Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Time for gays in the military?

12467

Posts

  • ALockslyALocksly Registered User
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »

    In that same respect is it right that another straight soldier should be able to socialize with other soldiers about how he banged some chick the other night? No it's not, but they shouldn't be doing it in the first place. You shouldn't talk about such topics while on the job, and in the military that's 24/7.


    I can recall my DI describing to the platoon, enthusiastically, in graphic detail, exactly what he did to his girlfriend the night before.

    In the years that followed I counln't even begin to count the number "guess who I fucked last night" stories I heard. In the Barracks at Hood we would run all the clothes dryers to drown out the shrieks and moans of one guys girlfriend in case the officer of the day came around.

    Lets face it, If you live, work, eat, shower etc with people, you're gonna end up sharing more than a bit about your personal life with them. Hell, after an eight hour guard shift you'll probably know each others life stories. And that's not a bad thing. A good Sergeant is trained and expected to know what is goining on in his soldiers personal life because that will affect his work performance. If anything it is more important in the military

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • h3nduh3ndu Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    zakkiel wrote: »
    I would integrate in a time of relative peace, not when we may be on the brink of war with several different nations and are embedded in another country.
    So, shoot for 2030, maybe?

    Hahahaha.

    Try 3080.

    But seriously. They Infantry wouldn't collapse, but there would be a definite impact for a long period of time.

    When I joined the army my old man gave quite a bit of advice; one of his gems seems to pop into my mind now.

    When he was stationed at the DMZ in South Korea (he was a bright new second lieutenant) he shared quarters with three other second lieutenants in a tent. He lived with these guys for close to a year in that tent, he got to know them all quite well. There was one guy who drew pictures of naked women - good ones - he showed them off on the wall of the tent. He would go out and get drunk and party with this lieutenant and the two others whenever they had a pass; this guy gets arrested after about a year, turns out he's gay and has been having on and off relationships with other men. My old man testifies at his court marshal - He testifies that he's good soldier, that he's never done anything out of line, never even done anything that would hint at his homosexuality. The guy gets court marshaled. What did he garnish from this? People are just people. They live their lives and take care of their business and the only way they should be judged is on how they perform in the work area.

    I feel the same way. I don't mind gays, I think that anyone who wants to defend and serve has a right to, and should be able to.

    That said I repeat the opening of the post, it won't break the infantry but it will have an adverse impact for a long period of time.

    h3ndu on
    Lo Que Sea, Cuando Sea, Donde Sea.
  • crash5scrash5s Registered User
    edited February 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »

    In that same respect is it right that another straight soldier should be able to socialize with other soldiers about how he banged some chick the other night? No it's not, but they shouldn't be doing it in the first place. You shouldn't talk about such topics while on the job, and in the military that's 24/7.


    I can recall my DI describing to the platoon, enthusiastically, in graphic detail, exactly what he did to his girlfriend the night before.

    In the years that followed I counln't even begin to count the number "guess who I fucked last night" stories I heard. In the Barracks at Hood we would run all the clothes dryers to drown out the shrieks and moans of one guys girlfriend in case the officer of the day came around.

    Lets face it, If you live, work, eat, shower etc with people, you're gonna end up sharing more than a bit about your personal life with them. Hell, after an eight hour guard shift you'll probably know each others life stories. And that's not a bad thing. A good Sergeant is trained and expected to know what is goining on in his soldiers personal life because that will affect his work performance. If anything it is more important in the military

    Yeah there is a lot of that, but it's not just straight sex.

    I remember hearing non stop about so poor sap that got a blow job in thailand from a she that was really a he.

    I also don't think a day went by where somebody wasn't told to suck a dick in joke.

    crash5s on
  • h3nduh3ndu Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »

    In that same respect is it right that another straight soldier should be able to socialize with other soldiers about how he banged some chick the other night? No it's not, but they shouldn't be doing it in the first place. You shouldn't talk about such topics while on the job, and in the military that's 24/7.


    I can recall my DI describing to the platoon, enthusiastically, in graphic detail, exactly what he did to his girlfriend the night before.

    In the years that followed I counln't even begin to count the number "guess who I fucked last night" stories I heard. In the Barracks at Hood we would run all the clothes dryers to drown out the shrieks and moans of one guys girlfriend in case the officer of the day came around.

    Lets face it, If you live, work, eat, shower etc with people, you're gonna end up sharing more than a bit about your personal life with them. Hell, after an eight hour guard shift you'll probably know each others life stories. And that's not a bad thing. A good Sergeant is trained and expected to know what is goining on in his soldiers personal life because that will affect his work performance. If anything it is more important in the military

    Roger; I can retell some graphic stories too, I could tell you all about every person I've ever been a battle buddy with, down to how many cousins they have, what their favorite brand of pop is, what they like to do in their past times, how they like to fuck, so on and so on. The more intimate parts of the conversations however violate sexual harassment policies in the army - everyone knows this, no one cares.

    And yeah, a good NCO has to know everything about his men, he needs to have their trust. I don't argue this.

    h3ndu on
    Lo Que Sea, Cuando Sea, Donde Sea.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Roger; I can retell some graphic stories too, I could tell you all about every person I've ever been a battle buddy with, down to how many cousins they have, what their favorite brand of pop is, what they like to do in their past times, how they like to fuck, so on and so on. The more intimate parts of the conversations however violate sexual harassment policies in the army - everyone knows this, no one cares.

    And yeah, a good NCO has to know everything about his men, he needs to have their trust. I don't argue this.

    So, the question I have is how exactly does forcing a gay soldier to essentially hide a large portion of themselves from their comrades and their leadership help foster unit cohesion? Or would you get right of DADT, too?

    Hell, I remember a couple times rumors going around about a soldier that might be gay...didn't do great things for unit cohesion. Basically, if you didn't have a girlfriend and/or weren't bringing random chicks to the barracks to fuck every now and then you suspected to be gay. I know, because at one point it applied to me.

    Yeah, yeah, lesser of evils. But I'd rather start on the road to "good" than stick forever with "barely functional."

    mcdermott on
  • h3nduh3ndu Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Roger; I can retell some graphic stories too, I could tell you all about every person I've ever been a battle buddy with, down to how many cousins they have, what their favorite brand of pop is, what they like to do in their past times, how they like to fuck, so on and so on. The more intimate parts of the conversations however violate sexual harassment policies in the army - everyone knows this, no one cares.

    And yeah, a good NCO has to know everything about his men, he needs to have their trust. I don't argue this.

    So, the question I have is how exactly does forcing a gay soldier to essentially hide a large portion of themselves from their comrades and their leadership help foster unit cohesion? Or would you get right of DADT, too?

    Hell, I remember a couple times rumors going around about a soldier that might be gay...didn't do great things for unit cohesion. Basically, if you didn't have a girlfriend and/or weren't bringing random chicks to the barracks to fuck every now and then you suspected to be gay. I know, because at one point it applied to me.

    Yeah, yeah, lesser of evils. But I'd rather start on the road to "good" than stick forever with "barely functional."

    I'm LDS (mormon). I've never had to deal with the stigma. In that context, How could I possibly know the pressures that a real gay man has to go through in the military? I can't. I don't think that forcing a gay soldier to hide their lives from others is good, but I don't think them being openly gay is good either. I just can't imagine a position where being a homosexual in the military would be in any way positive (edit) currently. But if they want to server then let them. I suppose, as you suggested, things will work themselves out promptly.

    h3ndu on
    Lo Que Sea, Cuando Sea, Donde Sea.
  • ALockslyALocksly Registered User
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Roger; I can retell some graphic stories too, I could tell you all about every person I've ever been a battle buddy with, down to how many cousins they have, what their favorite brand of pop is, what they like to do in their past times, how they like to fuck, so on and so on. The more intimate parts of the conversations however violate sexual harassment policies in the army - everyone knows this, no one cares.

    And yeah, a good NCO has to know everything about his men, he needs to have their trust. I don't argue this.

    So, the question I have is how exactly does forcing a gay soldier to essentially hide a large portion of themselves from their comrades and their leadership help foster unit cohesion? Or would you get right of DADT, too?

    Hell, I remember a couple times rumors going around about a soldier that might be gay...didn't do great things for unit cohesion. Basically, if you didn't have a girlfriend and/or weren't bringing random chicks to the barracks to fuck every now and then you suspected to be gay. I know, because at one point it applied to me.

    Yeah, yeah, lesser of evils. But I'd rather start on the road to "good" than stick forever with "barely functional."

    hmmmm. They though I was CID (undercover snitch) for awhile at one unit, because in addition to having no interest in the skanks that hung out around the barracks I also read books.

    For fun! gasp!

    seriously though, if integration hasen't torn apart the other NATO armies why should ours be different. Are Americans more homophobic than Brits? I agree that there will be an adjustment period but I imagine it'll be pretty short.

    There werre two Tennesse boys in my BASIC that were darn near cured of racism by the end of eight weeks; not from threats or any intimidation, they just figured out that competence and reliablility in a teammate were vastly more important than any stupid stereotype.

    The military is actually very good at integrating people of different races, religions and backgrounds together, in fact they're practically experts at it. At one point in history they told the forces to quitcherbitchen and fight alongside the black guys, and they did. They just need to apply the same enthusiasm to the integration of gays.

    edit: anyone elso struck by the irony that the ribbon you get right out of BASIC is a little rainbow? this one

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Yeah, I don't think anyone is arguing that integration will be seamless, or that there won't be any problems with morale or unit cohesion anywhere. What we're arguing is that it's in the long-term best interests of the military to integrate ASAP, because, well, how many Arabic/Farsi speakers have we lost due to DADT? And who knows how many lives they might have been able to save?

    So, in light of that, are we really going to sit around giving a shit that Buford T. Dumbshit might be offended by the gender of the person his squadmate chooses to fuck on the weekends?

    Thanatos on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Well, I'm going to go ahead and say it shouldn't be an issue, simply because no one other than yourself should know your sexual orientation; it's not the governments business, it's not your families business, it's not your fellow soldiers business, it's not anyones but your own. I say again, what you like to do with whomever you like to do it with is no ones business but your own, and if you choose to bring that into public light, no one is responsible for the consequences but you.

    It's that simple.

    I have no doubt there are gays in the military; they all probably do a fine job at whatever they are assigned, and I have no doubt the military would be less of what it is without them, this is however only because they choose to keep quiet about what they do outside of their job. They don't create undue stress on themselves or on others by pressing the fact that they choose a different lifestyle on others. Don't shit where you eat, as it were.

    In that same respect is it right that another straight soldier should be able to socialize with other soldiers about how he banged some chick the other night? No it's not, but they shouldn't be doing it in the first place. You shouldn't talk about such topics while on the job, and in the military that's 24/7.


    Wow, so unrealistic. So very, very unrealistic.

    Bottom fucking line, kiddies; People talk about their personal lives at work. People who keep silent become suspicious, so gays have to lie. No one should have to be a fucking liar all the time just to keep their job.

    And gays are discharged all the time (unwillingly) when they are sniffed out by their commands. Just because some gays get away with being quasi-out due to a cool commander or whatever, doesn't mean that is the norm.

    Everyone who has smeared poopy comments like the above poster on this thread needs to slap themselves. Un-pragmatic nonsense like "no one should talk about sex so it's a non-issue" is worthless. Just worthless.

    Regina Fong on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Roger; I can retell some graphic stories too, I could tell you all about every person I've ever been a battle buddy with, down to how many cousins they have, what their favorite brand of pop is, what they like to do in their past times, how they like to fuck, so on and so on. The more intimate parts of the conversations however violate sexual harassment policies in the army - everyone knows this, no one cares.

    And yeah, a good NCO has to know everything about his men, he needs to have their trust. I don't argue this.

    So, the question I have is how exactly does forcing a gay soldier to essentially hide a large portion of themselves from their comrades and their leadership help foster unit cohesion? Or would you get right of DADT, too?

    Hell, I remember a couple times rumors going around about a soldier that might be gay...didn't do great things for unit cohesion. Basically, if you didn't have a girlfriend and/or weren't bringing random chicks to the barracks to fuck every now and then you suspected to be gay. I know, because at one point it applied to me.

    Yeah, yeah, lesser of evils. But I'd rather start on the road to "good" than stick forever with "barely functional."

    I'm LDS (mormon). I've never had to deal with the stigma. In that context, How could I possibly know the pressures that a real gay man has to go through in the military? I can't. I don't think that forcing a gay soldier to hide their lives from others is good, but I don't think them being openly gay is good either. I just can't imagine a position where being a homosexual in the military would be in any way positive (edit) currently. But if they want to server then let them. I suppose, as you suggested, things will work themselves out promptly.



    Being a gay man in the Navy is easier than being a devout, observant Mormon. Seriously, the only Mormons I meet in the military are "bad" Mormons (ie: not observant).

    I think gays should be allowed to serve openly and prudish, judgy, high-minded folks should be strongly discouraged from joining. They only become unhappy and disillusioned when faced with coarse, crass, dirty military life.

    It's win-win!

    Regina Fong on
  • h3nduh3ndu Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    jeepguy wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Well, I'm going to go ahead and say it shouldn't be an issue, simply because no one other than yourself should know your sexual orientation; it's not the governments business, it's not your families business, it's not your fellow soldiers business, it's not anyones but your own. I say again, what you like to do with whomever you like to do it with is no ones business but your own, and if you choose to bring that into public light, no one is responsible for the consequences but you.

    It's that simple.

    I have no doubt there are gays in the military; they all probably do a fine job at whatever they are assigned, and I have no doubt the military would be less of what it is without them, this is however only because they choose to keep quiet about what they do outside of their job. They don't create undue stress on themselves or on others by pressing the fact that they choose a different lifestyle on others. Don't shit where you eat, as it were.

    In that same respect is it right that another straight soldier should be able to socialize with other soldiers about how he banged some chick the other night? No it's not, but they shouldn't be doing it in the first place. You shouldn't talk about such topics while on the job, and in the military that's 24/7.


    Wow, so unrealistic. So very, very unrealistic.

    Bottom fucking line, kiddies; People talk about their personal lives at work. People who keep silent become suspicious, so gays have to lie. No one should have to be a fucking liar all the time just to keep their job.

    And gays are discharged all the time (unwillingly) when they are sniffed out by their commands. Just because some gays get away with being quasi-out due to a cool commander or whatever, doesn't mean that is the norm.

    Everyone who has smeared poopy comments like the above poster on this thread needs to slap themselves. Un-pragmatic nonsense like "no one should talk about sex so it's a non-issue" is worthless. Just worthless.

    Well fuck you and your opinion too.

    I never said people don't talk about their lives, I said they shouldn't. I try and keep my business out of others lives because it's mine not theirs. It doesn't stop others from telling me about their own lives. Gays don't have to lie, people can be as suspicious as they want but without hard evidence nothing can happen.

    What do you mean "quasi-out"?
    jeepguy wrote:
    Being a gay man in the Navy is easier than being a devout, observant Mormon. Seriously, the only Mormons I meet in the military are "bad" Mormons (ie: not observant).

    It's not that hard to be a good Mormon. I'm sorry you've met bad examples, most of us do have bad habits though - my own is cursing.

    h3ndu on
    Lo Que Sea, Cuando Sea, Donde Sea.
  • [GHSC]Ryctor[GHSC]Ryctor Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Roger; I can retell some graphic stories too, I could tell you all about every person I've ever been a battle buddy with, down to how many cousins they have, what their favorite brand of pop is, what they like to do in their past times, how they like to fuck, so on and so on. The more intimate parts of the conversations however violate sexual harassment policies in the army - everyone knows this, no one cares.

    And yeah, a good NCO has to know everything about his men, he needs to have their trust. I don't argue this.

    So, the question I have is how exactly does forcing a gay soldier to essentially hide a large portion of themselves from their comrades and their leadership help foster unit cohesion? Or would you get right of DADT, too?

    Hell, I remember a couple times rumors going around about a soldier that might be gay...didn't do great things for unit cohesion. Basically, if you didn't have a girlfriend and/or weren't bringing random chicks to the barracks to fuck every now and then you suspected to be gay. I know, because at one point it applied to me.

    Yeah, yeah, lesser of evils. But I'd rather start on the road to "good" than stick forever with "barely functional."

    hmmmm. They though I was CID (undercover snitch) for awhile at one unit, because in addition to having no interest in the skanks that hung out around the barracks I also read books.

    For fun! gasp!

    seriously though, if integration hasen't torn apart the other NATO armies why should ours be different. Are Americans more homophobic than Brits? I agree that there will be an adjustment period but I imagine it'll be pretty short.

    There werre two Tennesse boys in my BASIC that were darn near cured of racism by the end of eight weeks; not from threats or any intimidation, they just figured out that competence and reliablility in a teammate were vastly more important than any stupid stereotype.

    The military is actually very good at integrating people of different races, religions and backgrounds together, in fact they're practically experts at it. At one point in history they told the forces to quitcherbitchen and fight alongside the black guys, and they did. They just need to apply the same enthusiasm to the integration of gays.

    edit: anyone elso struck by the irony that the ribbon you get right out of BASIC is a little rainbow? this one



    Hey Lock...I resent that CID jab... :(

    [GHSC]Ryctor on
    You'd be surprised the amount of damage a hauler can do in the right hands ~ Istvaan Shogaatsu
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Gays don't have to lie, people can be as suspicious as they want but without hard evidence nothing can happen.

    I don't think you appreciate the degree to which some people hate homosexuality. I've worked with ex-navy guys gloating about how they had personally pushed through an alleged 15 Don't Tell discharges. I watched people I had worked with for years go all wide eyed and silent, horrified that I responded to "I bet you do! Dur hur" with "Only with your dad" instead of "OH MY GOD IM NOT GAY I LOVE PUSSY! PUSSY PUSSY PUSSY"

    What I'm saying is this: What you're saying makes sense if we're talking about a army of robots. But we aren't, we're talking about the an organization staffed by just enough ignorant assholes to ruin it for everyone. As long as people can be persecuted for being gay, they will; that isn't going to change.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Well fuck you and your opinion too.

    I never said people don't talk about their lives, I said they shouldn't. I try and keep my business out of others lives because it's mine not theirs. It doesn't stop others from telling me about their own lives. Gays don't have to lie, people can be as suspicious as they want but without hard evidence nothing can happen.

    I'm downgrading your opinion from "unpragmatic" to "pollyanna".

    You're either autistic, or home-schooled, judging by your utter failure to appreciate normal human social dynamics.


    h3ndu wrote: »
    What do you mean "quasi-out"?
    jeepguy wrote:
    Being a gay man in the Navy is easier than being a devout, observant Mormon. Seriously, the only Mormons I meet in the military are "bad" Mormons (ie: not observant).

    It's not that hard to be a good Mormon. I'm sorry you've met bad examples, most of us do have bad habits though - my own is cursing.

    Quasi-out: Everyone knows he's gay, but he's never come out and said it explicitly, no one has made an official complaint, and he's never been caught red-handed doing anything with another guy.

    As far as your apology, save it. I like "bad" mormons much more than "good" ones.

    Regina Fong on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »
    I never said people don't talk about their lives, I said they shouldn't. I try and keep my business out of others lives because it's mine not theirs. It doesn't stop others from telling me about their own lives. Gays don't have to lie, people can be as suspicious as they want but without hard evidence nothing can happen.

    Except that gays also are essentially not allowed to share anything about their personal lives. Which is unreasonable. Yeah, I'm sure you're a very private person, and I'm so proud of you. Most of us "humans" like to occasionally share the fact that we had a date last night...not that we banged them in the ass something fierce, but simply that we went out and saw a movie with somebody whose company we enjoy in a more than platonic way. Gays, unfortunately, have to walk a very fine line though regarding such things, while straights don't have to worry about it at all.

    What do you mean "quasi-out"?

    Just guessing, but he probably means somebody everybody knows is gay, but who doesn't share their relationships.


    Basically what you're asking of homosexuals is that they maintain a 12 foot wall with razorwire between their personal and professional lives. This is something that is difficult in your average civilian workplace (is it normal, for instance, for a civilian to keep even their marital status a deep dark secret from all their coworkers?)...in the military, where people share huge portions of their lives with each other through necessity (single soldiers in barracks, deployments, field time, etc.) it's damn near impossible.

    Based on this:
    In that context, How could I possibly know the pressures that a real gay man has to go through in the military? I can't.

    You seem to know that you don't have any idea what the fuck you're talking about. So why do you keep talking?

    I mean, I don't need to be homosexual to understand (to some extent, at least) how fucked up this situation is for them. Basic human empathy does that for me. I know that were the tables turned I'd hate to be treated the same way. That's some basic "golden rule" shit right there.

    EDIT: Yeah, jeepguy, most "good" Mormons I've met have been some seriously self-righteous assholes. And I've had to deal with a lot of Mormons.

    mcdermott on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    In that context, How could I possibly know the pressures that a real gay man has to go through in the military? I can't.

    You seem to know that you don't have any idea what the fuck you're talking about. So why do you keep talking?

    I mean, I don't need to be homosexual to understand (to some extent, at least) how fucked up this situation is for them. Basic human empathy does that for me. I know that were the tables turned I'd hate to be treated the same way. That's some basic "golden rule" shit right there.

    Regina Fong on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Oh, and aside from the whole "everybody should be a robot and keep their personal lives completely out of the workplace, even in a workplace where people bond as closely as in the military" thing, which is fucking retarded, there's still the whole "in states where homosexuals can marry/quasi-marry, they are being fucked out of tangible amounts of money and benefits."

    How would you feel if suddenly Mormons couldn't get BAH and separation pay? Couldn't cover their Mormon wives and children through TriCare? Couldn't pass death gratuities to their spouses? Couldn't get married at all, actually? Were never allowed to so much as mention their religion (EDIT: and I'm not talking witnessing...I'm talking mentioning in passing that they're Mormon), lest some vindictive CO railroad them out of the military?

    I mean, I wouldn't give a shit. I'm not Mormon. Mormons should just deal with it.

    mcdermott on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Oh, and aside from the whole "everybody should be a robot and keep their personal lives completely out of the workplace, even in a workplace where people bond as closely as in the military" thing, which is fucking retarded, there's still the whole "in states where homosexuals can marry/quasi-marry, they are being fucked out of tangible amounts of money and benefits."

    How would you feel if suddenly Mormons couldn't get BAH and separation pay? Couldn't cover their Mormon wives and children through TriCare? Couldn't pass death gratuities to their spouses? Couldn't get married at all, actually? Were never allowed to so much as mention their religion (EDIT: and I'm not talking witnessing...I'm talking mentioning in passing that they're Mormon), lest some vindictive CO railroad them out of the military?

    I mean, I wouldn't give a shit. I'm not Mormon. Mormons should just deal with it.

    But mcdermott, that's not fair!

    Religion isn't a choice like teh gay is!














    Oh.... wait...

    Regina Fong on
  • ALockslyALocksly Registered User
    edited February 2007


    Hey Lock...I resent that CID jab... :(

    sorry man, but that's how it went down

    and honestly, thats how CID is percieved in your average line unit, I know its a job that needs doin' but nobody likes the idea that their new "buddy" might just be out to dig up dirt on 'em

    and on a personal, completely non- generalizable, "I'm sure it was an isolated incident note", I was once "interviewed" by a team of CID agents for three hours as a witness to an incident, the only sober witness I might add, and they tried to pull every single cop cliche in the book on me. Good cop/ bad cop, random threats (45 years in Levenworth), calling me a liar, telling me my (drunk) buddies all gave a different account. I was torn between being really pissed off they were treating a witness like a criminal and wanting to laugh at the painfully obvious ploys.

    the incident in question: Did a guy two feet away from me in a bar grab a girls tits

    (no he didn't)

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Actually, I could probably make the case that allowing Mormons in the military is bad for unit cohesion. I know it certainly didn't help things when my unit deployed...the brigade was based out of Idaho, and was disproportionately Mormon (especially at the higher levels...like brigade command levels). Caused all kinds of problems, lowered morale among the non-Mormon elements (such as the combat battalions from outside Idaho), etc.

    No, really. It was actually pretty bad.

    So we probably shouldn't allow Mormons in the military. At least not at the higher levels of command. I'm thinking a DADT policy on Mormonism would accomplish this nicely, while also minimizing their morale and cohesion-reducing effects at lower levels as well.

    Anybody with me?

    mcdermott on
  • JJJJ DailyStormer Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    So, what do mormons do that lowers morale?

    JJ on
    Christ, what an asshole
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    JJ wrote: »
    So, what do mormons do that lowers morale?

    Off the top of my head, it was seriously discussed whether soldiers should be allowed to possess things like Maxim magazines. They were trying to figure out if they could apply General Order 1(A) to them. Luckily for us, they eventually figured out that if it's sold at the PX on the FOB, they probably can't get away with banning it.

    EDIT: Another fun one, from my childhood...a majority of our school administration was Mormon, and they tried to ban shorts that weren't like an inch or two below the knee (and, IIRC, sleeveless shirts). In Phoenix.

    Basically, putting a bunch of Mormons in charge of a bunch of non-Mormons can often lead to all kinds of hilarity.

    Fuck, I'm trying to think of what other crazy-ass shit our chain of command tried to pull...but I'm drawing a blank. It could be because I'm drunk.

    mcdermott on
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    They make me think of that one chick from The Real World.

    Bitch was crazy.

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Actually, I could probably make the case that allowing Mormons in the military is bad for unit cohesion. I know it certainly didn't help things when my unit deployed...the brigade was based out of Idaho, and was disproportionately Mormon (especially at the higher levels...like brigade command levels). Caused all kinds of problems, lowered morale among the non-Mormon elements (such as the combat battalions from outside Idaho), etc.

    No, really. It was actually pretty bad.

    So we probably shouldn't allow Mormons in the military. At least not at the higher levels of command. I'm thinking a DADT policy on Mormonism would accomplish this nicely, while also minimizing their morale and cohesion-reducing effects at lower levels as well.

    Anybody with me?


    Dear God, I can only imagine how shitty it would be to deploy with a large group of Mormons.

    I guess I'm lucky, my boat has one incredibly self-righteous christian (who is a thoroughly horrible human being, take my word for it) two rather "look-at-me!" white, late-in-life Muslim converts (yes, I know that's a lot of qualifiers, but these guys are questionable) and that's it.

    Everyone else on the boat who is religious is religious in a quietly non-confrontational way.

    Regina Fong on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I'm not really participating properly in this debate, but the whole idea of DADT fascinates me in a slightly horrified way.

    After consulting Wikipedia, what has me wondering at the moment is how US troops deal with operating alongside the armies of other nations who do allow homosexuals to serve openly. From Wikipedia's list of nations making up the coalition force currently serving in Iraq, that means troops from all European nations except Latvia.

    Do the US troops get to pick and choose what units they work with? Do they just not work that closely together? I have no idea how it all works over there, but it seems fair to assume there must be some contact between European and US units, particularly those of the UK. Is there any kind of culture shock?

    japan on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    japan wrote: »
    Do the US troops get to pick and choose what units they work with? Do they just not work that closely together? I have no idea how it all works over there, but it seems fair to assume there must be some contact between European and US units, particularly those of the UK. Is there any kind of culture shock?

    Seems to me, from what I saw, that the units in Iraq don't come into much contact with each other. Units from other countries are housed separately, and may even have non-overlapping areas of responsibility. So I'm assuming it doesn't create too much of an issue.

    A portion of my unit went to do some training at Fort Knox alongside some Canadians, though, and from what I understand their inclusion of females on their tank crews did create a bit of a culture shock for our guys (US tank crews, of course, being entirely male).

    Anyway, so yeah. I don't think it's so much the "having homosexuals anywhere near me at any time" that the bigots that populate the US military can't deal with (at least most of them)...it's being forced to live in close quarters with them (and, by extension, share bathrooms, shower, etc).

    mcdermott on
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I'm glad jeepguy finally showed to this party.

    And, man, I thought the Army got the rainbow ribbon for something else. Or BMT ribbon for the Air Force is MUCH more hetero... (I'll link it later)

    deowolf on
    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    deowolf wrote: »
    I'm glad jeepguy finally showed to this party.

    And, man, I thought the Army got the rainbow ribbon for something else. Or BMT ribbon for the Air Force is MUCH more hetero... (I'll link it later)

    I find it amusing that other service branches get a ribbon just for getting through bootcamp.

    Congratulations! You meet the bare minimum standards to do the job, have some chest candy!

    Regina Fong on
  • ALockslyALocksly Registered User
    edited February 2007
    jeepguy wrote: »
    deowolf wrote: »
    I'm glad jeepguy finally showed to this party.

    And, man, I thought the Army got the rainbow ribbon for something else. Or BMT ribbon for the Air Force is MUCH more hetero... (I'll link it later)

    I find it amusing that other service branches get a ribbon just for getting through bootcamp.

    Congratulations! You meet the bare minimum standards to do the job, have some chest candy!


    well obviously this is because Navy boot camp is so easy it doesen't warrent a ribbon

    duh :P

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    jeepguy wrote: »
    deowolf wrote: »
    I'm glad jeepguy finally showed to this party.

    And, man, I thought the Army got the rainbow ribbon for something else. Or BMT ribbon for the Air Force is MUCH more hetero... (I'll link it later)

    I find it amusing that other service branches get a ribbon just for getting through bootcamp.

    Congratulations! You meet the bare minimum standards to do the job, have some chest candy!


    well obviously this is because Navy boot camp is so easy it doesen't warrent a ribbon

    duh :P


    The fact that the chair force has a boot camp ribbon shoots your logic full of big, gaping, vaginal holes.

    Regina Fong on
  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu, have you even fought in a goddamn war yet, you fucking leg cherry?

    And yeah, all the Mormons I knew pretty much tossed aside religious practices at the earliest convience.

    siliconenhanced on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu, have you even fought in a goddamn war yet, you fucking leg cherry?

    And yeah, all the Mormons I knew pretty much tossed aside religious practices at the earliest convience.

    Oh shits, it's siliconenhanced with a surprise elbow from behind!
    jeepguy wrote: »
    I find it amusing that other service branches get a ribbon just for getting through bootcamp.

    Congratulations! You meet the bare minimum standards to do the job, have some chest candy!

    The Army doesn't send boots to camp, bitch.

    Also, the fact that you get a ribbon just for getting through basic is outweighed by the fact that one ribbon by itself looks sadder and lonelier than no ribbons at all.

    mcdermott on
  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    h3ndu, have you even fought in a goddamn war yet, you fucking leg cherry?

    And yeah, all the Mormons I knew pretty much tossed aside religious practices at the earliest convience.

    Oh shits, it's siliconenhanced with a surprise elbow from behind!
    jeepguy wrote: »
    I find it amusing that other service branches get a ribbon just for getting through bootcamp.

    Congratulations! You meet the bare minimum standards to do the job, have some chest candy!

    The Army doesn't send boots to camp, bitch.

    Also, the fact that you get a ribbon just for getting through basic is outweighed by the fact that one ribbon by itself looks sadder and lonelier than no ribbons at all.

    Seriously man, its one thing to add discourse and debate if you're a fucking veteran, but when you're a goddamn cherry fresh from the Benning School for Boys and you know there's combat veterans around, shut up and learn something.

    I always get nervous that there's a Special Forces A Team MSG who's going to come flying out of nowhere and say "Hey punk, when my plane got hit by a missile over Columbia and I had to kill a jaguar to stay alive after jumping out of my burning plane.." and put me in my place.

    Yeah, you're a goddamn PFC, congratz. You're in charge of every E-2 and below in the Army, now shut the fuck up with what you think. There's probably more homosexuals wearing a long tab than you'd even want to know, and you're saying some drivel about how you feel?

    Yeah, okay. Sorry but I'll take the 18D who might just save my life and likes a bit of rough time with the boys over some punk 11B who might remember how to apply a tourniquet if he isn't too worried about the ghey being transmitted through the blood.

    We all get it, you're infantry. Congratu-fucking-lations. Now go jump out of a goddamn plane at 800 feet at four in the morning and come talk to me. That "oh but I have a machine gun!" might impress the townies you get drunk with back in Bumfuck, but in this company? You're just going to embarass yourself kid.

    "Graphic stories", Jesus H Motherfucker.

    Aside: You know they get three ribbons coming out of Basic/OSUT now, right? Army Service, National Defense, and GWOT Service.

    siliconenhanced on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Aside: You know they get three ribbons coming out of Basic/OSUT now, right? Army Service, National Defense, and GWOT Service.

    Good fucking lord. Three ribbons and a beret for completing basic? No wonder they all think they're fucking Rambo.
    Yeah, you're a goddamn PFC, congratz. You're in charge of every E-2 and below in the Army, now shut the fuck up with what you think. There's probably more homosexuals wearing a long tab than you'd even want to know, and you're saying some drivel about how you feel?

    I love you. In a very manly, very heterosexual way.
    You're in charge of every E-2 and below in the Army.

    Fuck that. He's in charge of every E-2 and below in his squad. Maybe every E-2 and below in the infantry (ya'll seem to play that game). In armor, an E-3 didn't tell an E-2 outside his section what to do, lest the person who is actually in charge of that E-2 (an E-5 or up, likely) come and give him a black-shiny-leather enema.

    mcdermott on
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    In armor, an E-3 didn't tell an E-2 outside his section what to do, lest the person who is actually in charge of that E-2 (an E-5 or up, likely) come and give him a black-shiny-leather enema.
    Desert-tan-Goretex enema?

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    zakkiel wrote: »
    In armor, an E-3 didn't tell an E-2 outside his section what to do, lest the person who is actually in charge of that E-2 (an E-5 or up, likely) come and give him a black-shiny-leather enema.
    Desert-tan-Goretex enema?
    Not back when I was a tanker. ;)

    mcdermott on
  • EvigilantEvigilant VARegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Aside: You know they get three ribbons coming out of Basic/OSUT now, right? Army Service, National Defense, and GWOT Service.

    Wait what? They get the GWOT Service medal now? Fuck that, I had to earn mine(and what looks like a 3rd one coming up*) and I hate to think that some cherry gets it for doing nothing remarkable.
    Yeah, you're a goddamn PFC, congratz. You're in charge of every E-2 and below in the Army, now shut the fuck up with what you think. There's probably more homosexuals wearing a long tab than you'd even want to know, and you're saying some drivel about how you feel?

    In artillery, E-3's aren't in charge of shit, especially the greenhorns. We have them do the most mundane tasks until I think they have earned the responsibility of doing actually their MOS without someone second guessing them or having to look over their shoulder, which as of late is becoming difficult since my squad is small compared to an infantry squad. So I've had to decrease the amount of time training and meshing with the rest of the squad so that I can get them into a position I need to have running.

    Also an E-3 in my squad isn't telling the E-2's what to do, because they are just as fucked up most of the time. Most E-3's earned it for being "honor" grad in BCT/AIT, which I feel doesn't qualify them for any sort of leadership even if it's over some E-2. There is at least an E-4 in charge of every E-3 and E-2, where the E-3 and E-2 are essentially that E-4's bitch as they re-learn the tasks required.

    To stay on topic: I personally don't care if a gay person was in my squad, battery/company or battalion or if they where in the military at all. If you are gay, but you joined up "for the country" and you are willing to go get shot at or to even get deployed and go to war, I think that you have earned your right to stay in the military. Kudos.

    I also hate the new Army uniforms and the Beret, I ETS in July and I'm debating staying in(after this stoploss) for another 3 years.

    *I earned the GWOT and GWOT:EF service medals in place of Iraqi campaign medal because we where told that they where going to stop awarding the GWOT medals.

    Evigilant on
    Google+ Profile XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    The in charge of comment was something of a joke. I once knew a PFC who took himself too seriously, as we got back from Afghanistan and were dropping people right and left who were getting the fuck out. So they threw him on a 240B, and it went to his head that he was a team leader.

    Our company RTO (a sergeant himself) told him to do something, and he said "I'm a team leader, so you can't tell me what to do". In front of the 1SG's office. While the platoon sergeant meeting was going on.

    It was bedlam. I saw some shit done to that private that I'm pretty sure was illegal, and we had to get Doc to stick him after he was done getting well and scuffed.

    Infantry land is weird about the entire "team leader" thing, since there's certain positions (mortar/machine gunners, vehicle commanders, commander RTO) that you aren't really in charge of a team (or in my case, a squad), but you're rated as such. I've seen it taken to the extreme, when a Specialist who was "just" a SAW gunner has a platoon sergeant try to kick him out of his room for the PFC 240B gunner.

    However, this isn't siliconenhanced storytime, so I'll leave it at that.

    Evil, get the fuck out dude. The Army is heading south fast, and its just not worth the bullshit you're going to have to deal with in the next few years when the ship finally sinks. My unit got back in December, and they're told to expect to go back by the beginning of next year. Holy. Fuck.

    I realised that the Army was a lifeline that kept you fed and sheltered and paid you, but you know what? I'm much happier knowing I'm going home every night than living from deployment to deployment.

    siliconenhanced on
  • EvigilantEvigilant VARegistered User regular
    edited February 2007

    Stuff

    I'm sure you know the deal then with the Army and deployment possibilities. I've supposedly got one coming up soon, when July makes 18months being back home from Iraq. I laugh about it because I'm losing my mind. The anxiety and stress of not knowing if I am or am not going back into war really does a number. I'm already 2 years behind in college (compared to all my friends who were freshmen with me and have now graduated 2 years ago) and if I go back to war I'm going to be an 8 year junior. Last tour I was on I had 4 friends die(1 to a sniper, 2 to separate IED's, and 1 to Small arms fire) while witnessing first hand the stupidity and bureaucracy of the military, like leaders patting themselves on the back with bronze stars and the like. Oh the stories we could tell.

    I've thought about getting out, but I really enjoy the military at times. It's not the politics, the stupidity or the missions but the people I serve with. Some of the best friends I have, I am their squad leader, and I literally feel like if I left I couldn't guarantee their safety...or that I couldn't have a potential say over the matter. 2 of my old high school buddies joined up after me because of me, so I want to stay in until they finish. Plus I want to leave combat arms and get into retirement mode, where I would like to transition into Intelligence, retire, and then become a contractor for the government.

    I'm a big proponent of "taking care of things in-house" rather than dick it all up through paperwork. What better way of instilling discipline and teaching someone their role than through "in-house" methods? Paperwork it and they just throw it away and become more aggressive, while other methods are quick and dirty. I bet that Private knows exactly what he rates now.

    Evigilant on
    Google+ Profile XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Not sure if this got posted.

    http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2007/02/27/2
    Officer guilty of being gay, rape jury told
    published Tuesday, February 27, 2007
    An Air Force officer accused of raping four men and attempting to rape two others is only guilty of being gay in the military, a defense attorney told a court-martial jury during closing arguments Monday.

    Capt. Devery L. Taylor, 38, violated the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans people who are openly gay and lesbian from serving in the armed forces, said his private defense attorney, Martin Regan.

    "My client is an admitted homosexual involved in consensual homosexual relationships and let's let the military deal with it in the right forum, not in a court-martial," Regan said Monday at the trial on Florida's Eglin Air Force Base.

    Four of the men had consensual sex with Taylor and lied to protect their military careers, while a fifth wanted to join the Navy and feared being identified as gay, Regan said.

    For the rest, read the full article in the link. But the gist of it is, that 5 men thought it would appear better to be a victim of gay rape than to be seen as gay.

    MuddBudd on
    steam_sig.png
This discussion has been closed.