gays in these fields wouldn't be that much of a difference. As, in these fields, usually living conditions are so that you never have to share a shower with someone else (except when deployed). And the potential for sexual harrassment will be no higher than normal, since men and women were already serving anyways.

That could be the next step to "ease" into it.

OK .. sounds like a good start

I think your going to hit a time with the next generation or so that it isn't going to be an issue. Our world now is so gay media saturated that there is going to be a lot less bias in the coming generations. That should take care of the homophobe aspect. The other aspect I think is still going to be an issue no matter how long it goes on. But there are ways to reduce the friction that may occur. And field specialities are definetly one way... But like ya said. Once in the field or on mission all bets are off. Do your job and cover your brothers ***, (figuratively not literally)

 

[Caine]

Hey!

Navy Pride!!!
What happened to me being wrong about the DOD Policy on Homosexuals in the Military?????

Why haven't I heard a reply from you on the subject????

http://www.debatepolitics.com/394103-post278.html

That post.. right there.... Am I still wrong?????

Your not going to "cut and run" again are you?

 

[Navy Pride]

Well, its not a "military website" but it is a Law website.



Now, I won't be surprised if you lack the capability to understand or follow this policy.....


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000654----000-.html

Sorry for the delay I had to check with the Master Chief of the command on the aircraft carrier the USS CARL VINSON (CVN-68) TO GET A RULING on what you posted and he said Navy members use paragraph 2 and 3 to facilitate honorable discharges....I printed your comments and he got a big kick out of your naivetivity on the issue...........I told hom you were just a rookie soldier who could not hack the army and bailed out as soon as he could......He said that seems to explains it all............

 

[Caine]

Sorry for the delay I had to check with the Master Chief of the command on the aircraft carrier the USS CARL VINSON (CVN-68) TO GET A RULING on what you posted and he said Navy members use paragraph 2 and 3 to facilitate honorable discharges....I printed your comments and he got a big kick out of your naivetivity on the issue...........I told hom you were just a rookie soldier who could not hack the army and bailed out as soon as he could......He said that seems to explains it all............

So, other than more personal attacks from you, I guess you don't have a real answer huh?

Are you saying that this "master chief" you spoke to doesn't know how to read the policy? Its right there in black and white. I guess it hard to admit that you were wrong.....

 

[Navy Pride]

See, this is why I think DADT was genius, in that, it allowed people to "ease into" the whole serving with gays thing.

I think its time we moved on to the next step. I would say that maybe opening up non-combat jobs to openly serving gays would be a good next step. I mean, men and women have to serve along side of each other in these fields, so I believe that putting openly serving gays in these fields wouldn't be that much of a difference. As, in these fields, usually living conditions are so that you never have to share a shower with someone else (except when deployed). And the potential for sexual harrassment will be no higher than normal, since men and women were already serving anyways.

That could be the next step to "ease" into it.

The problem with your scenario is nothing is really changed with DADT......If a person is found to be gay by his own omission or by a sexual advance on a straight member he is discharged same as it was before......The only real difference is if a member comes forward and says he is gay and has not acted on his gayness he receives and honorable discharge whereas someone who has committed a sexual advance would get a discharge other then honorable.......

 

[talloulou]

Maybe for a woman having advances made against her by a lesbian but trust me its different with a guy......No straight guy is flattered by a gay guy grabbing his crank.....

Oh and a sexual advance can be costrued as assault or sexual harrassment......The Navy has a zero tolerance for both........

Well I'd agree any kind of "grabbing" is inappropriate in any kind of work place regardless of sexual orientation.

 

[Caine]

The problem with your scenario is nothing is really changed with DADT......If a person is found to be gay by his own omission or by a sexual advance on a straight member he is discharged same as it was before......The only real difference is if a member comes forward and says he is gay and has not acted on his gayness he receives and honorable discharge whereas someone who has committed a sexual advance would get a discharge other then honorable.......

Well, thats not what the official policy states, so I think I'm going to believe the policy and my training over what your "master chief" friend has told you.

 

[Navy Pride]

Well I'd agree any kind of "grabbing" is inappropriate in any kind of work place regardless of sexual orientation.

With all due respect talloulou I think the situation is very different between gay men and lesbian women....I probably shouldn't be but it is....

 

[Navy Pride]

So, other than more personal attacks from you, I guess you don't have a real answer huh?

Are you saying that this "master chief" you spoke to doesn't know how to read the policy? Its right there in black and white. I guess it hard to admit that you were wrong.....

First I never attacked you.He did..........Second I don't know if you even know what the Master Chief of the Command is but let me enlighten you..He is the most senior enlisted man on the VINSON and answers only to the Commanding officer.....In that capacity he is involved in many different types of discharges so I am pretty sure he can interpret that order a hell of a lot better then you because he told me in 2005 they discharged 47 people for being gay or having gay tendenicies.........30 women and 17 men.........

They have a JAG office aboard so I am sure they know what they are doing.....

 

[Caine]

First I never attacked you.He did..........Second I don't know if you even know what the Master Chief of the Command is but let me enlighten you..He is the most senior enlisted man on the VINSON and answers only to the Commanding officer.....In that capacity he is involved in many different types of discharges so I am pretty sure he can interpret that order a hell of a lot better then you because he told me in 2005 they discharged 47 people for being gay or having gay tendenicies.........30 women and 17 men.........

They have a JAG office aboard so I am sure they know what they are doing.....

Well, I know how to read, and I know what I was taught in leadership development in my days in the Army. Now, if the Navy decides to follow the policy differently from the Army, so be it.

AND, BTW: You were personally attacking me. From your post #288

I told hom you were just a rookie soldier who could not hack the army and bailed out as soon as he could

of course, you misspelled the word "him" but YOU added that info, not him.

If you can't do any better than your proved wrong than to direct personal attacks at people, I'm not going to bother "debating" (arguing) you.

 

[MSgt]

I told hom you were just a rookie soldier who could not hack the army and bailed out as soon as he could......He said that seems to explains it all............

Attacking another's service is not very honorable. The percentage of personel that do their 4 years and get out far exceeds the percentage that make careers of military service. And the percentage of Americans that do not even serve at all far exceeds even that.

And yes, "could not hack the Army" is an insult and a personal attack that seems to be a repeated offense against Caine.

Moderator's Warning:

This is trolling and baiting. Refrain.

 

[earthworm]

The problem with your scenario is nothing is really changed with DADT......If a person is found to be gay by his own omission or by a sexual advance on a straight member he is discharged same as it was before......The only real difference is if a member comes forward and says he is gay and has not acted on his gayness he receives and honorable discharge whereas someone who has committed a sexual advance would get a discharge other then honorable.......

It is WRONG that a "man" can do this.
Upon entering military service, the applicant agrees to DADT..
If he then changes his mind, it should be a general discharge at best..
The "active" homosexual should receive a dishonorable discharge...

Enough of this "gay" crap !!