General observations on just about anything.
If it passes I have a new name for it...
Published on May 31, 2010 By Nitro Cruiser In Politics

...but first some background.

Disclaimer: I'm really uninterested in another persons sex life (other than my wife that is), that's their business. Also having spent half my life in the military, I fully realize that gays have and are serving their country in that capacity, thank you (and all folks, past and present) for your service. I don't dislike people personally for their lifestyle. I'm sure most serve(d) honorably, and a few were trouble makers, just as their heterosexual counter parts.

What does concern me is the total disregard of the people currently serving in the military today. Not that it was sneaked in on a Friday, prior to a long weekend (again, a reoccurring theme with this administration). Not that it was sandwiched in with other more pressing items  and $$$ goodies for the military (it was). The Pentagon was to have its finding (consultation with military members) complete by December. This administration, for political expedience, couldn't wait that long. They have showed their total disregard for our military folks opinion, just as they have for the American peoples opinion on other recent issues. They are willing to force an issue without regard for cost (there always is a cost) or plan to implement.

Why the rush? Were the people that shouted Obama down, at the recent Boxer fundraiser, on the issue anxious to enlist in the military. Hardly. Why is this important to gay activists? Are they that concerned about our military? No. They realize the way to "normalcy" is through the military. Their means to an end, their agenda. It worked for minorities and it worked for women, so it will work for gays, right? Well being a minority or a woman is pretty much an inalienable fact, with little room for interpretation. It doesn't involve personal tastes in lifestyles (I can hear the disagreements now). What will be the next "oppressed" group after this one? Time, and anyone's guess, will tell.

If this passes, this will be the first time in history that a protected "special" group of people will be treated differently in the military. Different how? They will not have their own facilities, so they will cohabitate with the sex they are physically attracted to, with only their own sense of discipline as a guide.  The finial vestiges that "helped" people consider their actions (Don't Ask Don't Tell) will be gone. Rest assured, some deviants will be attracted that might not otherwise be. Is it worth even one unwanted incident? What if it is your family member? IMO, to utterly dismiss the sexual aspect of this issue is shortsighted and unrealistic. If someone told me that I would be living in close quarters, uninhibited, with women when I enlisted as a young man at the tender age of 17, I would have thought that was a benefit!

Whoa...hold your horses you say, men and women aren't allowed potential intimate contact on a daily basis in the military. That would be correct, but if that concept bothers you, why the double standard? How would you feel having some guy live in your wife or daughters (or a woman with your husband or son) military dorm room or barracks, shaving his face while she shaves her legs in the shower? I could tell you probably nothing would happen 90% of the time (there is fraternization now, and it is punishable), but there would be problems. Jealous spouses have left their soldiers, sailors, and airman just on suspicion. The opposite is also true. I understand that gays can be afflicted with these emotions, real or perceived, too. I don't foresee men's, women's or other's facilities on the horizon anytime soon.

What else can be exploited? Well let me give an example that many can relate too. When the presidents critics voice their opposition a bit too loud, what is one of the first counter accusations? Racism. And make no bones about it it is effective and used often (read some blogs and see for yourself). So what if a gay person doesn't like his/her evaluation? "My marks are low because you hate gays". Someone harasses you, you're just making the complaint up because you don't like gays. Do I believe this will be the norm? No, but it will happen and when it does it affects the effectiveness of a command.  The military is mired heavily in PCness lately the way it is. We can't afford this additional intrigue IMO, especially during two ongoing wars.

For any of its flaws, Don't Ask Don't Tell applied to everyone, straight or gay. IMO it protected both. This is decision is best left up to the personnel serving, not the politicians, not the activists. If this is something the bulk of our service people can adapt and handle effectively, I would humbly concede to them and the issue is done. Would the gay activists do the same? Can the folks asking for tolerance show some as well?  If it passes without military input, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"(DADT) will become "Look, But Don't Touch" (LBDT).

Remember, you heard the term coined here first.

UPDATE 05/24/2017

Since this post in now locked for 2 years for whatever reason (most likely due to its longevity). I wanted to add the (sort of) conclusion of the Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning story that erupted in the comments. As you may or may not know Manning was pardoned of his espionage 35 year sentence by departing President Obama. With the current leftest push for clamping down on claimed foreign involvement in US affairs, I find the leniency they provide proven traitors they sympathize with, fascinating. Anyway, now Manning is free to live his/her live with military medical benefits for the rest of his years, on your dime of course. More here.


Comments (Page 3)
16 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Jun 01, 2010

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10E118.pdf

Here is another link which is the Pentagon's own report on sexual assault for 2009. 

on Jun 01, 2010

Oh man, there's just so much comedic potential on this whole idea.

--------

5 Star General (to subordinates): Men, it's come to my attention that our guys aren't in as good of shape as we need them to be. I'd like to increase some of the physical requirements at bootcamp.

Colonel: Sir, we can't just do that. We have to do a survey of opinions first. After all, we need to get to the people who deal with this on a daily basis.

Your condescending attempt at humor belies your ignorance of military life. As I said in the main article "The military is mired heavily in PCness lately the way it is". If you only knew half the BS that came down from the top, including surveys, you would understand. But don't take my word for it, plenty of other retired military on JU you can ask.

The "Chicago Style" Saul Alinsky playbook tactics are a nice touch though. I thought only Chicago politicians used them, not the general population. Good for you.

on Jun 01, 2010

What do you entail by "Here's something you might not be exposed to"?

Meaning I didn't know the diversity of the commenter's neighborhood, but mine is (note the word "might"). Keep looking for something malicious, if it helps.

And pry tell me why it's impossible for an homosexual to live in a mixed neighborhood. Mow their lawns, check their mail, waash their cars just like you do.

Who said homosexuals couldn't live in a mixed neighborhood?  The comment was about Blacks, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans and was a response to something Dan_l brought up. My article is about allowing the military to choose, or at least ask their opinion before passing it, that's it. So ask him why he mentioned it.  BTW Two gay guys lived two doors down from he. The bread winner of the couple got a new job out of state any they moved. I've never seen them harassed, and we spoke from time to time. We never discussed their sex life, I didn't ask and they didn't tell.

Being gay changes one's lifestyle for about the same reason than one being black, or latino, or muslim, or jewish:

Not being gay, I'll have to take your word for it.

But here a question for you, since many of the comments aren't dealing with the topic anyway, when you use the restroom, do you use the ladies room? How about the gym? Do you use the women's locker room? I mean it's no big deal, your just getting the job done, right? And why should the women there be upset, what you do in your bedroom is no concern of theirs right? Just tell them it's all business, nothing to do with sex. Let me know how tolerantly you are treated.

on Jun 02, 2010

You seem focused on the end results not the impact or management.

Well frankly yes. 

1.  there's no discernible impact on management or otherwise that ever other group of professionals in the free world hasn't dealt with already. 

2.  Bad news:  the military works for the United States.  Not the other way around. 

 

They can have all of the opinions they want, but when the directive comes down, the expectation is that they're going to play ball---in the non-sexual metaphor kind of way. 

 

I understand you want gays to serve openly in the military - you have no idea about what that would entail in administrative man-hour

I want to make sure I understand this; and please come down on a point here:  You're saying that gay Americans should have to maintain the closet to......cut down on administrative man hours?  Seriously?  That's the big problem? 

 

They don't have to file reports, for the most part, when there is an incident.

An 'incident'?  lulz.  Have you dealt with a modern HR department? 

 

There is little time for a blood test when a transfusion is needed on a battlefield when you don't know who the donor slept with last week (Yes I know, heteros can pass disease too, but I'd take my chance with a lower risk group, thank you).

What about people who've used illegal IV drugs? And I thought you were ok with gays in the military, just not ones who were out?  So if they're just in the closet, how does that alleviate that concern? 

 

You still seem to believe I'm anti-gay, that's your problem.

Well.  Not really.  See, by virtue of you advocating this 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' "I don't dislike the gays, I'm afraid of administrative man hours" charade, I'm guessing that you're the one with the issue. 

 

As I said in the main article "The military is mired heavily in PCness lately the way it is".

Welcome to the real world. 

 

The "Chicago Style" Saul Alinsky playbook tactics are a nice touch though

Oh noes!  You compared me with Saul Alinsky!  Whatever will I do?

---------

  Colonel:  Sir, we need to send in the Apache's now!  We have the insurgents cornered.  If we get the air power in, we can win the Iraq war. 

11 Star General:  I don't know.  We'll have to survey the men first.

---------

Dude, it's a job.  It's a professional career.  It's not a choose your own adventure novel. 

 

 

 

 

 

Lula: 

I don't know who "Sergeant Major Brian Jones, Ret.," is.  I can't say that I care.  I'll assume based on his hysterical totally inane comments that he's totally nuts. 

 

I do however, know who the FRC is.  I can say with absolute certainty based on their hysterical, inane, completely out of line with modern living comments on gay folks and other issues that they are totally nuts. 

 

 

 

The real issue is homosexuality itself:

 

To that, I'll just give you a picture: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jun 02, 2010

But here a question for you, since many of the comments aren't dealing with the topic anyway, when you use the restroom, do you use the ladies room? How about the gym? Do you use the women's locker room? I mean it's no big deal, your just getting the job done, right? And why should the women there be upset, what you do in your bedroom is no concern of theirs right? Just tell them it's all business, nothing to do with sex. Let me know how tolerantly you are treated.

 

Here's the thing Nitro: 

 

I would kind of believe that you actually believe your story about your 'administrative man hours', if it weren't for silly comments like this, except you seem to bring up your latent sexual fears (or your projected latent sexual fears of others) so often. 

Have you ever gone to a gym?  Do you think there's not gay guys there?  Do you think when you're in a dressing room at a store that there's not gay guys next to you?  Or how about public restrooms? 

 

See, for most people, these aren't really sexual situations-----

ok ok

Unless you're Larry Craig.  You've got me there. 

 

But for you, you seem to see this sexual potential in these happenstance interactions.  It's irrational and very, very strange. 

 

 

on Jun 02, 2010

1. there's no discernible impact on management or otherwise that ever other group of professionals in the free world hasn't dealt with already.

Really??? I wouldn't compare our military with any "professional" group in the world, including foreign militaries. Example: The French stop for wine and the Germans don't fight after dark... and this is in a war zone. I understand that some folks want complete globalization, everyone is the same. Heck that's what the president wants.

Anyway, even small changes, regardless of what they are, impact management in the military. It's called risk assessment management and you'd be surprised at the number of mundane issues it is applied to. Now imagine something that effects it across the four corners of the globe.

2. Bad news: the military works for the United States. Not the other way around.



They can have all of the opinions they want, but when the directive comes down, the expectation is that they're going to play ball---in the non-sexual metaphor kind of way.

Yep, kind of goes against your point of it's just like any other job. The US Government is supposed to work for Americans too. How is that working out?

I want to make sure I understand this; and please come down on a point here: You're saying that gay Americans should have to maintain the closet to......cut down on administrative man hours? Seriously? That's the big problem?

No, I'm saying their WILL BE additional administrative man-hours, regardless of how few gays might be serving. When in uniform you can't just walk down the ranks and determine who is gay. It is apparent who is male or female. So, since there is no way of knowing all commands, big and small will need to hold training, awareness classes, etc. even if they don't have any gays. It would be reoccurring. This costs taxpayer dollars.

Everyone likes to compare this with women in combat capabilities, so lets do that for a moment. I was in a management position (NCO) during this time, 1995. We we told about 6 - 8 months prior to their arrival. I would say a few didn't want them to come (maybe they didn't like women... hum), Some thought they were going to get laid frequently. Some were indifferent. I knew my work load on an already busy schedule (preparation for deployment) was going to increase. There were countless BS training, even threats of punishment if you looked at one wrong. They had the males so scared that when the females did arrive, it was like a junior high school dance - boys on one side girls on another.

All this accomplished was the women having a much tougher time integrating and learning during the pre-deployment. It didn't last forever though. Soon after they began hooking up. Out of the initial 125 women the command received about 12% were lost due to pregnancy (and their positions could not be immediately filled, the female billet numbers needed to be maintained...policy). About 8% were lost due to sexual misconduct (the couple couldn't serve at the same command, so that usually meant the male was transfered after NJP).  These were the only ones caught. When you're faced with being undermanned, things went overlooked. Fights increased, the dreaded break-ups, jealousy, but on a positive note male hygiene improved and common areas smelled like a French whore house (not always good).

Some of the women were as hard working as the men. Some were afraid to break a nail (a few guys were like that too). Most were average. But, the amount of additional paperwork, counseling, and other issues regarding women never decreased up until I retired in 2003. Time and effort that could have been utilized to better effect elsewhere, you decide, it's your tax dollars.

So will the gay issue be similar or greater or less of a problem. I know it will be more work, than now. If those on active duty have no issues with it, then fine, neither do I. 

An 'incident'? lulz. Have you dealt with a modern HR department?

Yes, none have compared to issues of their military counterpart.

Oh noes! You compared me with Saul Alinsky! Whatever will I do?

You like that? I thought it was pretty good, too! (Toki or Skwisgaar?)

Dude, it's a job. It's a professional career. It's not a choose your own adventure novel.

Nothing about careers in the article. It's about some voice for those serving. If they want one gay for each arm, I'm fine with that... if that is their choice. Yeah it's a professional career, but unlike the civilian sector, you can just walk away if you don't like what your boss asks you to do. Call it a job all you want if that makes you happy. I've had plenty and none of them compare to military duty.

Have you ever gone to a gym? Do you think there's not gay guys there? Do you think when you're in a dressing room at a store that there's not gay guys next to you? Or how about public restrooms?

Oh I'm sure their are, I think it would be a great benefit. I know if I could walk into shower area of the gender I'm sexually attracted to just to have a little look-see, with out repercussions, I might be tempted. Why not it's all in the line of duty.

BTW I was having a bit of fun with Cikomyr. You haven't been around long enough to know the banter, nor would I expect you to. Maybe someone that knows you better would find your attempt a comedy funny too.

 

on Jun 02, 2010

Really??? I wouldn't compare our military with any "professional" group in the world,

That's your problem.  Not mine. 

 

No, I'm saying their WILL BE additional administrative man-hours, regardless of how few gays might be serving. When in uniform you can't just walk down the ranks and determine who is gay. It is apparent who is male or female. So, since there is no way of knowing all commands, big and small will need to hold training, awareness classes, etc. even if they don't have any gays. It would be reoccurring. This costs taxpayer dollars.

Wait a minute.  Why would they need 'trainings' and 'awareness' classes? If the military is largely ok with gay folks, and there isn't a problem, there wouldn't be such a need. Right?  Or is this going to be another "well u just don't know how the military is with all of it's trainingz and awarnesses"

 

 

Yep, kind of goes against your point of it's just like any other job. The US Government is supposed to work for Americans too. How is that working out?

It is just like any other job.  the US government, by and large works for the American people. 

 

Yes, none have compared to issues of their military counterpart.

Work for an F50 sometime. 

 

I've had plenty and none of them compare to military duty.

Which is a deluded fantasy.  At the end of the day, take away the medals and the nifty uniforms, and the military is a federal agency much like any other and they are expected to be in line with those crazy modern hiring practices like the opportunity for women, black folks, brown folks, and gay folks to take a job. 

 

I know if I could walk into shower area of the gender I'm sexually attracted to just to have a little look-see, with out repercussions, I might be tempted.

If you really do get a sexual charge out of something like that.......

 

 

on Jun 03, 2010

Really??? I wouldn't compare our military with any "professional" group in the world



That's your problem. Not mine.

Oh it's no problem for me, why would my opinion bother me, and I'm not bothered if it or isn't  a problem for you. You seem to just be stretching to make your argument.

Wait a minute. Why would they need 'trainings' and 'awareness' classes?

Beats me. Women were in the military long before they were assigned to combat units, yet there was a boat load of training before they were assigned. If gays are permitted to serve openly, past experience would seem to dictate new levels of "sensitivity" training.  As I said before the military is so "Politically Correct" it can't function unless everyone down the chain of command covers their own ass. Maybe the Pentagon can answer your question (they work for you remember).

Yes, none have compared to issues of their military counterpart.



Work for an F50 sometime.

I'm unfamiliar with that term. Do they share living accommodations 24/7 and make life and death decisions on a regular basis? It's just a job, right?

I've had plenty and none of them compare to military duty.



Which is a deluded fantasy.

Call it what you want. My opinion is based on experience, how about yours?

If you really do get a sexual charge out of something like that.......

Yeah, It's terrible...attraction to the opposite sex isn't it.

on Jun 04, 2010

I'm unfamiliar with that term.

Naturally. 

 

Call it what you want. My opinion is based on experience, how about yours?

Again.  You were a federal employee.  You get your own holiday.  Congrats.  It doesn't somehow mean that there's a free pass from the values of the rest of the country, which at present time say---at the very least, gay folks have every right to employment as anybody else.  

Look I know it's difficult for you to get.  Change is hard, especially for organizations that pride themselves so highly on tradition.  I don't know.  Maybe the issue is that the organization and the 'veterans' are deeply confused and see gay folks as an affront on their tradition.  It certainly isn't, but maybe that's the perception of folks who don't have a whole lot of engagement with what's going on in the real world. 

 

That might be the reason why your arguments seem so...dumb. Maybe they work while you're sitting around talking to other like minded veterans or when you're swapping war stories at church, but there are 10 year olds that can pick apart "OH NO NOT THE ADMINISTRATIVE MAN HOURS" and "I"M OK WITH THE CLOSET GAYS BUT IF THE GAYS COME OUT OF THE CLOSET I'LL HAVE TO BE ON THE SEXUAL ALERT AND ILL GET DISEASES FROM TRANSFUSIONS". 

Seriously?  Administrative man hours is the best you have? 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, It's terrible...attraction to the opposite sex isn't it.

Hey, if voyeurism does it for you, that's your business.  I just find it fascinating that you project your proclivities onto gay folks you've never met. 

 

on Jun 04, 2010

 

I'm unfamiliar with that term.

Naturally.

Not another liberal elitist??? There is a few people here you are going to get along with beautifully. They pop in from time to time to entertain the conservatives. I recommend "The problem with America" in the off-topic section, should be like home for you.

Call it what you want. My opinion is based on experience, how about yours?

Again. You were a federal employee. You get your own holiday. Congrats. It doesn't somehow mean that there's a free pass from the values of the rest of the country, which at present time say---at the very least, gay folks have every right to employment as anybody else.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. You seem to have something against the military. Jealous? Couldn't make the cut? Or just waiting for some changes? Do you want a holiday? If your talking about Veterans Day, maybe it would make you glad to know that on active duty and deployed it was just another "workday". Since I've been retired, every job I've had (most have been government related) if I wanted "my" day (and millions of others) off, I had to take a personal day. But thanks anyway.

What are the rest of the countries values? You might know your little worlds values. I would never be so arrogant to state I knew everyones values, yours included. You must be special I guess. Congratulations to you as well.

Change is hard,

Yes, especially when you combined it with hope, it's pretty much down right failure. (It's fun taking sentences out of context, isn't it?)

I don't know.

I can see that.

That might be the reason why your arguments seem so...dumb.

My only position is to let those that serve decide...you can't seem to comprehend the concept. I'm not bother if they want it or not, just let them have their say... or do you believe in the 1st amendment only for some? You sir (I assume) are not adding a thing to this discussion, unless your intent is for me to respond to your drivel. It's pretty much an "I agree or "I don't agree" that military personnel should have a say. You haven't said anything that would make me feel differently. But hey, thanks for pretty much single handedly raising my post count, really.

Seriously? Administrative man hours is the best you have?

One (seeing how that seems to be the only thing you are picking up on), but then the article is about those serving making the choice, my opinion is irrelevant, theirs is, the people serving are what matter to me, even the gays. You keep wanting to make it about me (I'm flattered. Don't know why you care about my opinion, you're sure as hell not offering  a good reason for not giving them voice...besides it's a job, is that all you got?). Until their is resolution you can march in the next parade if you think that will help. Might do you more good that posting here.

Yeah, It's terrible...attraction to the opposite sex isn't it.

Hey, if voyeurism does it for you, that's your business. I just find it fascinating that you project your proclivities onto gay folks you've never met.

Well, just about every straight man I know (and women are almost as bad, lots of porn discovered in health and comfort inspections in their berthing areas) has looked at a magazine or film at some point in their life (I'm sure if it was OK, no retrictions, they would prefer it live). In fact, you'd have to be the first without that desire. I hear it's a pretty natural feeling. Sorry you're offended. Maybe you should see a professional. 

on Jun 04, 2010

Not another liberal elitist??? 

Yes.  Obviously, I disagree with you.  Therefore, I must be a stoopid lib-ruhl liteist. 

 

You seem to have something against the military.

No.  I have a problem with people who advocate against fair treatment of gay folks simply based on sexual orientation.   

 

You seem to have something against the military. Jealous? Couldn't make the cut?

Yes.  Obviously, because every American strives to join the military.  It is our universal and collective goal.  All stoopid lib-ruhl letist are just jealous they couldn't meet the strict intellectual and physical requirements to join the military.  That is why we all hate the military and we all hate America. 

 

What are the rest of the countries values?

The rest of the country has indicated in practice that discrimination of employment based on sexual orientation is wrong.  This is a reality.  It is not disputed. 

 

My only position is to let those that serve decide...you can't seem to comprehend the concept. I'm not bother if they want it or not, just let them have their say... or do you believe in the 1st amendment only for some?

 

Don't know why you care about my opinion, you're sure as hell not offering  a good reason for not giving them voice.

That actually hasn't been your position.  Remember, "what about blood transfusion risks" and "how can we go back to the barracks with know gay folks?"  Or were you just projecting your beliefs onto soldiers? 

Incidentally, it's not really a first amendment issue.  They can say whatever they like.  I see positively no reason to do it.  It's a very simple human resources issue. 

 

(seeing how that seems to be the only thing you are picking up on)

No.  I also asked you about how in your world you can peacefully rest on "their are closet gay folks in my barracks that I might need to get blood from" but you can't with "there are out gay folks in my barracks that I might need to get blood from". 

 

Well, just about every straight man I know (and women are almost as bad, lots of porn discovered in health and comfort inspections in their berthing areas) has looked at a magazine or film at some point in their life (I'm sure if it was OK, no retrictions, they would prefer it live). In fact, you'd have to be the first without that desire. I hear it's a pretty natural feeling.

Once again, you're projecting.  You seem to be of the belief that there is sexual energy associated with staying in the same barracks or 'in the shower'.  Since, I'm not one for really getting off on non-sexual situations and you clearly are, I thought that to be strange.  Unless of course, you have the sexual maturity of a 15 year old boy - which wouldn't entirely surprise, mind you, but honestly:  typically people move past such nonsense in their twenties. 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jun 04, 2010

 

On a lighter note, the comedian from the great state of Texas, Bill Hicks on Gays In the Military circa the 90's.  Errr....NSFW, probably not for the easily offended either. 

 

 

on Jun 04, 2010

Yes. Obviously, I disagree with you. Therefore, I must be a stoopid lib-ruhl liteist.

It's not your opinion, you support gay rights, fine, I get that,  it's your condescending attitude. Your opinion is superior in your mind and you can't tolerate someone might feel differently from yourself. If your not a liberal elitist, you do a wonderful job expressing yourself as such.

No. I have a problem with people who advocate against fair treatment of gay folks simply based on sexual orientation.

This article is not advocating for anything other that to let the military decide their course of action. You seem to feel they are incapable of that. Duly noted. Thank you for your opinion.

The rest of the country has indicated in practice that discrimination of employment based on sexual orientation is wrong.

So then there shouldn't be any gays serving now right? I believe the issue it they just don't want to know about it. Go down to your local Hooters and apply for a waiter job, let me know if you get it.

That is why we all hate the military and we all hate America.

I had my suspicions, that's for clearing that up for me.

That actually hasn't been your position. Remember, "what about blood transfusion risks" and "how can we go back to the barracks with know gay folks?" Or were you just projecting your beliefs onto soldiers?

Are you stupid? How exactly can I project anything on anybody? LOL Didn't know I was some sort of Svengali. I'm not even sure if any active duty read the Blogs on JU. Just because I believe something doesn't mean I expect others to agree. I couldn't care less if you agree with me personally... get that through your thick skull.

No. I also asked you about how in your world you can peacefully rest on "their are closet gay folks in my barracks that I might need to get blood from" but you can't with "there are out gay folks in my barracks that I might need to get blood from".

My opinion has little to do with the article subject, let those that serve decide. A point you can't seem to comprehend. Please stay on topic... do you understand?

Unless of course, you have the sexual maturity of a 15 year old boy - which wouldn't entirely surprise, mind you, but honestly: typically people move past such nonsense in their twenties.

Average age of persons serving in the military is 19. Thank you for acknowledging my point. BTW a man doesn't have to be 15 to appreciate the female form. My condolences if you're married.

 

Anyone else with an opinion feel free to have your say... for or against the House of representatives end running this bill around the military report due out in December.

on Jun 05, 2010

If your not a liberal elitist, you do a wonderful job expressing yourself as such.

LOL.  'your a Lib-ruhl liteist!".

This article is not advocating for anything other that to let the military decide their course of action.

That's the point:  The military doesn't get to decide their own course of action.  They're not an island of fratboy "we don't want no gay folks here".  They're federal employees.

 

So then there shouldn't be any gays serving now right?

Not without hiding a core portion of their being. 

 

How exactly can I project anything on anybody? LOL Didn't know I was some sort of Svengali. I'm not even sure if any active duty read the Blogs on JU

 

My opinion has little to do with the article subject, let those that serve decide. A point you can't seem to comprehend. Please stay on topic... do you understand?

 

So which is it?  The transfusion risks and the 'what about sleeping near the gays in the barracks' is your opinion or it's your belief it's the opinion of the soldiers?  You can't have it both ways.  I know you're starting your insulting routine because you're at least smart enough to understand that you can't have it both ways.  You've dodged the question at least 3 times now because you know you're on the hook with it.  Which is it? 

 

Average age of persons serving in the military is 19. Thank you for acknowledging my point. BTW a man doesn't have to be 15 to appreciate the female form. My condolences if you're married.

LOL.  Once again, you miss the point.  The issue is the sexual charge out of non-sexual situations.  You seem to find this to be really normal.  And it's not. 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jun 05, 2010

That's the point: The military doesn't get to decide their own course of action. They're not an island of fratboy "we don't want no gay folks here". They're federal employees.

So now we have your opinion... and you can give someone else the floor.

16 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last