Gays in the military

from JoeUser Forums

"By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

- Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.

The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.

"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.

To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations."

Yeah these geniuses took years to figure out what the military has known for 200 years.

When I was in the service we had gays openly in the military. It was simple at least the places I was stationed. Don’t bother me, I don’t bother you. If you got caught having sex you got in trouble. Here are two examples of what I mean.

My corpsman, (field medic) was queer as a three dollar bill. We all knew it, no body cared. When we stopped over in the for and operation we had liberty in town and we watched with serious curiosity this gay man taking two and sometimes three women to bed with him. I finally asked him what was up, I thought you played on the other team? He told me, when in do as the Romans do but back home it’s strictly Greek. I laughed and told the fella’s we had nothing to worry about he was still normal.

Story number two;

A man brought his girlfriend into the barracks so he could have sex without paying for a room. He got caught and was reduced in rank, and forfeited two thirds of is pay for three months.

While in the Corps I have seen most everything sexual. We still believe your business is your business, only the liberals are interested in your private business. Yes, if you were gay you could be kicked out of the military, if you were promiscuous, gay or not, you can get kicked out of the military. If you have oral or anal sex you can get kicked out, the point is someone has to see you. If you put it out there you cross the line. Only the gays seem to get noticed by the liberals. There have been gays in the military since General Washington got rid of the camp followers. For you younger people a camp follower were wives, and prostitutes that would set up camp next to the military camps so husbands could be with their wives and single men could have someone warm that does not need to shave next to you at night. When the bugle sounds get your butt back to your camp.

During WWII we were loaded with gays, and again no one cared. It was not until after WWII that the liberals in a ploy to show they have morality attacked the gay community. The reason why the gays in the Republican Party are called the log cabin something or other is because Abe Lincoln was reputed to be gay and as the first republican elected to the presidency they honor his memory. Do other republicans care? I don’t nor do I know of any that do object or care. My point is that liberals want it both ways, they want to attack gays when it suits them and embrace them during election time. I don’t agree with the gay lifestyle, I also don’t agree with polygamy. Neither one affects me. When I was shot my gay corpsman saved my life. He did his job well. Did he announce that he was gay? Nope. Did we care that he liked to dress up as a woman and have sex with men? Nope. And yes, he was the guy we went to when we had to turn our head and cough.

Liberals are finally understanding that the military does not care as long as they do their jobs to the best of their ability, don’t have sex where I can see it and don’t slip me the tongue when I need mouth to mouth. If that is gay bashing then I am a basher.

politics
14,249 views 40 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
What do you think of gays in the military?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
They should be allowed openly. But they shouldn't be allowed flirt on duty, or any sexual-related activities. Just like a male heterosexual officer shouldn't be flirting on duty, and that sort of thing.

Harassment by anyone over anyone should also be completely outlawed. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean he's gonna grab every other soldier's asses. These people have their own taste (just like we do).

I don't get the "Liberal" part, however.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't get the "Liberal" part, however.
End of quote


Experience Apparently.

It appears that is was never an issue (and I am using Paladin's experience only as the basis for my comment), until Liberals made it an issue. promiscous sex and flaunting rules appear to have always gotten you busted and thrown out of the military. Liberals decided that they had to make it a cause celebre' if you were gay and got caught. In otherwords, making some people more equal than others.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

I have no issues with gays, so long as they respect that I am not gay and don't hit on me knowingly. Other than that, I'm cool with them, they can actually be helpful in matters of getting to know girls sometimes. :)

In the military? Sure, why not?They deserve to give their lives for their country as much as anyone else does. Again, so long as they respect others, just as men would respect the the women in the military.

I do, however wonder, how effective a gay bomb would be if a military had a large % of the soldiers were already gay from day 1 of joining?

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do, however wonder, how effective a gay bomb would be if a military had a large % of the soldiers were already gay from day 1 of joining?
End of quote


As long as they keep professionnal, they don't start disrespecting the uniform, I don't have any problem with what would happen. I don't think gay orgies are as common as some media depict it to be, but it would definetly be a no-no. "Social evenings" are forbidden. You don't see social evenings for heterosexual, the Army should not allow any activities that seems aimed at "allowing nature do it's work".
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
In otherwords, making some people more equal than others.
End of quote


Doc, that is the thing that most people in the military object to. The same objection to women in the military. We are a team we live together, fight together, and die together what makes them special?

They should be allowed openly. But they shouldn't be allowed flirt on duty, or any sexual-related activities. Just like a male heterosexual officer shouldn't be flirting on duty, and that sort of thing.
End of quote


I don’t think you understand the military. The rules have been in place since we started to admit women into the services a century ago. Back then gays were okay just not women.
Heterosexuals are not allowed to serve openly why should gays?
It is against the UCMJ for anyone to flirt with a fellow service member. The rule is one up one down. You are not allowed to date anyone more than one rank above you or below you. While on duty none of that is allowed.

Harassment by anyone over anyone should also be completely outlawed.
End of quote


The military is smart enough to know that you can’t legislate the behavior of 17 to 25 year old kids. Think about it. There will be hazing, there will be people that make fun of people just because they are different. Gays do it all the time in the civilian world. They call het’s breeders. That is just one of their epithets they use for us. We use terms like fag or fruit. Big deal. It is going to happen deal with it. Are you suggesting that the people are strong enough to go to war, fight, kill, and die, but you can’t call them names because it will hurt their feelings?

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean he's gonna grab every other soldier's asses.
End of quote


This is a liberal fear. One I did not experience while I as in the service. Not one of my people and I had a platoon that I was responsible for with a known gay man as our sole medical person. The other navy corpsmen did not have a problem with him, so marines and navy people did not have a problem with this. I did not know any gays in the air force and the army is gay, oops sorry sibling rivalry.

I do, however wonder, how effective a gay bomb would be if a military had a large % of the soldiers were already gay from day 1 of joining?
End of quote


What do you mean?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think the problem is Paladin not everyone has your view point on the matter and would like the ability to remove someone from the military just because they are homosexual.

Merley because someone is of a different sexual orientation shouldn't be a reason for a dismisal, regardless of whether or not this goes on in practice, there just shouldn't be a law to accomodate such discrimination, i believe that was the crux of the liberals.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

As long as they keep professionnal, they don't start disrespecting the uniform, I don't have any problem with what would happen. I don't think gay orgies are as common as some media depict it to be, but it would definetly be a no-no. "Social evenings" are forbidden. You don't see social evenings for heterosexual, the Army should not allow any activities that seems aimed at "allowing nature do it's work".
End of quote


What do you mean?
End of quote


OK, I think my joke got lost in the question. I'll explain. From my understanding, the gay bomb was meant to turn normal men gay so that their sexual cravings for the other men in their units would distract them from the fighting. Now, considering some of these men would be gay from the beginning, this weapon, technically, not affect them and since they would be trained as soldiers would be able to continue fighting even after getting hit by the gay bomb. Guess it's cornier than I thought.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we allow gays in the military, we will be forever without the humorous situations created by heterosexual men pretending to be gay to get out of serving. Are we really ready for this? Have we really considered all the implications? I think not!

Also, I just want to mention that it's CONDUCT that should get someone kicked out of the military, not just claiming to be a homosexual.

Guess it's cornier than I thought.
End of quote


Horribly bad, Charles. Just awful. Let's just pretend it never happened...

From my understanding, the gay bomb was meant to turn normal men gay so that their sexual cravings for the other men in their units would distract them from the fighting.
End of quote


I think it was supposed to make the craving for other men so strong as to be irresistable... so it would just be worse.
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top

In 1966 I was recovering in a military hospital. I was part of a small group of patient-friends.  We would get together at times and, sometime during my stay, someone made a claim that one of the group was gay and making advances. This person did "hit" on me, but I declined to admit it to the investigators.  It wasn't a "liberal" issue.  It was a violation of the Uniforn Code of Military Justice.

Frankly, I think its a personal matter and the government needs to keep its nose out of it. Just my liberal point of view.  :)

 

See ya.

 

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think the problem is Paladin not everyone has your view point on the matter and would like the ability to remove someone from the military just because they are homosexual.
End of quote


If that were the case there would be a lot less people in the military. I have seen it used to get rid of someone when they could not find anything else to get rid of them on. Officer promotions are highly competitive and I have seen it used to knock someone out of the running. Hint that he or she is gay and they will quietly investigate, while being investigated you are not eligible for promotion until the matter is cleared up. Yes, its dirty tricks but effective when you are competing against 2000 other people for 12 positions. This one is a wife beater, that one is gay, the other one has a drug habit. Start the rumor and hope someone did not start one on you. usually the person starting the rumors gets caught and their career comes to an end.

Merley because someone is of a different sexual orientation shouldn't be a reason for a dismisal, regardless of whether or not this goes on in practice, there just shouldn't be a law to accomodate such discrimination, i believe that was the crux of the liberals.
End of quote


History lesson:
During WWII I think it was the Germans that found out a Swede diplomat was gay. They threatened to tell his mother if he did not help them. All during the war any information that was shared with Sweden was given to Germany. At the end of the war this was discovered and from that point on governments went on a gay hunt. The man betrayed his country to keep from breaking his mothers heart and that example proved that gays were a security risk. As the hunting went on people believed that if the government was against gays and the bible said it was a sin and you get the picture. Your own Harold Adrian Russell Philby was a prime example. His being gay was justification for getting rid of gays in Great Briton.

Yes, it was an over reaction on the part of our security forces but look at the damage done by people that were gay. Getting rid of them would lessen the risk. With the leaks that came out of MI6 or as we called it the sieve we were afraid to tell 6 what was gong to be in the Times the next day. It filtered into the military for the same reason and then into the civilian population.

It had nothing to do with hate or dislike or disagreement of their lifestyle it had to do with national security.

I'll explain. From my understanding, the gay bomb was meant to turn normal men gay so that their sexual cravings for the other men in their units would distract them from the fighting
End of quote


I get it now, I just never heard of a gay bomb until today.

Also, I just want to mention that it's CONDUCT that should get someone kicked out of the military, not just claiming to be a homosexual.
End of quote


We had a guy claim he was gay in boot camp. The drill instructor had us all line up and drop our trousers. The poor guy was told that if he was gay he should prove it by taking care of the recruits. He suddenly remembered he was straight.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
During WWII I think it was the Germans that found out a Swede diplomat was gay. They threatened to tell his mother if he did not help them. All during the war any information that was shared with Sweden was given to Germany. At the end of the war this was discovered and from that point on governments went on a gay hunt. The man betrayed his country to keep from breaking his mothers heart and that example proved that gays were a security risk. As the hunting went on people believed that if the government was against gays and the bible said it was a sin and you get the picture. Your own Harold Adrian Russell Philby was a prime example. His being gay was justification for getting rid of gays in Great Briton.
End of quote


That stupid. The reason there was a security risk wasn't because he's gay, but because he was ashamed of the situation. This problem isn't solved by forbidding gays in the military, but making people not to be ashamed to be gay, which is the core of the "gay agenda"
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
That stupid. The reason there was a security risk wasn't because he's gay, but because he was ashamed of the situation. This problem isn't solved by forbidding gays in the military, but making people not to be ashamed to be gay, which is the core of the "gay agenda"
End of quote


You forget that the paranoia during the cold war was in the extreme. If you were willing to hide the fact that you were gay what else were you hiding? After a while you had to hide the fact that you were gay because it did not matter if you were out of the closet you were a risk. The last 60 years things have mellowed a bit.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The last 60 years things have mellowed a bit
End of quote


I am not so sure anymore. The USA have adopted a pretty paranoi attitude toward foreigners.
Ever tried to step on a plane from outside the country that goes in USA? Even if it's merely for a connection, you're into 3-4 hours of custom hell BEFORE ENTERING THE PLANE.

I make it a point to avoid all connection in America. Not for any political reason, but because I prefer to be treated like a human being.
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top

I think Cikomry hit the nail on the head when he said the problem was not the mans sexual orientation, but his unwillingness to disclose it.

It's similar to people with financial difficulty working in certain areas of the MoD or Goverment, they are considered more subseptable to bribery and so on. Ultimatley however as attitudes towards homosexuality change, which they are, then so must public procedure change as well.

We entered a pardigm shift towards a more liberal view on sexuality quite some time ago, it merley takes time for the more conservative aspects of our society (which the military is probably the epiphany of) to adapt.

 

 

 

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
This problem isn't solved by forbidding gays in the military, but making people not to be ashamed to be gay, which is the core of the "gay agenda"
End of quote


YOu cannot "Make" anyone do anything. Sweden was and is a very open society when it comes to homosexuality. This man was not ashamed of being "outed" to the public, but to his mother. And unless you are going to institute forced re-education camps, you cannot change that attitude. It is not something that society is doing, but the individual.

The problem was that he was Gay - and that he was trying to please his mother.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
YOu cannot "Make" anyone do anything. Sweden was and is a very open society when it comes to homosexuality. This man was not ashamed of being "outed" to the public, but to his mother. And unless you are going to institute forced re-education camps, you cannot change that attitude. It is not something that society is doing, but the individual.
End of quote


hey, brainwashing camp sounds a lotta fun, but I don't think it's the real answer either ;)

But we can "make" the society grow ever more tolerant on gay behavior. It's not a question of encouraging the people to be gay, but simply to accept it's a perfectly natural thing.

Then, when that will happen and there will be no more gays in the closet, the problem will solve itself since they will get out of the genetic pool. Then since they'll be so few, people will maybe grow intolerant, and arrrgggg... damn cycle.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
But we can "make" the society grow ever more tolerant on gay behavior. It's not a question of encouraging the people to be gay, but simply to accept it's a perfectly natural thing.
End of quote


"Society" is a nice overarching concept that does not and cannot deal with individuals. in the case cited, it was not "society" but the person's belief (real or mistaken is irrelevant) of a person's acceptance. And no one can make a person accepting, except the person. His mother may have been accepting, we will never know. But his perception of her attitude was what caused the breach. And there is nothing that will or can change that.

hey, brainwashing camp sounds a lotta fun,
End of quote


I like to clean mine every month at least too. ;)
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I like to clean mine every month at least too.
End of quote


What do you take? I personnally love to read CommunistTimes, just to be sure I remain the way I am  :D 

/joke
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
But we can "make" the society grow ever more tolerant on gay behavior.
End of quote


No, my friend you can’t make people more accepting. All you can do is force people to not admit that they are less accepting. Christians, Jew’s and Muslims are one religion where homosexuality is a sin. All sin is bad and as long as they believe in the one true God and that God as said that homosexuality is a sin you will have people that won’t accept the lifestyle. To change their minds you will have to trample over their rights to give special rights to the homosexuals.

It is like racism. It has been ostracized for decades but it still exists because liberals are inherently racist in their beliefs. Liberals as a group also hate homosexuality they hide their beliefs by using politically correct words and code words but the hate is still there. Legislation does not work because they are taught to divide and hate as children and they are also taught to hide that hate with code words. I see it in the children’s eyes when they are still too young to lie well. I see it in their parent’s faces when they are forced to submit to a non-white with a badge or a gay person with a badge.

I work for DHS and observing the films of people being questioned by Hispanics, gays, or blacks, the hate is there and the level of disgust when they are forced to submit to someone they believe is beneath them is amazing. Watching their facial expressions and body language change is brutal and swift. Send in a white person and the relief is just as clear. The same rules apply and when it is someone they hate they fight the rules and when it is someone they fell they should respect they accept the rules. These liberal types are the first ones to be insulted when called racist but their actions say that they are. I never had any thoughts of racism and have never cared what a person’s race is. I had to be taught by the government what racism is and how to spot it because I was so ignorant. I do behavioral analysis now and teach how to spot terrorists. I hate that I now know how to spot a racist because the attitudes are the same as racist. And it now is a glaring sign everywhere I go I feel dirty when I come home from work because of it.

My point is that this will be with us forever and we will never be able to get rid of it as long as we have idiots that believe they are better than everyone else.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
What do you take?
End of quote


I listen to Randi Rhodes. ;)
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I listen to Randi Rhodes.
End of quote


Listening to her is like putting your hands in fire. It's a reminder of how bad it can be if you get in completely.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Horribly bad, Charles. Just awful. Let's just pretend it never happened...
End of quote


Well I'll look at it this way (as I heard from someone else) Einstein did not fail 100 times before he invented the lightbulb, he just found 100 ways how not to make a lightbulb.

Edit notes: Sorry, meant Edison, not Eistein.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Edit notes: Sorry, meant Edison, not Eistein.
End of quote


I thought the faux pas was on purpose. It added to the joke. ;)
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I thought the faux pas was on purpose. It added to the joke.
End of quote


Nah, my blunders are usually not on purpose. LOL>