# Obama vows to end restrictions on gays in military



## tsunami

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, speaking on the eve of a major gay-rights march, told gay supporters on Saturday he would fight for their causes and renewed a pledge to end restrictions on their service in the U.S. military. 
To a standing ovation at a dinner held by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group, Obama said he would "end 'don't ask, don't tell,' That's my commitment to you." 
Obama, who was referring to the policy prohibiting openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military, was seeking to shore up his support among gays and lesbians who backed him strongly during last year's presidential campaign. washingtonpost.com


----------



## Boston Irish Lass

I have never understood what being able to display your sexual preference has to do with being in the military. In all honesty I ask what the concern is?



> "It was the kind of feel-good speech we are used to from the president," Hudson said. "It lacked any specific details on fulfilling his promises and he failed to say anything new at all."


This is pretty funny though


----------



## jedediah1

obama's army

ok girlsss! for the ssandy placess we have got thiss gorgeouss new camouflage










buttt, if we have to go to the jungle, it's gonna be very humid, so this pattern comes in fishnet or lace girlss!










don't forget your galoshes in case it rains


----------



## Boston Irish Lass

Let me rephrase that. What's wrong with the don't ask don't tell policy? Who you sleep with is nobody's business anyway.


----------



## Rock

And the hits just keep on coming..........


----------



## TacEntry

That nitwit has no place making any major policy decisions on the military. PUSA or not - he never served - he should leave it alone the cawksukkah!


----------



## DJM1968

I'll probably get hell for this, but:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI"]YouTube- Monty Python's Military Fairy[/nomedia]


----------



## BLUE BLOOD

tsunami said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, speaking on the eve of a major gay-rights march, told gay supporters on Saturday he would fight for their causes and renewed a pledge to end restrictions on their service in the U.S. military.
> To a standing ovation at a dinner held by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group, Obama said he would "end 'don't ask, don't tell,' That's my commitment to you."
> Obama, who was referring to the policy prohibiting openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military, was seeking to shore up his support among gays and lesbians who backed him strongly during last year's presidential campaign. washingtonpost.com


Let me tell ya, that picture of Koz, 7C and Kwflat has really got me questioning my sexual pref. right now.


----------



## OfficerObie59

Boston Irish Lass said:


> Let me rephrase that. What's wrong with the don't ask don't tell policy? Who you sleep with is nobody's business anyway.


As an Iraq vet with 16 months in theater, I say let gays serve openly. I actually find it a bit disingenuous that some people possibly think homosexuality can undermine the most respectable and powerful military in the world.

My unit had at least at least two people who were latently homosexual, one of whom was later awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart for taking IED shapnel to the face and getting a ruptured eardrum in combat. She was such a good team leader that the issue was overlooked--there's no way the leadership didn't know. If her team had another leader that day, there's a good chance the situation would have ended with much more bloodshed to her team.

If you ask me, the main arguments against changing "Don't ask, don't tell" are based on long-ago debunked and presently non-acceptable stereotypes of flaming, limp-wristed, homosexual men who are are who will be afraid to touch a gun and will go around fondling their fellow soldiers after lights out. If they're really that way, I'm sure basic training will wash them out, and sex between soldiers shouldn't--and, with some execpetions, IS NOT--tolerated between heterosexuals in the military, and shouldn't be tolerated for homosexuals, either.

And if by some fluke, that behavior does appear, I think the norms of dicipline in military service will regulate it just fine. I don't know that even if it's allowed, many servicemembers would want to admit a homosexual orientation anyway.

The only issue I have is that if along with changing "Don't ask, don't tell" there is a push for entitlement to any additonal protections due to a homsexual orientation. Doing that would create major discipline issues and different classes of soldiers.



tsunami said:


>


This is a veiled effort by the women of Masscops to reopen the "Hot Guys Thread". Don't think you're fooling anyone. 8)


----------



## Johnny Law

This doesn't mean we'll be taking warm showers till the wee hours of the morning


----------



## L4G81

OK - gay or not .. the last guy on the right's body is hott 

My opinion on this? Don't ask don't tell is fine. There are PLENTY of lesbian females in the military, and that's okay? Why not for the men then? If they can handle the physical and mental aspects of training, do their job and serve our country as good as any other soldier as long as they keep their hands to themselves then I don't see the issue ....



tsunami said:


>


----------



## Boston Irish Lass

L4G81 said:


> OK - gay or not .. the last guy on the right's body is hott
> 
> My opinion on this? Don't ask don't tell is fine. There are PLENTY of lesbian females in the military, and that's okay? Why not for the men then? If they can handle the physical and mental aspects of training, do their job and serve our country as good as any other soldier as long as they keep their hands to themselves then I don't see the issue ....


Well that's it right there. It's why I was confused about the problem with the current policy. Sexuality doesn't belong there, the ability to do the job does.


----------



## fra444

So does this mean that Obama is thinking about joining the military and doesn't want to give them a reason not to accept him?!?!?!


----------



## OfficerObie59

Boston Irish Lass said:


> Well that's it right there. It's why I was confused about the problem with the current policy. Sexuality doesn't belong there, the ability to do the job does.


My issue is that if you have a leader who is a manager-type rules person concerned about their own military career, he's not gonna risk what he's worked for to stand up for someone who by law and regulation shouldn't be in his unit anayways.

The result is that otherwise competent troops and leaders get sectioned out when they're outed, possibly through no fault of their own with another troop with a grudge or someone eyeing for their slot.

Not only that, but their section is on their military records for the rest of their lives as an other than honorable discharge, which throws up red flags to every potential employer to whom they will ever go looking for work. And if they want to explain why, they have to out themselves to whomever they're applying to.


----------



## 94c

Boston Irish Lass said:


> Let me rephrase that. What's wrong with the don't ask don't tell policy? Who you sleep with is nobody's business anyway.


Exactly. I really don't care if your gay or not. Just don't tell the world so that some day you can play the "gay card".

"Look at me, Look at me, I'm gay."

Go get your attention elsewhere.


----------



## Boston Irish Lass

OfficerObie59 said:


> The result is that otherwise competent troops and leaders get sectioned out when they're outed, possibly through no fault of their own with another troop with a grudge or someone eyeing for their slot.


Would it not have to be proven or is the implication enough? That is indeed an awful picture you paint for someone who did nothing wrong.


----------



## 263FPD

Got to justify the Nobel you know.


----------



## 94c

263FPD said:


> Got to justify the Nobel you know.


Another handout for a black man.


----------



## Killjoy

> My unit had at least at least two people who were latently homosexual, one of whom was later awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart for taking IED shapnel to the face and getting a ruptured eardrum in combat. She was such a good team leader that the issue was overlooked--there's no way the leadership didn't know. If her team had another leader that day, there's a good chance the situation would have ended with much more bloodshed to her team.


Agree 100%. Served in the AOR with a couple of people who were probably homosexual, but since it didn't affect their performance, I didn't see how it was any business of mine, or the military's for that matter. If someone chooses to serve their country honorably, then they shouldn't be forced to live without honor, living a lie, deceiving their comrades. Volunteering to serve is sacrifice enough.

I disagree with our "beloved" leader on almost every other issue, but in this case, I grudgingly agree with him.


----------



## OfficerObie59

Boston Irish Lass said:


> Would it not have to be proven or is the implication enough? That is indeed an awful picture you paint for someone who did nothing wrong.


This is the statute: US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

While the statute requires a propensity for "acts", investigations can be launched on mere suspicion.

Don't get me wrong; I apologize if I sound preachy--I just can think of a number of people whose service would have been cut short had this been more rigorously enforced (as is often the case) in my own unit. Hell, my own reserve commanding general came out after his retirement.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

I have issues with homosexuals serving openly in the military, particularly frontline units. You have a large group of testosterone charged young men that tend to be very defensive about their sexual identity. As individuals they may not 'have a problem' with gays but as a group its asking for disaster.AS an NCO you can order your men to be more tolerant but the reality is its likely that that openly gay soldier is going to have an accident. There is enough shit going on in any team/squad/platoon that you dont need to add another problem.
The problem I have with the 'dont ask dont tell' is that someone keeping secrets, particurly officers and NCOs with clearances are open to blackmail and extrortion.
Lastly, am I the only one left that just think its wrong and fucked up to be gay?


----------



## Boston Irish Lass

> its likely that that openly gay soldier is going to have an accident


From never having been in the military please take my comments for what they are, genuine questions.

Is it a reality that gay soldiers, knowing they'll be whooped, are commonly trying to push themselves, in that manner, on other soldiers? I have a stereotypical pink boa, limp wrister in mind and simply can't get my mind around them being able to handle boot camp never mind actual battle.



> Lastly, am I the only one left that just think its wrong and fucked up to be gay?


If you're not involved with my family, children or animals I could give a hoot who you roll with.

What I DON'T like, and take absolute offense to, are men who think they really are a woman because they throw on makeup and a skirt. I don't care what a man has nipped or tucked, just because you're spineless, enjoy pastels, like to cry and be publicly emotional does not make you a woman. It makes you a pussy. Sorry for the rant/language but it tweaks me so.

:sb:


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

Boston Irish Lass said:


> From never having been in the military please take my comments for what they are, genuine questions.
> 
> Is it a reality that gay soldiers, knowing they'll be whooped, are commonly trying to push themselves, in that manner, on other soldiers? I have a stereotypical pink boa, limp wrister in mind and simply can't get my mind around them being able to handle boot camp never mind actual battle.
> 
> :sb:


 No, I dont think that gay soldiers would push themselvs onto other soldiers. Im not talking about what gays might do. AS many have said there are serving gay soldiers and always have been and always will be. What Im talking about is how a young combat soldiers interact with openly gay soldiers. I know more then a few gay men and by no means are they limpwristed or stero typical, I even consider a couple my friends.I still wouldnt want them to serve in the military.


----------



## fra444

Boston Irish Lass said:


> If you're not involved with my animals I could give a hoot who you roll with.:sb:


 Sorry BIL but I did hear from Andy and Snipe that you have a HOTT and WILLING Great Dane!!!!


----------



## Boston Irish Lass

But isn't that the point of don't ask *don't tell*? If they are gay nobody should be finding out about that if nobody is telling it. If they are telling it then they showed themselves the door yes?

I guess I'm confused about why people in general think it's a bad thing (the policy). Seems to be pretty fair.


----------



## fra444

Boston Irish Lass said:


> But isn't that the point of don't ask *don't tell*? If they are gay nobody should be finding out about that if nobody is telling it. If they are telling it then they showed themselves the door yes?
> 
> I guess I'm confused about why people in general think it's a bad thing (the policy). Seems to be pretty fair.


 Because Americans have become obsessed with flaunting everything they do to everyone!! They demand the right to rub what they do or want in your face!!


----------



## Boston Irish Lass

fra444 said:


> Sorry BIL but I did hear from Andy and Snipe that you have a HOTT and WILLING Great Dane!!!!


I will NOT hook you up Fra. I like you and you're funny, put you'll have to troll for a poke elsewhere.

Oh, and that's Great Irish Wolfhound to you sir.


----------



## fra444

Boston Irish Lass said:


> I will NOT hook you up Fra. I like you and you're funny, put you'll have to troll for a poke elsewhere.
> 
> Oh, and that's Great Irish Wolfhound to you sir.


 OH SURE!!! You'll pimp out your dog to Snipe and Andy but not ME!?!?! FINE!!! There has to be a HOTT POODLE in my neighborhood somewhere.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

Boston Irish Lass said:


> But isn't that the point of don't ask *don't tell*? If they are gay nobody should be finding out about that if nobody is telling it. If they are telling it then they showed themselves the door yes?
> 
> I guess I'm confused about why people in general think it's a bad thing (the policy). Seems to be pretty fair.


 That IS the poiint of the current policy. Obama is going to change it. Like I said my problem with the current policy is that it opens up people to blackmail an cohersion.


----------



## Boston Irish Lass

:L: ... Very good Fra


----------



## Nuke_TRT

fra444 said:


> OH SURE!!! You'll pimp out your dog to Snipe and Andy but not ME!?!?! FINE!!! There has to be a HOTT POODLE in my neighborhood somewhere.


Stbrn, says all the poodles run when your around fra, words already out.


----------



## Kilvinsky

DJM1968 said:


> I'll probably get hell for this, but:
> 
> YouTube - Monty Python's Military Fairy


Hell, no, you can't go to hell for something that funny.

BTW, how did this go from being about Gays in the Military to beastiality? Interesting segway. I know, that's not how it's spelled, but I wanted give a tip of the hat to Snipe.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

Kilvinsky said:


> Hell, no, you can't go to hell for something that funny.
> 
> BTW, how did this go from being about Gays in the Military to beastiality? Interesting segway. I know, that's not how it's spelled, but I wanted give a tip of the hat to Snipe.


 MassCops ADHD


----------



## jedediah1

they aren't allowed at the Philosophy Department of the University of Woolamaloo









or so i've heard....

Rule one - no pooftahs. 
Rule two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abbos in any way whatsoever - if there's anybody watching. 
Rule three - no pooftahs. 
Rule four - I don't want to catch anyone not drinking in their room after lights out. Rule five - no pooftahs. 
Rule six - there is _no_ rule six! 
Rule seven - no pooftahs.

That concludes the reading of the rules, Bruce.


----------



## wpd0284

Now please explain, if all the gays want is equal rights then why do they insist on flaunting there preferences on everyone else? They say all they want to do is blend in but there actions prove otherwise and this bafoon of a president is willing to give them anything they want because he sees them as future votes.


----------



## 263FPD

This id just more BS from the President who's agenda thus far has gone in to the toilet. While he did get the majority vote from all these idiots "Hoping" for a "Change", people in general know what is and isn't good for them i.e. his Health Reform. So how do you keep your supporters interested and maintain their support? This is all smoke and mirrors, folks. There has been some stuff in the media about people violating the "Don't ask don't tell" which got them a speedy discharge from the armed forces. I agree with JAP that this will open up a huge can of worms. If you have openly gay soldiers in the unit where the majority of the soldiers are heterosexual, there will be violence.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

He just barely got a majority and I think that there were alot of questionable votes...some precints in Pennsylvania had 105% turnouts.


----------



## OfficerObie59

JAP, I think your opinion rasies some valid concerns that will most certainly need to be addressed as the Obot goes forward. 

At a minimum in the interest of being prgamatic, I'd like to see the procedures for discharges under DADT chnage so that those serving can keep their benefits (retirement, VA, etc.) that they would have gotten had they left the service under normal circumstances, similar to when a servicemember is let go for failure to advance.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

I dont have a problem with what youre saying relative to discharges Obie as long as they served honorably.


----------



## Rock

94c said:


> Exactly. I really don't care if your gay or not.
> "Look at me, Look at me, I'm gay."


94c.....I am quoting you correctly right? :moon::icon_hum:


----------



## dcs2244

jedediah1 said:


> they aren't allowed at the Philosophy Department of the University of Woolamaloo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or so i've heard....
> 
> Rule one - no pooftahs.
> Rule two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abbos in any way whatsoever - if there's anybody watching.
> Rule three - no pooftahs.
> Rule four - I don't want to catch anyone not drinking in their room after lights out. Rule five - no pooftahs.
> Rule six - there is _no_ rule six!
> Rule seven - no pooftahs.
> 
> That concludes the reading of the rules, Bruce.


'Mind if we call you "Bruce" ?'


----------



## LGriffin

justanotherparatrooper said:


> I have issues with homosexuals serving openly in the military, particularly frontline units. You have a large group of testosterone charged young men that tend to be very defensive about their sexual identity. As individuals they may not 'have a problem' with gays but as a group its asking for disaster.AS an NCO you can order your men to be more tolerant but the reality is its likely that that openly gay soldier is going to have an accident. There is enough shit going on in any team/squad/platoon that you dont need to add another problem.
> The problem I have with the 'dont ask dont tell' is that someone keeping secrets, particurly officers and NCOs with clearances are open to blackmail and extrortion.
> Lastly, am I the only one left that just think its wrong and fucked up to be gay?


You raise some very good points, Jap.


----------



## 11-BRAVO

If you don't sleep on your back, your buddy will. B:


----------



## Omega

My wife, a co-worker, and myself had a lengthy discussion on this issue over lunch today. My wife's suggestion was to segregate the gays into their own barricks, which I could see resulting in a lawsuit and causing many more problems.

My personal opinion is that whomever wants to serve should be allowed to. If they cannot make it through boot camp, they will be weeded out, if they grope others they will either get kicked out or dealt with in private. 

As far as Don't ask, Don't tell, the problem comes from the issues of keeping secret. If someone is outed, then they face the problems of blackmail or discharge. The main argument that I hear is, straight people can be seen in public dating, making out, whatever, gays however have got to keep everything secret. I do not believe it is a matter of wanting the attention for being gay as some have suggested, but more an issue of being who they are. They argue that it is not right that straight men and women in the armed forces are allowed to be seen in public dating while they have to keep their preference secret.

Now a little bit of my background, I am not gay, as I mentioned I am happily married to a member of the opposite sex. But you can call me gay if you want to. I can handle a some newb hazing. I do howevre have a gay brother and a gay brother-in-law. Neither of which would ever join the armed forces, and I can't say that I would really want either of them fighting beside me. Well, maybe my brother-in-law, he is very good at shooting rifles. But having gay members of the family, I have met several gay men that I would trust my life with if needed. Many who are stronger and tougher than myself and could many senseless just about anyone who messed with them. Many who are more masculine than many straight guys I know.


----------



## OfficerObie59

I respect you jumping right into the fray after 6 posts, but...


Omega said:


> I can handle a some newb hazing.


Really? You sure about that?


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

Let me be clear, Im talking about the straight men in a unit not any gays and very specifically YOUNG men. I think older NCO's and officers tend to be more tolerant because theyare older. Im also speaking in general terms...there are exceptions.
The military is not a social experiment or lab, it is not a democracy and has rules and regulations far different then society (examples being you can go to jail for lying, adultery, not showing up for work,etc...)


----------



## sgthoskins

My .02 on the issue on why I think the policy shouldn't change. I posted this on my forum a few months ago.



sgthoskins said:


> That was the point I and others were trying to make. Infantry units are comprised of guys who for the most part are all Alpha males and want to kill as many bad people as possible. Not all, but a decent amount simply don't tolerate gays. Right or wrong I don't care. I can't force someone to accept a lifestyle they don't agree with. However when you start to sacrifice the effectiveness of a combat platoon because of one guy rather than processing out that one guy that is a huge problem.
> 
> The REMF's who aren't out kicking in doors and using a secondary weapon to drop a bad guy are probably a little more tolerant of the gay lifestyle. I don't have a problem with gays serving, but if one person is going to be a ***** in the armor because 15 other guys can't stand the fact that he is gay, well then that one person needs to go.


----------



## sgthoskins

mikemac64 said:


> Realistically, they are are plenty of gays serving now. Even in my beloved Marine Corps. Would anyone really rat a guy out if he was a good troop, pulled his weight, and stepped up when he was supposed to?


I don't think so, but to be honest as much as I didn't care there were plenty of other guys who did. Who am I to tell them they are wrong because they don't like the lifestyle?

I don't care either way but since I am no longer active duty my opinion is worth what you paid for it. I do know I believe in the old adage "If it ain't broke don't fix it." :t:


----------



## DJM1968

Omega said:


> I can handle a some newb hazing.


Famous Last Words.


----------



## pahapoika

"give'm an inch and they'll take a mile"

once concessions are made for "gay" soldiers then it will turn into an entitlement program just like any other feel good nonsense.

have never served, but get the feeling the government treats soldiers like lab rats.

conduct some weird experiment on them and see what happens


----------



## Omega

pahapoika said:


> "give'm an inch and they'll take a mile"
> 
> once concessions are made for "gay" soldiers then it will turn into an entitlement program just like any other feel good nonsense.


Let me make sure I'm understaning you correctly, you really think they are asking for too much to be treated like every other soldier in the armed forces? Just like everyone else, they signed up to defend their country and you think its too much to ask that they do not have to hide who they are?


----------



## DEI8

I am not a gay basher of any sorts. Have relatives that I get along with who are openly gay. I just dont get it, there are males and females for a reason. We are not asexual, so if all were gay the human population would be no more. Wether you believe in the Bible or evolution the sexes all have there purpose.


----------



## Sentinel

Omega said:


> I can handle a some newb hazing.


From your I love pot thread:



Omega said:


> I tend to lean more towards the left on the majority of issues.


Oh man, I think you came to the wrong place "bud".



Omega said:


> But in addition to high times I also read numerous other forums....


Liberal pot smoker stumbles on cop forum... Oh this oughta be fun!!

:hmmm:


----------



## kwflatbed

This has been hashed over before.

http://www.masscops.com/forums/military-news/55574-court-upholds-dont-ask-dont-tell.html


----------



## Omega

Sentinel said:


> From your I love pot thread:
> 
> Liberal pot smoker stumbles on cop forum... Oh this oughta be fun!!
> 
> :hmmm:


I can take the hazing, all that you can throw at me and more!

Just to clarify a few points obviously you missed.

1) At no point did I post a topic about loving Pot...As I recall the topic name was "1st Post...Legal Pot Tomorrow?" not screw you guys, tomorrow I can smoke all the pot I want in the open and their isn't sh*T you can Do about it, HahAhAHa!

2) Not sure if you actually read the discussion or if you are jumping to conclusions about what was said, but either way you obviously missed the parts where I said I did not smoke pot so it does not matter to me one way or another. I also stated that I believe that everyone should have the right to do anything they choose, and the Government should have little to say about how we live our lives or what we do with our live, *as long as it does not endanger others*.

3. In the discussion, I mentioned that I was looking through posts on the gunbroker.com forums when I came across H. 2929 While researching further (it's called googling) I came across the hightimes.com article.

4. I tend to lean to the left, meaning I tend to side more with liberals, not that I am a liberal myself. I tend to think of myself as a moderate and I am registered as an Independent if you need to know.

5. Regardless if I was a pot smoker or not, I did not stumble onto these forums, I came here seeking information and the views of law enforcement, perhaps even a nice discussion, which so far only a few seem to want to engage in.

Now come back when you have something with some substance you wish to discuss


----------



## Rock

Omega said:


> Now come back when you have something with some substance you wish to discuss


----------



## kwflatbed

"Now come back when you have something with some substance you wish to discuss :smile: "

Smartasses don't last long on MC.


----------



## Omega

Not being a smartass, I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em!


----------



## sgthoskins

Omega said:


> Let me make sure I'm understaning you correctly, you really think they are asking for too much to be treated like every other soldier in the armed forces? Just like everyone else, they signed up to defend their country and you think its too much to ask that they do not have to hide who they are?


I'm sorry I must have missed where you posted the info, what branch of the U.S. Military did you serve in? And what line unit was it?


----------



## kwflatbed

sgthoskins said:


> I'm sorry I must have missed where you posted the info, what branch of the U.S. Military did you serve in? And what line unit was it?


I think he may be a part of "Don't ask don't tell"

My opinion is still the same,as a combat vet the gays have no place on the front lines and no one needs to be sharing a foxhole or anything else with them period.


----------



## jettsixx

*Re: Obama vows to end _______military

Nothing to do with the thread really, just wondering how long until I see this title of a thread.*


----------



## Omega

I never served in the military. I speak from the gay point of view. As I have said earlier, I am not gay but I do have a gay brother and a gay brother-in-law. 

KW- Why don't you ask for a whites only army? Whats the difference between, Gays, Blacks, Jews, Asians, and Hispanics? Why can't they fight if they are able to meet all requirements? Please explain further why they have no rights on the front line and please provide valid ponts not just, because its not natural, or it will make the real, "manly" men feel uncomfortable, blah blah, blah


----------



## kwflatbed

Unless you were in the military and served during combat you would never
understand and it would be a waste of time and space to try and explain it
to someone to dense to understand how the military works.


----------



## Omega

It seems to me you have no good reason for your views, so the forum is all yours to explain it to me. I assure you good sir that I am not too dense to understand...I am all ears!


----------



## kwflatbed

Be a man and join the military and find out,it's not to late
to join and serve your country.


----------



## Omega

kwflatbed said:


> Be a man and join the military and find out,it's not to late
> to join and serve your country.


I would gladly serve if the war was just, but so far in my lifetime, there has yet to be a good reason for fighting. With the possible exception of the first gulf war, but I was 8 when it was goin on so I do not know the politics behind it. now that we have established that I am not going to join the Armed services to discover why gays should not be permitted, the ball is in your court to explain it to me, if you have a valid reason. All I have gotten from our conversation was that you have no real reason for your views except that, plain and simple, you do not like the gays. Please correct me if I am wrong.

On that note, I have to get to bed and we will continue this conversation tomorrow!


----------



## kwflatbed

My conversation with you is over,you proved you have no balls to defend this country with your last statement.
Go play on one of the military sites with your views and see how long you
will last there.


----------



## sgthoskins

Omega said:


> I never served in the military. I speak from the gay point of view. As I have said earlier, I am not gay but I do have a gay brother and a gay brother-in-law.
> 
> KW- Why don't you ask for a whites only army? Whats the difference between, Gays, Blacks, Jews, Asians, and Hispanics? Why can't they fight if they are able to meet all requirements? Please explain further why they have no rights on the front line and please provide valid ponts not just, because its not natural, or it will make the real, "manly" men feel uncomfortable, blah blah, blah


Listen up cock holster.

Not one person in here said a homosexual couldn't fight. That isn't the issue, if you could pull your head out of your ass for a few seconds I'll try to break it down for you as simple as I can. After all your gay brother is probably a badass who has served so you should hopefully grasp the issue.

Our military is voluntary. This means unless you have a double digit IQ you get to pick your MOS(Military Occupational Specialty), your job. The men who choose to go through infantry school, advanced infantry school, and look forward to squeezing the life out of Hadji with their bare hands are typically not the type of men who accept the **** life style. I'm sorry if you don't want to accept that but it's factual.

The effectiveness of a combat unit relies heavily on unit cohesion.
When men that are trained to kill people are forced to be around other men who live a lifestyle they don't agree with, that cohesion erodes. When unit cohesion erodes people die. It's a pretty straight concept.

I don't give a shit about any gay person serving, however if that gay person is a distraction to the combat effectiveness that person has to go, gay or not.

Since you haven't been in a foreign country listening to the sonic crack of a 7.62 round above your head you probably won't understand what I just tried explained. I honestly don't give a rats ass if you do, I just figured I would save Harry the aggravation of you poking a stick at him. Most of us know what happens when you poke a bear with a stick.


----------



## Omega

sgthoskins said:


> Our military is voluntary. This means unless you have a double digit IQ you get to pick your MOS(Military Occupational Specialty), your job. The men who choose to go through infantry school, advanced infantry school, and look forward to squeezing the life out of Hadji with their bare hands are typically not the type of men who accept the **** life style. I'm sorry if you don't want to accept that but it's factual.


So now, with out the name calling, not that I mind it, Cock Holster was a good one, but assuming they are choose a field where they are not "queezing the life out of Hadji with their bare hands" why should they still have to keep their lifestyle a secret? What if they choose to be a field medic? Are most wounded soldiers going to not accept help because their medic is gay? Or what about those who fly UAV, or computer programmers, Veterinarians, or the countless other jobs that does not require testerone and adrenaline?

Now just to clarify, because some have problems with reading comprehension, I did not say that I would not enlist, I just do not feel that this current war is just. If it was WWI or WWII, it woul dbe a different story.


----------



## Boston Irish Lass

Omega said:


> So now, with out the name calling, not that I mind it, Cock Holster was a good one, but assuming they are choose a field where they are not "queezing the life out of Hadji with their bare hands" why should they still have to keep their lifestyle a secret?


The simple fact that you feel it should absolutely be someone's right to discuss what they like in their arse is why this is an issue.

Why are you so adamant that a guy should be able to discuss his love of sac cases in the military? WHY would that be the place for it? That's like picking a pro-abortion stance at a Catholic bible study. Maybe you do believe it, but you wouldn't spout it there.

A gay man shouldn't join the military because he thinks it's a single's club. His sexual preference has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with being in the military and THAT'S why he's no need to go on about it there.

Perfect example for you. I am Irish Catholic. When I am in the states my crucifix is displayed proudly. When I'm in Belfast it's tucked in my sweater to avoid problems. At no time do I feel like less of a Catholic because I'm not flaunting it there and forcing people to feel tension about it. Nobody needs to know because it's nobody's business.


----------



## rocksy1826

Dear Omega,

Professionalism in ALL jobs deems it inappropriate to go rub your sex life in your coworkers faces. While it does happen, you are not supposed to go to your place of employment and tell people who you're doing and how it went. Straight or gay.

The amount of nonsense, time, and drama that goes into investigating gripes people make when they're being hypersensitive about something that NOBODY ELSE CARES ABOUT (which is why they don't give a crap to hear about it) is time that can't be afforded in serious situations. 

Gays aren't asking to be treated like every other soldier. You're asking to be put on a pedestal solely because you are homosexual. "Don't ask, Don't tell" strikes me as simply a reminder to keep your personal shit personal. 

This world is way too full of people who think that everyone needs to know who they're screwing, why and when.



now, as for you....
You aren't even planning to join the military. In fact, you consider the military to only be a consideration if your personal whims agree with the present conflict. Selfish, much? If we all did that, this country would be screwed.

You also aren't even gay! You're just another whiner who is looking for a reason to bitch. 

Oh, I'm sorry... you have gay relatives. That's your excuse. Next, you can start bitching about how rough women have it because your mother is a woman. Or tell us how midgets need to be protected (and that's your concern because you saw a midget on the street yesterday).

How about you go do something productive? Go plant a tree or something. Is that liberal enough?


----------



## Johnny Law

Ok, ok, this seems like the perfect thread for me to come out. I admit it, I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.


----------



## sgthoskins

USMCMP5811 said:


> Funny, I heard you were the last living dinosaur, you're called a megasoreass. :mrgreen:


That's only because his boyfriend was built like a Tuna Can. :t:


----------



## jettsixx

USMCMP5811 said:


> Funny, I heard you were the last living dinosaur, you're called a megasoreass. :mrgreen:


I thought it was a lickalotapus.


----------



## Omega

Boston Irish Lass said:


> The simple fact that you feel it should absolutely be someone's right to discuss what they like in their arse is why this is an issue.
> 
> Why are you so adamant that a guy should be able to discuss his love of sac cases in the military? WHY would that be the place for it?
> 
> A gay man shouldn't join the military because he thinks it's a single's club. His sexual preference has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with being in the military and THAT'S why he's no need to go on about it there.


 No one said they need to discuss it yet everyone assumes that they are going to be like "Now that were allowed to be openly gay, let's talk about our gay escapades!" The point I am trying to make is, if one group needs to not talk about their relationships then that rule should apply to everyone, but it seems like straight people are allowed to discuss their sexuality openly. If you want to run it like a business it needs to be all or nothing. Basically what they are doing it picking which rules applies to which groups.



rocksy1826 said:


> Dear Omega,
> 
> Professionalism in ALL jobs deems it inappropriate to go rub your sex life in your coworkers faces. While it does happen, you are not supposed to go to your place of employment and tell people who you're doing and how it went. Straight or gay.
> 
> Gays aren't asking to be treated like every other soldier. You're asking to be put on a pedestal solely because you are homosexual. "Don't ask, Don't tell" strikes me as simply a reminder to keep your personal shit personal.
> 
> You also aren't even gay! You're just another whiner who is looking for a reason to bitch.
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry... you have gay relatives. That's your excuse. Next, you can start bitching about how rough women have it because your mother is a woman. Or tell us how midgets need to be protected (and that's your concern because you saw a midget on the street yesterday).
> 
> How about you go do something productive? Go plant a tree or something. Is that liberal enough?


 Professionalism is exactly what it comes down to, too bad only one group is made to follow the rules or face punishment. You are right though, I am not gay but regardless of that fact, I feel that it is necessary to stick up for the rights of others (everyone should feel that way) gay straight, men women, black, white, jews, etc (except midgets, I just find them creepy and when I see them on the street I tend to move to the other side). If we did not stand up for others the world would be a mess. If no one stuck up for others where would the US and World be? Blacks and women would have no rights, the Chinese would still be oppressed in America, the Jews worldwide would have been nearly obliterated from existence. Look what happened to the Native American because no one stood up for their rights. Hey were Europens, have this blanket infested with small pox, and thank you for the land. To take it one step further look at Operation Iraqi Freedom where we removed a tyrant from leadership. So please call me a liberal for standing up for the rights of others, I can still sleep at night.

P.S. this is all in good fun and I do not want anyone getting too upset. Believe it or not I am a fun loving individual. Have a drink on me!:t:


----------



## Boston Irish Lass

Omega said:


> No one said they need to discuss it yet everyone assumes that they are going to be like "Now that were allowed to be openly gay, let's talk about our gay escapades!" The point I am trying to make is, if one group needs to not talk about their relationships then that rule should apply to everyone, but it seems like straight people are allowed to discuss their sexuality openly. If you want to run it like a business it needs to be all or nothing. Basically what they are doing it picking which rules applies to which groups.


Your opinion smacks of the jackass who sued Hooters because they wouldn't hire him.

Let me ask you Omega, what should a gay man be able to do with his lifestyle in the military so that he can live openly? What rights, serving openly as a gay man, should he be entitled to? How should he be able to express his gayness?



Omega said:


> P.S. this is all in good fun and I do not want anyone getting too upset. Believe it or not I am a fun loving individual. Have a drink on me!:t:


Fair play to you :alcoholi:



Johnny Law said:


> Ok, ok, this seems like the perfect thread for me to come out. I admit it, I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.


----------



## Johnny Law

USMCMP5811 said:


> Funny, I heard you were the last living dinosaur, you're called a megasoreass. :mrgreen:


Kenny you bastard, you weren't supposed to tell anyone your pet name for me!


----------



## Omega

Boston Irish Lass said:


> Your opinion smacks of the jackass who sued Hooters because they wouldn't hire him.
> 
> Let me ask you Omega, what should a gay man be able to do with his lifestyle in the military so that he can live openly? What rights, serving openly as a gay man, should he be entitled to? How should he be able to express his gayness?
> 
> Fair play to you :alcoholi:


Its not a matter of expressing his gayness, but a matter of not getting in trouble for something everyone does (discussion,not being gay). It has nothing to do with being able to dress a certain way, wear glitter, decorate the bunks, etc... but more a matter of being able to go out on a date, to a gay bar, etc. The same thing straight people do, just in a slightly gayer manner.

Note....I am not directly involved in this manner and it really has no bearing on my life since none of my gay relatives or friends are in the military. My point of views comes directly from my genuine concern for their rights if they ever decide to enlist. :t:


----------



## 94c

Wasn't this whole thing put to rest in the late 70's with this great hit. Why must we keep reinventing the wheel?

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw"]YouTube- In the Navy[/nomedia]


----------



## Boston Irish Lass

Omega said:


> Its not a matter of expressing his gayness, but a matter of not getting in trouble for something everyone does (discussion,not being gay). It has nothing to do with being able to dress a certain way, wear glitter, decorate the bunks, etc... but more a matter of being able to go out on a date, to a gay bar, etc. The same thing straight people do, just in a slightly gayer manner.
> 
> Note....I am not directly involved in this manner and it really has no bearing on my life since none of my gay relatives or friends are in the military. My point of views comes directly from my genuine concern for their rights if they ever decide to enlist. :t:


I know it's not you per se, I'm just curious as to your logic and rationale.

If they are that concerned that they can't have sex - which is what it boils down to - then the military isn't the place for them.

While I've no doubt there are some randy gents that aren't faithful while out and about, I've faith that many men are there to serve and are faithful to their wives at home. If THEY can forgo sex why can't a gay guy?


----------



## Omega

Boston Irish Lass said:


> I know it's not you per se, I'm just curious as to your logic and rationale.
> 
> If they are that concerned that they can't have sex - which is what it boils down to - then the military isn't the place for them.
> 
> While I've no doubt there are some randy gents that aren't faithful while out and about, I've faith that many men are there to serve and are faithful to their wives at home. If THEY can forgo sex why can't a gay guy?


The thing is, it does not boil down to sex, but what is happening now it straight soldiers are able to go out on leave, during time off, whenever they are not actually working and be seen, where gays face consequences for being seen holding hands with a member of the same sex. Per Wikipedia, "The act prohibits any 



 or 



 person from disclosing his or her 



 or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the 



." So basically they can not be seen having even the most basic form of non-platonic companionship.:t:


----------



## Boston Irish Lass

Omega said:


> So basically they can not be seen having even the most basic form of *non-platonic* companionship.:t:


That's correct.

If they just need a man to talk to, last time I heard there were tons of them in the military. If they can't forgo physical intimacy at any level then it's not the place for them. I'm pretty sure they aren't shipped off for decades at a time unless by choice.

And yes, if you're scouting gay bars in a foreign country to find a stranger to *hold hands* with. Then it IS about the sex and forcing their lifestyle on others because it's "their right".


----------



## Boston Irish Lass

mikemac64 said:


> You've oviously never been with a Marine MEU/MAU/MEB on a 6 month pump to Oki!! Kin Cho....


I of course know the situations are different - but you're not helping my case here


----------



## grn3charlie

Omega said:


> I never served in the military. I speak from the gay point of view. As I have said earlier, I am not gay but I do have a gay brother and a gay brother-in-law.
> 
> *KW- Why don't you ask for a whites only army?* Whats the difference between, Gays, Blacks, Jews, Asians, and Hispanics? Why can't they fight if they are able to meet all requirements? Please explain further why they have no rights on the front line and please provide valid ponts not just, because its not natural, or it will make the real, "manly" men feel uncomfortable, blah blah, blah


Omega,

If you had been around here longer, you would know that kwflatbed is a person of respect among the membership. I know that you are trying to make a point but your point infers that he is a racist and it isn't appreciated. Disagreeing is one thing but be more careful with what you say.

kwflatbed,

Sorry to speak on your behalf but I take exception to that.


----------



## Omega

I do appologize if I stepped on any toes as that was not my intention nor does it help my case! As you can see from my last few posts I am trying to lighten up the discussion and hope to keep it going in a civilized manner. :t:


----------



## pahapoika

Don't Feed the Trolls !


----------



## Omega

Am I the troll, because I do intend to stay for a while and hopefully spark a decent discussion or two, especially since I tell my views differ from nearly everyone one this board. As previously stated, I will try not to offend anyone on this board!


----------



## wolf9848

My opinion on this is that the current policy should stay in place. Changing the policy could worsen conditions for those Servicemen/women who are openly homosexual. Having served in several all male infantry units, an openly gay Soldier would not have a good time, it may even lead to that Soldier being harmed.


----------



## cpd4720

kwflatbed said:


> "Now come back when you have something with some substance you wish to discuss :smile: "
> 
> Smartasses don't last long on MC.


Sure they do, provided they are a friend of Harry's. Then Harry lets them post foul language, make personal attacks and have free reign. If anyone dares present a different view you usually find a reason to ban them.

I am just waiting for the usual suspects to start correcting this guys grammar, syntax and spelling.


----------



## kwflatbed

cpd4720 said:


> Sure they do, provided they are a friend of Harry's. Then Harry lets them post foul language, make personal attacks and have free reign. If anyone dares present a different view you usually find a reason to ban them.
> 
> I am just waiting for the usual suspects to start correcting this guys grammar, syntax and spelling.


This sounds just like our old friend masscopguy spouting off.


----------



## jettsixx

I guess this guy never read the Pitbull thread.


----------



## Killjoy

> Changing the policy could worsen conditions for those Servicemen/women who are openly homosexual. Having served in several all male infantry units, an openly gay Soldier would not have a good time, it may even lead to that Soldier being harmed.


One could have made the same argument in 1950 opposing integration of white and black military units. We shouldn't continue a wrong because it is too inconvenient to change it....in a nation of ideals what kind of message does that send? If soldiers want to "punish" fellow service members for being homosexual, then they can take their chances with the harsh Uniformed Code of Military Justice.


----------



## Omega

You simplified what I was trying to get at.


----------



## OfficerObie59

The foundation for all debate is the credibility to argue the position you're furthering. Omega, while I agree with much of your POV, your credibility went right out the window with this statement. 


Omega said:


> I would gladly serve if the war was just, but so far in my lifetime, there has yet to be a good reason for fighting.


I know plenty of people who only served in peacetime and their service is no less noble than someone whose service included a combat deployment. Period.


Omega said:


> Per Wikipedia, "The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces."


 If you go back to the first few posts where BIL and I were debating, you will notice I did not cite wikipedia. That was on purpose. I found the Wikipedia article so biased towards my own position, I refused to cite it becuase I felt it would undermine my argument.

After I saw that, I immediately passed over your further posts. Your credibility is shot. 


Killjoy said:


> One could have made the same argument in 1950 opposing integration of white and black military units. We shouldn't continue a wrong because it is too inconvenient to change it....in a nation of ideals what kind of message does that send? If soldiers want to "punish" fellow service members for being homosexual, then they can take their chances with the harsh Uniformed Code of Military Justice.


I agree.

Another one in the interest of pragmatism--try this one on for size: What about removing DADT from combat support and service support units only, and if homosexuality is discovered among combat arms ranks than the soldier would have to reclass?


----------



## jettsixx

OfficerObie59 said:


> Another one in the interest of pragmatism--try this one on for size: What about removing DADT from combat support and service support units only, and if homosexuality is discovered among combat arms ranks than the soldier would have to reclass?


Are you saying that they should be allowed to serve, just not in combat?


----------



## DJM1968

Do I deserve special rights because I am left handed?


----------



## OfficerObie59

jettsixx said:


> Are you saying that they should be allowed to serve, just not in combat?


Not combat, but combat _units_.

I saying that in the interest in reaching some middle ground, put in the same restrictions that are currently placed on female service. (Note I'm not attempting to compare homosexuals to females, just that I think the intergration would be easier in units that are already co-ed.) It would be a lie to say that these units don't expierience combat in conflicts where there are no defined front lines. But if the main argument is the way homosexuality would be received in all-male combat units where cohesion is even more crucial, remove that factor entirely without dismissing the debate.

Having served in a co-ed combat support unit myself, I don't know that I have the liberty to propose a recindence of DADT in a type of unit I never served in.


----------



## jettsixx

I see what you are saying now. Thanks


----------



## Guest

ay yay yay..........


----------



## L4G81

Snipe? You got something to say?

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9KXkDMEPag"]YouTube- I'm Coming Out by Diana Ross[/nomedia]


Sniper said:


> ay yay yay..........


----------



## Omega

OfficerObie59 said:


> The foundation for all debate is the credibility to argue the position you're furthering. Omega, while I agree with much of your POV, your credibility went right out the window with this statement.
> 
> I know plenty of people who only served in peacetime and their service is no less noble than someone whose service included a combat deployment. Period.
> 
> If you go back to the first few posts where BIL and I were debating, you will notice I did not cite wikipedia. That was on purpose. I found the Wikipedia article so biased towards my own position, I refused to cite it becuase I felt it would undermine my argument.
> 
> After I saw that, I immediately passed over your further posts. Your credibility is shot.


I used the quote from Wikipedia because it summed up the entire law in one easy to read statement. I'll post this just to regain some credibility, note it says they exact same thing as the statement from Wikipedia!

(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

(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.

(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-

(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.

US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces



OfficerObie59 said:


> Not combat, but combat _units_.
> 
> I saying that in the interest in reaching some middle ground, put in the same restrictions that are currently placed on female service. (Note I'm not attempting to compare homosexuals to females, just that I think the intergration would be easier in units that are already co-ed.) It would be a lie to say that these units don't expierience combat in conflicts where there are no defined front lines. But if the main argument is the way homosexuality would be received in all-male combat units where cohesion is even more crucial, remove that factor entirely without dismissing the debate.


I'm sure that would be fine, maybe, I don't know. I know the main argument is how is one group going to be punished when others are not, which is being dismissed for being Gay.

:t:


----------



## Boston Irish Lass

I'll break my privacy rule to explain my own standpoint. My sister is gay. Does she *look gay? Absolutely. Not in a deliberate attempt, she just does. She is hands down one of the nicest people I've ever met in my life. She's extremely smart and funny and quite fierce when protecting her family. 

However, there will always be people who will take one look at her and in contempt think "F-ing ****". When they've no actual knowledge of who she is as a person. 

No matter how many laws are set up to protect a gay person in the military it will never, ever, change what a person thinks in their own head. In the market if someone were to pass her and think that, fine. 

Put a group of armed men, who potentially feel the same way about gays, who are under incredible tensions in the same situation with a gay man and I think it's bound to cause problems. 

Perhaps my thoughts about what being openly gay means is a bit skewed when it comes to a gay man. What exactly does that entail?


----------



## Omega

You can tell my brother is gay, sort of. I always knew he was you coud just tell because he was a mama's boy. My brother-in-law on the other hand is different. He played football and track all four years of high school and wrestled until his sophomore year, he hunts and loves shooting bows. He is a little more feminine than most guys but still a man none the less. His boyfriend is very masculine. You would never guess that he is gay at all, except that he has a boyfriend.

Now here's a problem, in my opinion. Its seems the consensus is that the major problem is going to be the protection of the gays in the military, from less accepting people. Why can't they be made to act right? Why aren't they held to a higher standard? If they start acting up, tell them to knock it off or face penalties? There are always going to be problems as long as people are allowed to get away with their actions. From what I have heard, most seem to want to limit the rights of one group because others cannot act civilized.


----------



## wolf9848

OfficerObie59 said:


> Not combat, but combat _units_.
> 
> I saying that in the interest in reaching some middle ground, put in the same restrictions that are currently placed on female service. (Note I'm not attempting to compare homosexuals to females, just that I think the intergration would be easier in units that are already co-ed.) It would be a lie to say that these units don't expierience combat in conflicts where there are no defined front lines. But if the main argument is the way homosexuality would be received in all-male combat units where cohesion is even more crucial, remove that factor entirely without dismissing the debate.
> 
> Having served in a co-ed combat support unit myself, I don't know that I have the liberty to propose a recindence of DADT in a type of unit I never served in.


'

I think a policy like this would work better instead of allowing to them openly serve in combat arm units. The majority of grunts range from 17 to 25 years-old on average, many of them are testosterone filled, hard charging Soldiers. I just can't see many of them being fine with living with an openly gay Soldier on a patrol base for a year.

Just for the record, I have served with a few gay Soldiers who were also infantrymen. They all kept their sexual preference quiet, and it never was a major issue. Had they been open about it, I'm sure it would have been a different story though.


----------



## jettsixx

Omega said:


> Why can't they be made to act right?


If that were possible then most of the members of this board would be out of a job.


----------



## sgthoskins

jettsixx said:


> If that were possible then most of the members of this board would be out of a job.


+1

You can't legislate human behavior. Not to mention who are you or anyone for that matter to tell someone that they are wrong for not accepting a lifestyle that they feel is morally wrong?


----------



## kwflatbed

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' 
Military Policy Lifted 



Repeal of 1993 law allowing gays to serve only 
if they kept their sexual orientation private becomes 
official


*Navy Officer Weds Partner*
*Full Coverage: **'DADT'*


----------



## pahapoika

another travesty brought to you by the great and powerful "O"


----------



## Killjoy

pahapoika said:


> another travesty brought to you by the great and powerful "O"


Yes, people who volunteer to put themselves in harm's way for their nation getting to serve with honesty and honor...how horrible.


----------



## 7costanza

This may be out of line but I have worked with " straight guys " that were in the Military that acted gayer than Barney Frank eating his corn on the cobb the long way.


----------



## Guest

Killjoy said:


> Yes, people who volunteer to put themselves in harm's way for their nation getting to serve with honesty and honor...how horrible.


It will take about .5 milliseconds for gay activists to enlist cartoonishly stereotypical gays in the military, just to prove their point, and the resulting violent backlash will NEVER be reported by the mainstream media.

As I mentioned in another thread, are the United States Armed Forces the absolute best in the world, bar none?

Yes.

Why would anyone want to tamper with such brilliant success, simply to engage in social engineering to avoid offending a tiny minority group?

Next stop: Suspension of training 5 times per day to face Mecca.


----------



## BrickCop

I don't have a problem with DADT being lifted. I am curious whether the gay/lesbian enlisted community will simply melt into the background of their respective services or if some will use the military as a platform for social commentary. What I'm trying to say is now that have the equality they were seeking we should hear nothing about anyone's sexual orientation from here on out. I hope the repeal will not be exploited by media seeking activists who'll continue to complain about the miltary.


----------



## GARDA

I'm ambivalent, if not indifferent about the whole DADT issue, 
but this Vet obviously had reason to feel strongly about it:

View attachment 2920


----------



## Guest

BrickCop said:


> I don't have a problem with DADT being lifted.


As I stated in another thread, I don't really care now, but it's NOT going to go over well with the teenage grunts we need to kill people and destroy things.

I wish people would keep that in mind, instead of pushing their social agenda into a place where it's not wanted, rejected, and regularly ridiculed.


----------



## pahapoika

* but it's NOT going to go over well with the teenage grunts we need to kill people and destroy things. 
*
+1


----------



## cc3915

*Gay rights group pushes for more military changes*

NORFOLK, Va. - A gay rights group kicked off the repeal of the U.S. military's ban on openly gay troops with a protest outside the world's largest Navy base that called for an expansion of benefits for gay and lesbian military members.
"We don't want to be the ones who are the wet blankets of the movement, but at the same time we also want to be the instigators of the movement," Heather Cronk, managing director of Get Equal, said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C. "We'll celebrate for 10 minutes and we'll get right back to work."
Protests, rallies and community conversations were planned by Get Equal on Tuesday in about a dozen cities across the country, including Boston, San Francisco and Laramie, Wyo. Nationwide celebrations marking the end of the policy commonly known as "don't ask, don't tell" were also planned by a variety of other groups, including one in downtown Norfolk.

Read more: Gay rights group pushes for more military changes | rights, gay, group - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO

---------- Post added at 22:55 ---------- Previous post was at 22:54 ----------

*Well, that didn't take too long. *


----------



## Guest

*Re: Gay rights group pushes for more military changes*



cc3915 said:


> *Well, that didn't take too long. *


Hate to say I told you so, but.......(not you specifically cc).

Give radicals an inch, and they'll try to take 10 miles.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

So what happens when two "partners" get it on in a barracks?Do they get their own room?When I was in we had a community shower on each floor until you became an nco, Im sure that wont be awkward or cause problems. I knew this shit was coming, the problem is you cant "turn it back" once youve made the changes.....kind of like what will happen once the "obama care" gets fully impemented.


----------



## Guest

I'd like to know why they feel the need to tell everyone they're gay. So you're gay... So what? Is it really necessary that everyone know the sexual preference of their fellow soldier/seaman? They want so badly to "serve openly", but it isn't necessary, or even wise, to be focused on sex or physical attraction when you have a job to do. You don't see guys holding up signs and wearing tshirts that say "I am heterosexual!" "I love women!" It's unnecessary, it's distracting, it's unprofessional. Is that the kind of military we want? Do your job, support/defend your country, keep your personal life to yourself. 


Sent from my ADR6300


----------



## Killjoy

Delta784 said:


> Why would anyone want to tamper with such brilliant success, simply to engage in social engineering to avoid offending a tiny minority group?


One could make the same arguement for the segregated military of WWII, which just won the biggest war in history.



> I'd like to know why they feel the need to tell everyone they're gay. So you're gay... So what? Is it really necessary that everyone know the sexual preference of their fellow soldier/seaman? They want so badly to "serve openly", but it isn't necessary, or even wise, to be focused on sex or physical attraction when you have a job to do. You don't see guys holding up signs and wearing tshirts that say "I am heterosexual!" "I love women!" It's unnecessary, it's distracting, it's unprofessional. Is that the kind of military we want? Do your job, support/defend your country, keep your personal life to yourself.


So, you never talked with other military members about personal aspects of your life? Your girlfriends, wives, who you wanted to bang, hobbies, etc? Why should someone be forced to hide their lifestyle because of who they choose to have relations with on their own time? I have far more respect for the person who volunteers to defend their country and happens to be gay then the millions who never volunteer for their nation, yet happen to be heterosexual.



> So what happens when two "partners" get it on in a barracks?Do they get their own room?When I was in we had a community shower on each floor until you became an nco, Im sure that wont be awkward or cause problems. I knew this shit was coming, the problem is you cant "turn it back" once youve made the changes.....kind of like what will happen once the "obama care" gets fully impemented.


They'll work it out. "Officially", when I lived in the barracks, there were no female visitors allowed to spend the night...but it happened on a fairly regular basis. It was common to find guys sleeping in the common areas while their roommates were "busy". Believe me, they'll find a way to make it work.


----------



## HuskyH-2

Killjoy said:


> One could make the same arguement for the segregated military of WWII, which just won the biggest war in history.
> 
> So, you never talked with other military members about personal aspects of your life? Your girlfriends, wives, who you wanted to bang, hobbies, etc? Why should someone be forced to hide their lifestyle because of who they choose to have relations with on their own time? I have far more respect for the person who volunteers to defend their country and happens to be gay then the millions who never volunteer for their nation, yet happen to be heterosexual.
> 
> They'll work it out. "Officially", when I lived in the barracks, there were no female visitors allowed to spend the night...but it happened on a fairly regular basis. It was common to find guys sleeping in the common areas while their roommates were "busy". Believe me, they'll find a way to make it work.


Beat me to the segregated military point Kill


----------



## Guest

Killjoy said:


> One could make the same arguement for the segregated military of WWII, which just won the biggest war in history.
> 
> So, you never talked with other military members about personal aspects of your life? Your girlfriends, wives, who you wanted to bang, hobbies, etc? Why should someone be forced to hide their lifestyle because of who they choose to have relations with on their own time? I have far more respect for the person who volunteers to defend their country and happens to be gay then the millions who never volunteer for their nation, yet happen to be heterosexual.


I never said they should have to hide it. I couldn't care less what they do in their spare time. And if they have buddies they want to talk about it with, then go for it. My issue is with the people who want to advertise it across the tv screen, carry banners announcing it, and make a huge show of it. You don't see people carrying "I'm straight" signs, or parading around pronouncing their love for the opposite sex. It gets obnoxious when they want equality, but they insist on throwing it in your face. If gay people want to be treated just like everyone else, then stop making such a huge deal about that one part of your life. You can be a person, and be gay, without being known as "a gay person". Does that make sense?

Sent from my ADR6300


----------



## Guest

Killjoy said:


> One could make the same arguement for the segregated military of WWII, which just won the biggest war in history.


Nice try. Race is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is among the most powerful human behavioral characteristics.

BTW....I "borrowed" the above reasoning from someone who would know a bit about both race and sexual orientation in the armed forces, who also opposes open homosexuals serving.

His name?

General Colin Powell, U.S. Army (retired).

(pssst......he's black)


----------



## kwflatbed

It is far from the military I joined in 1959, it has done nothing but gone backward and become sissified by the changes.


----------



## Johnny Law

No, we are not homosexual, but we are _willing to learn.








_


----------



## HuskyH-2

Race being benign or behavioral is irrelevant of the point of your previous post.

"As I stated in another thread, I don't really care now, but it's NOT going to go over well with the teenage grunts we need to kill people and destroy things. "

You Suggested that the issue is it going over with the troops or their willingless to serve efficiently with those who are openly gay. Thats no different then a willingless to serving to with someone of a specfic race. 

Now if your suggesting that being gay has a behavioral concern that will make an inefficient military id agree with race and orientation being apples and oranges.


----------



## Guest

HuskyH-2 said:


> Race being benign or behavioral is irrelevant of the point of your previous post.
> 
> "As I stated in another thread, I don't really care now, but it's NOT going to go over well with the teenage grunts we need to kill people and destroy things. "
> 
> You Suggested that the issue is it going over with the troops or their willingless to serve efficiently with those who are openly gay. Thats no different then a willingless to serving to with someone of a specfic race.
> 
> Now if your suggesting that being gay has a behavioral concern that will make an inefficient military id agree with race and orientation being apples and oranges.


I had a black roommate for awhile; it didn't matter a bit, because he didn't act any differently, he just happened to have brown skin. Putting a homosexual soldier in a room with a heterosexual soldier is asking for disaster, so what do we do? Put homsexuals together? What if there is only one in a platoon of 50 people? He/she gets their own room? Yeah, that won't make them even more hated and ostracized. 

Have you ever served in a field unit in a combat theater? It both cracks me up and pisses me off that most of the people who think this is a wonderful idea never have.


----------



## HistoryHound

Would it be that big of a deal to have a straight man and a gay man in the same room? I would think it would depend on the men. Not every gay man wants to have sex with every man he sees. I'm not a gay man, but I would venture to guess that most don't. There are gay people who go about their daily lives and don't throw it in your face. I worked with a guy for over a year and talked with him a couple times a day before I found out he was gay. The only reason it even came up is he mentioned going to a certain establishment that I happen to know is a gay bar. There are other people that I've worked with that have been very open about being gay, but they weren't in your face about it. Most are not a caricature or stereotypical flamboyant gay people. As long as they're not running around trying to hit on the other guys; then, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with their sexual orientation. If they're willing to serve and put their lives on the line they should be allowed to do so. At the end of the day, does anyone really care if the guy that risks his life to save theirs is gay or straight?


----------



## HuskyH-2

In response to the last part of your post delta, no i haven't.

Homosexuals have been rooming with heterosexuals. With or without DADT.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

HuskyH-2 said:


> In response to the last part of your post delta, no i haven't.
> 
> Homosexuals have been rooming with heterosexuals. With or without DADT.


True enough, there have always been gays in the military even in combat units BUT they kept their mouths shut and their sexuality to themselves because they knew that they would be kicked out and likely get their ass beat. Now they can serve openly, it opens a new can of worms such as the situations Delta and I brought up.


----------



## kwflatbed

HuskyH-2 said:


> In response to the last part of your post delta, no i haven't.
> 
> Homosexuals have been rooming with heterosexuals. With or without DADT.


Then how the hell do you feel qualified in commenting without actual knowledge of subject.

I am a combat vet along with many others on MC and the new regs SUCK
and are only going to cause problems the military does not need.


----------



## Guest

HistoryHound said:


> Would it be that big of a deal to have a straight man and a gay man in the same room? I would think it would depend on the men. Not every gay man wants to have sex with every man he sees. I'm not a gay man, but I would venture to guess that most don't. There are gay people who go about their daily lives and don't throw it in your face. I worked with a guy for over a year and talked with him a couple times a day before I found out he was gay. The only reason it even came up is he mentioned going to a certain establishment that I happen to know is a gay bar. There are other people that I've worked with that have been very open about being gay, but they weren't in your face about it. Most are not a caricature or stereotypical flamboyant gay people. As long as they're not running around trying to hit on the other guys; then, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with their sexual orientation. If they're willing to serve and put their lives on the line they should be allowed to do so. At the end of the day, does anyone really care if the guy that risks his life to save theirs is gay or straight?


A gay guy rooming w/ a straight guy is tantamount to a guy and girl rooming together. Of course every girl does not want to have sex w/ every guy she sees, nor does every guy want to have sex w/ every girl, but is it appropriate or wise to put them in that situation? 
By all means, they should be able to serve. A soldier risks their life the same, regardless of sexual orientation. My argument is why do we all have to know whether someone is gay or straight? If you just keep it to yourself, then it doesn't become an issue.

Sent from my ADR6300


----------



## HistoryHound

I think we both agree with the "there's no need to advertise" philosophy. But, I don't agree that it is the same of putting a male and female in the same room. Maybe it's because I don't want my daughters sharing a room with a male roommate. I have my own bias against male/female cohabitation that I will admit is fueled by images of horn dog young guys that want to nail anything in a skirt. In any case, I think mixed genders is different than mixed orientations. I know this (being probably the most liberal position I will take) isn't the most popular opinion here, but I don't mind the debate and potential flaming because I'm trying to understand the other point of view. I realize I never have been nor will I ever be in that situation, so the only understanding I have of it is what I'm getting from other people.


----------



## Guest

HuskyH-2 said:


> In response to the last part of your post delta, no i haven't.


Then with all due respect, you're not remotely qualified to offer an opinion on the matter.

---------- Post added at 15:14 ---------- Previous post was at 15:13 ----------




HistoryHound said:


> I realize I never have been nor will I ever be in that situation, so the only understanding I have of it is what I'm getting from other people.


You should listen to those who have, not those who have not and want to play social engineering games with something that doesn't need "fixing".


----------



## Killjoy

Well, I have served in the military and I think this is much ado about nothing. Soldiers, much like segregation or women serving in the military, will either accept it or they won't. In which case they can either allow their enlistments to expire, if its so horrible to serve next to gay man or woman, or learn to deal with it. Or, if they decide to go rogue and "take matters into they're own hands", they can face the inevitable court martial , and the UCMJ isn't nearly as forgiving as Mass General Law. I don't forecast any widespread collapse of the the military because of this. Look more to our illustrious leader cutting military funding ruining our military's effectiveness than this one issue. I served with people who were probably gay, and it never was a factor on how I judged them. If they did their job well, then I didn't care what they did with their off-duty time. If they were dirt bags, then that's what I thought of them, regardless. I've also worked with several openly gay officers and believe me, I would trust them with my life in critical situations far more than most of the other lemmings out there who somehow are judged more positively by many people because where they choose to stick their private parts on their own time. Sexuality is one factor of who you are, just like your skin tone, the shape of your eyes, hair color, religion etc. It is not the sum total of who you are.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

THere are some things were just gonna have to agree to disagree on .


----------



## Guest

Killjoy said:


> Well, I have served in the military and I think this is much ado about nothing.


As I've stated before, with the maturity of years, I don't really care, but it doesn't matter what you or I think, as our time in the military is over and we're older. It's the reactions of the teenage grunts in the Infantry, who I absolutely, positively guarantee won't take it well. We depend on our young men in their prime to be our warriors, and in that world, if you display weakness, you're bombarded with insults insinuating that you're homosexual. THAT'S what they think about it.

So, the radical homosexual agenda finally won this fight. As sure as I'm sitting here typing this, the push for acceptance of transsexuals in the military is coming soon.

As I've said before, the armed forces shouldn't be a labratory for social engineering.


----------



## Killjoy

I respectfully disagree...youths today are far different from how you and I were raised, I think issues like race and sexuality have less, not more meaning to them. Statically, young people are far more likely to date people of different race then our generations, and these are the internet generation raised with "Modern Family", "Will and Grace" and the "Ellen Degeneres Show". I think they'll care less than you think, and while there will be some issues and problems, as there were throughout the 50's and 60's with racial integration, I don't believe this will significantly affect our military's ability to wage war. The boob in the White House will affect that much more!


----------



## Guest

Killjoy said:


> I respectfully disagree...youths today are far different from how you and I were raised, I think issues like race and sexuality have less, not more meaning to them. Statically, young people are far more likely to date people of different race then our generations, and these are the internet generation raised with "Modern Family", "Will and Grace" and the "Ellen Degeneres Show". I think they'll care less than you think, and while there will be some issues and problems, as there were throughout the 50's and 60's with racial integration, I don't believe this will significantly affect our military's ability to wage war. The boob in the White House will affect that much more!


I have to respectfully disagree back at you....when I was on the mounted unit, they used to send us to cover the QHS dismissal, as there were commonly fights and other problems throughout Quincy Center. I got to see teenagers in their own environment, which is surrounded by their own kind. The males (our potental warriors) acted the same as I did when I was that age, with liberal doses of "***" and "****" sprinkled freely whenever they disapproved of another male's actions or words, in spite of Ellen Degeneres' best efforts.

Infantrymen in their prime are Neanderthals, which given their mission, is a very good thing. The day they stop thinking that way and start watching _Oprah, _we might as well run the hammer & sickle up the flagpole and start learning Mandarin so we can bow-down to the world's only remaining superpower.....China, which BTW doesn't allow open homosexuals in their military.


----------



## sgthoskins

Delta784 said:


> I have to respectfully disagree back at you....when I was on the mounted unit, they used to send us to cover the QHS dismissal, as there were commonly fights and other problems throughout Quincy Center. I got to see teenagers in their own environment, which is surrounded by their own kind. The males (our potental warriors) acted the same as I did when I was that age, with liberal doses of "***" and "****" sprinkled freely whenever they disapproved of another male's actions or words, in spite of Ellen Degeneres' best efforts.
> 
> Infantrymen in their prime are Neanderthals, which given their mission, is a very good thing. The day they stop thinking that way and start watching _Oprah, _we might as well run the hammer & sickle up the flagpole and start learning Mandarin so we can bow-down to the world's only remaining superpower.....China, which BTW doesn't allow open homosexuals in their military.


+1

Killjoy I respect the hell out of you as I know Delta does as well. I have stayed out of this conversation because it's one of those "you can't win arguments". Having served in a infantry unit for an extended period of time at 19 years old in the Marines and again later with the Army at 27 I can tell you from "my" experience, alpha males are "alpha males". There are a bunch of guys who would storm a hot building to save my shot ass in the street. Some of those guys simply don't and won't tolerate open gays. It's a simple fact, who am I to tell them "they have to"? I don't have a problem with it, but honestly who am I to tell CPL. Johnson that he has to accept PVT. Javier sucking the cock of PVT. Fracios? I shouldn't have to. DADT worked, why people had to fix something that wasn't broken is beyond me.

BTW Killjoy I have Harrington coming up in Nov for a Combat Speed handgun course. If you want in PM me.


----------



## OfficerObie59

SgtH raises an arguably good point, but my response has always been to retain DADT for the combat arms, and get rid of it for the combat support and service support MOS's. The reason no politician will propose that one is because it's the same rule that currently applies to females in the military and would be attacked by the LBGT community as equating gay men to women.


Killjoy said:


> So, you never talked with other military members about personal aspects of your life? Your girlfriends, wives, who you wanted to bang, hobbies, etc? Why should someone be forced to hide their lifestyle because of who they choose to have relations with on their own time? I have far more respect for the person who volunteers to defend their country and happens to be gay then the millions who never volunteer for their nation, yet happen to be heterosexual.





right.as.rain said:


> I never said they should have to hide it. I couldn't care less what they do in their spare time. And if they have buddies they want to talk about it with, then go for it.


My main problem with DADT is that it never really worked as it was named. It was more along the lines of "We won't ask, but sure as hell don't let anyone find out." There are plenty of stories of service members who rose to some damn elite positions, only to be sectioned out because they were maliciously outed by someone who simply didn't like them or wanted their promotional slot or position.

And I think the concerns about gay soldiers living together is overblown. First of all, I think this assumption that guys will simply go around all horny and screwing each other in barracks bathrooms is a totally misconceived. Furthermore, the military has an informal social stucture that, in the event it doesn't entirely supress inappropriate conduct, will supress it to the point of isolated incidence. As for formal control in the military, fratenization and adultery are still against the law, and many commanders have policies against sexual activity within co-ed units. I see no reason why these laws shouldn't be equally extended and enforced in a post-DADT military.


----------



## GARDA

_My_ brutally objective look at the issue:

Wanting to serve 'openly gay' in the military is not the same as advocating for 'equal rights' in most other workplaces.

If it were, my response would be:

"A man of *quality *should never feel threatened by a woman (minority) who seeks _*equality*_".

However, those seeking recognition for their sexual preference while serving in our nation's armed forces (or those who will now enlist with the lifting of DADT) appear to do so almost self-servingly (patriotically? YES... but with disregard to the interest of the majority of others) yet courageously (without _real _regard for their own safety, never mind whether their prospective team's efficiency will be affected or not).

At the stroke of this executive pen, few are now suddenly able to disclose their unpopular sexual orientation, one which has been historically resisted by the military establishment. Perhaps this will be considered a bold move one day, if not destined to be celebrated somewhere by our Republic's insulated liberal elite... but I argue that the DADT repeal might prove to be counterproductive to our most important "national team"... if not considered counterintuitive to _any_ military unit's mission?

There is an egalitarian "nice to have" society, but that'll never be our inequitable, yet "need to have" military culture.

**RANT OFF**


----------



## Guest

OfficerObie59 said:


> First of all, I think this assumption that guys will simply go around all horny and screwing each other in barracks bathrooms is a totally misconceived.


I wouldn't be too sure....If I work a midnight OT shift and have a North sector, I'll sometimes drive the cruiser into Caddy Park off Wollaston Beach and laugh my ass off as I watch guys trying to pull their pants up as they're running for their cars.

How many women do you see sneaking around rest areas and parks, looking to hook up with a guy and have sex in a public area?

Exactly.


----------



## Killjoy

Delta784 said:


> China, which BTW doesn't allow open homosexuals in their military.


The Israel Defense Force has allowed gays to serve openly since the early 1990's, and they field arguably the world's most effective regional military with an unbroken string of victories. Didn't cause them collapse and few could say that they weren't battle-tested more than most armies.

I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree.



> BTW Killjoy I have Harrington coming up in Nov for a Combat Speed handgun course. If you want in PM me.


Thanks! PM sent!


----------



## Guest

Killjoy said:


> The Israel Defense Force has allowed gays to serve openly since the early 1990's, and they field arguably the world's most effective regional military with an unbroken string of victories. Didn't cause them collapse and few could say that they weren't battle-tested more than most armies.


As I've said before, this isn't Israel, where every able citizen is required to serve in the military as a matter of self-preservation. In regards to battle-tested, I submit that the United States Armed Forces, without open homosexuals serving, is the most battle-tested and most successful of any in history.

Why tamper with such brilliant success by implementing social engineering experiments, solely to appease a tiny minority group?



Killjoy said:


> I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree.


Apparently.


----------



## CJIS

Daily Mail


Pentagon Allows Chaplains to Perform Gay Weddings Wall Street Journal - ‎Sep 30, 2011‎

WASHINGTON-Military chaplains will be allowed to preside over same-sex marriages on military bases, the Pentagon said on Friday.
Related Defense of Marriage Act » United States Department of Defense » 

Military chaplains may wed gay couples: PentagonUSA Today

Military chaplains can perform samesex marriagesPolitico

In Depth:Akin: DOD allowing chaplains to officiate same-sex marriages is illegalThe Hill


----------



## kwflatbed

This whole thing does nothing but turn my stomach.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

Gay activist are now trying to end the ban on "transgendered" persons......


----------



## Guest

justanotherparatrooper said:


> Gay activist are now trying to end the ban on "transgendered" persons......


Did I not predict exactly that?

Next stop: Transgendered

Coming up: Bigamy

The deconstruction of our armed forces and our society continues unabated.


----------



## cc3915

*No Same-Sex Weddings at West Point's Catholic Chapel, Says Military Archdiocese*

*(CNSNews.com)* - Will same-sex marriage ceremonies be allowed at the Catholic Chapel of the Most Holy Trinity at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point?
"The answer is 'no,'" said Taylor Henry, director of public affairs and media relations for the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, and spokesman for Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who certifies all Catholic chaplains for the armed services.
"Holy Trinity is an actual Catholic parish, unlike the non-denominational chapels that are found on other military installations, and the only services held there are Catholic services. The Catholic Church does not perform the sacrament of matrimony for same-sex couples," he said.

No Same-Sex Weddings at West Point's Catholic Chapel, Says Military Archdiocese | CNSnews.com


----------



## Guest

*Re: No Same-Sex Weddings at West Point's Catholic Chapel, Says Military Archdiocese*



cc3915 said:


> *(CNSNews.com)* - Will same-sex marriage ceremonies be allowed at the Catholic Chapel of the Most Holy Trinity at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point?
> "The answer is 'no,'" said Taylor Henry, director of public affairs and media relations for the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, and spokesman for Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who certifies all Catholic chaplains for the armed services.
> "Holy Trinity is an actual Catholic parish, unlike the non-denominational chapels that are found on other military installations, and the only services held there are Catholic services. The Catholic Church does not perform the sacrament of matrimony for same-sex couples," he said.
> 
> No Same-Sex Weddings at West Point's Catholic Chapel, Says Military Archdiocese | CNSnews.com


I give the Catholic Chapel of the Most Holy Trinity at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point approximately 2 years before it's changed into a non-demoninational "community center" or some other neutral term, after the gay activists and/or the ACLU file a lawsuit for discrimination.

As I've said before, give radicals an inch, and they'll take 10 miles.....coming up soon, the push for open transsexuals in the Infantry.


----------



## Guest

I would hope that for the sake of intellectual consistency, that all of these people protesting DADT, and supporting it's repeal; are marching right down to the nearest recruiting office, enlisting, and putting their lives on the line for a country as amazing as this one. I doubt it though.


----------



## HistoryHound

*Re: No Same-Sex Weddings at West Point's Catholic Chapel, Says Military Archdiocese*



cc3915 said:


> *(CNSNews.com)* - Will same-sex marriage ceremonies be allowed at the Catholic Chapel of the Most Holy Trinity at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point?
> "The answer is 'no,'" said Taylor Henry, director of public affairs and media relations for the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, and spokesman for Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who certifies all Catholic chaplains for the armed services.
> "Holy Trinity is an actual Catholic parish, unlike the non-denominational chapels that are found on other military installations, and the only services held there are Catholic services. The Catholic Church does not perform the sacrament of matrimony for same-sex couples," he said.
> 
> No Same-Sex Weddings at West Point's Catholic Chapel, Says Military Archdiocese | CNSnews.com


It's a Catholic chapel and gay marriage is against the Catholic faith. Why anyone would even suggest or question that gay marriages would be performed in a Catholic chapel is just wrong. While I've already commented that I don't have an issue with gays in the military as long as they serve honorably, I have to support the chapel at West Point not conducting marriages that are against the Catholic church's teachings. The people who are for equal rights for the GLBT community must accept that it is just as wrong for them to push their beliefs on others as they believe DADT was wrong.


----------



## kwflatbed

View attachment 3029


----------



## HistoryHound

kwflatbed said:


> View attachment 3029


"Damn it obama! I'm a priest not a miracle worker."

(Sorry, this just screamed for an old Star Trek paraphrase. :teeth_smile


----------



## Rock

OK, that door just opened and I'm walking through....

These two are in the Navy, I think...


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## Rock

New boot camp for the gay division. And yes, in my world every gay female looks like this.


----------



## 7costanza

My mind has changed on DADT.


----------



## sgthoskins

Delta784 not surprisingly was right.

Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military | CNSnews.com



> Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military


----------



## 7costanza

The bestiality portion is called the " Anthony Amendment " ...


----------



## Guest

7costanza said:


> The bestiality portion is called the " Anthony Amendment " ...


Every time you bring that up... I grind my teeth.

Sent from my Incredible 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## 7costanza

5-0 said:


> Every time you bring that up... I grind my teeth.Sent from my Incredible 2 using Tapatalk


I could make that into so much more but not now your expecting it. An unexpected gift at an unexpected time is so much more effective.


----------



## Guest

sgthoskins said:


> Delta784 not surprisingly was right.
> 
> Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military | CNSnews.com


Did I not predict this?

The legalization/sanction of bigamy is just over the horizon.

If this passes, we're finished as a society.


----------



## sgthoskins

Delta784 said:


> If this passes, we're finished as a society.


You know damn well we already are.


----------



## 263FPD

7costanza said:


> The bestiality portion is called the " Anthony Amendment " ...


oh wtf was that dipshits screen name? Antz2xplicit or simething?


----------



## Guest

sgthoskins said:


> You know damn well we already are.


We're at a crossroads...if the Republicans can keep the House, take back the Senate & the White House, we have a chance.


----------



## sgthoskins

I wish I had your optimism. Sadly the republicans are part of the reason we are in this mess. They have gotten far away from fiscal conservatism and seem hell bent on growing the government and giving it more power.


----------



## Guest

Exactly. One party wants to give $ to people who didn't earn it, the other to people who don't need it. Mess. 

Sent from my Incredible 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest

sgthoskins said:


> I wish I had your optimism. Sadly the republicans are part of the reason we are in this mess. They have gotten far away from fiscal conservatism and seem hell bent on growing the government and giving it more power.


I'll continue to beat the drum.....Mitt Romney has the chance to be the next Ronald Reagan if he's elected. He's the epitome of fiscal conservatism; he erased a multi-million dollar deficit as CEO of the Salt Lake City Olympics, and did the same in Massachusetts, leaving a huge surplus that Deval and the gang have since squandered.

As for social issues, he's a Mormon....which way do you think he's going to go? :shades_smile:


----------



## LGriffin

Obama's New Military:


----------

