# Should Gays be Allowed to Serve Openly in the Military?



## Cityboy

I just watched an episode of 60 Minutes on this subject. I'm a veteran. I knew a gay Navy Corpsman when I was overseas. He caught hell from some of the "macho" badasses (so they thought), but the guy did his job and was a damned good field "Doc" as we Marines called our Navy medics. I still do not understand why a man would choose to have sex with other men, but....you know...WTF? Why not leave these people alone and let them serve their country?

I left the Marine Corps in 1986 and entered private industry. In my field, there are a few gay folks, probably about 1%, as is consistent with the rest of the U.S. population. But I noticed something about these people that was somewhat different from the general population....they tend to be extremely competent in their jobs and highly intelligent to a higher degree than the general population. Interesting. This is simply my own observation from my own experience. And here is another personal observation: Bigots and homophobes tend to be more ignorant and less competent in their jobs than the gay folks they hate. Go figure. Again, just my personal observation.

I also notice many older people, let's say 50+, tend to be less tolerant of gays and people different from themselves in general. Perhaps this is a generational thing? 

Anyway, what say you, FF members? Should gays be allowed to serve openly in our military? If not, why not. If so, why? As for me, I say let them serve like anyone else as long as they get the job done like anyone else. Evaluate thier service based on performance of their jobs, not on what they do in private.

OK...let's vote & comment.....


----------



## ddrane2115

Cityboy said:


> Anyway, what say you, FF members? Should gays be allowed to serve openly in our military? If not, why not. If so, why? As for me, I say let them serve like anyone else as long as they get the job done like anyone else. Evaluate thier service based on performance of their jobs, not on what they do in private.
> 
> OK...let's vote & comment.....


 

I second your opinion on this, why should they NOT serve, if they are just as willing to do the job, can do it, and do it well.


----------



## OhioTC18 RIP

I say they should be allowed to serve.
Why does the military not want them, if they "come out of the closet"? Is it because they are weaker or more susceptible to enemy torture if caught? Or is it just bigotry? Or will it somehow not make a cohesive group? In a battle situation, you need to be able to count on the person standing next to you no matter what. If I needed to support the gay man next to me, he's got it, but he better be ready to do the same for me.
I work closely with two gay women. In fact I hired both of them suspecting they were gay. They take a lot of shit out in the field, but can give it right back too.


----------



## mtntopper

I just don't or would not want one behind me covering my butt........


----------



## Deadly Sushi

Yes, but only if they are hot lesbians.  Seriously I say let em serve. If they would die for their country then why not.


----------



## pirate_girl

Oui.
I have no problem with it.


----------



## Erik

Cityboy said:


> <snip> As for me, I say let them serve like anyone else as long as they get the job done like anyone else. Evaluate thier service based on performance of their jobs, not on what they do in private.
> 
> OK...let's vote & comment.....



I agree.
let them serve without having to hide if they don't want to.


----------



## American Woman

I think if women are allowed to serve then gays should be able also if they want to.


----------



## BigAl RIP

Gays love their country too . They may have a different lifestyle than most of us ,but this is not a military that still has the draft . These men and women joined the military because they wanted to . No body force them . They want to defend their country , nothing else should matter . I ,for one ,say welcome soldier and thank you for you sacifice .


----------



## Deerlope

if some of these new recurits with criminal backgrounds can serve then I say let the gays serve also, they will be less trouble.


----------



## Big Dog

Nope, no matter how non-discriminating you'd like to be it still ain't natural.

I think the key word is "openly". I would cringe at the site of 2 uniformed men holding hands and kissing ......... 

I know, I know it's meant only as true admission but then you get into "proper representation" issues.


----------



## Doc

Don't ask don't tell is okay by me.
Openly gay would bother me.  I can't fathom a gay couple being openly gay on a US Navy ship.  I would suspect the openness and various love affairs on ships would get in the way of the mission at hand.  I would not want to serve on a ship under those circumstances.


----------



## thcri RIP

I say no, but then I don't give a rat's ass.  BD is right it ain't normal.


----------



## Cityboy

Doc said:


> Don't ask don't tell is okay by me.
> Openly gay would bother me. I can't fathom a gay couple being openly gay on a US Navy ship. *I would suspect the openness and various love affairs on ships would get in the way of the mission at hand.* I would not want to serve on a ship under those circumstances.


 
Heterosexual relationships on a U.S. Navy ship or anywhere else get in the way of the mission at hand. Military members are forbidden to engagi in public displays of affection while in uniform. Can you imagine the sexual tension on board naval vessels today now that there are women side by side with thousands of horny young men vying for their affections? The ratio of woment to men is probably greater than 1 woman per 100 men. You reckon that can cause a few problems?


----------



## Doc

Cityboy said:


> Heterosexual relationships on a U.S. Navy ship or anywhere else get in the way of the mission at hand. Military members are forbidden to engagi in public displays of affection while in uniform.



So if they are naked or in speedo's I guess they can publicly display affections.  

Relationship issues cause problems on ships even when they are not both serving together, it could come in the form of a dear john letter.  

The Navy strives to keep relationship issues apart from the day to day activities on the ship.  They have separate quarters for male and female sailors located as far apart as possible, and keep the focus on the mission.  With openly gays in the mix the Navy cannot keep them housed separate from the rest of the crew.  All living the the same quarters would made the issues even worse.  I can only imagine some gay guy prancing around in front of the other guys after his shower.    I can't imagine this would be a good thing for the Navy or the Military at large.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Doc said:


> So if they are naked or in speedo's I guess they can publicly display affections.
> 
> Relationship issues cause problems on ships even when they are not both serving together, it could come in the form of a dear john letter.
> 
> The Navy strives to keep relationship issues apart from the day to day activities on the ship. They have separate quarters for male and female sailors located as far apart as possible, and keep the focus on the mission. With openly gays in the mix the Navy cannot keep them housed separate from the rest of the crew. All living the the same quarters would made the issues even worse. I can only imagine some gay guy prancing around in front of the other guys after his shower.  I can't imagine this would be a good thing for the Navy or the Military at large.


 
I'm with Doc on this one.  Besides, I don't want to give the gay rights lobby any more leeway.  They are a noisy and over demanding miniscule percentage of our population.  I refuse to support anything that would give them special priviledges in our society simply based on that fact.


----------



## Cityboy

Doc said:


> So if they are naked or in speedo's I guess they can publicly display affections.
> 
> Relationship issues cause problems on ships even when they are not both serving together, it could come in the form of a dear john letter.
> 
> The Navy strives to keep relationship issues apart from the day to day activities on the ship. They have separate quarters for male and female sailors located as far apart as possible, and keep the focus on the mission. With openly gays in the mix the Navy cannot keep them housed separate from the rest of the crew. All living the the same quarters would made the issues even worse. I can only imagine some gay guy prancing around in front of the other guys after his shower.  I can't imagine this would be a good thing for the Navy or the Military at large.


 
The fact is, there are lots of gays in all the services, and if polled, I'd bet the greatest number of gays are in the navy. For all you know Doc, your bunkmates could have been closet gays. 

Sex while on duty is forbidden between any military members. Sex is forbidden in the barracks, but I've seen it happen between men & women regularly while I was in. I've also wittnessed several female members intentionally get pregnant in order to get out of the service. Heterosexuals cause far more problems to military units than gays do, at least as things stand right now.

By "openly" serving, I mean that it is simply known that the members are homosexual. No one is condoning bathouse behavior between gays out on the flight deck. That is disgusting even between heterosexual members.


----------



## DaveNay

Cityboy said:


> Sex while on duty is forbidden between any military members. Sex is forbidden in the barracks, but I've seen it happen between men & women regularly while I was in. I've also wittnessed several female members intentionally get pregnant in order to get out of the service. Heterosexuals cause far more problems to military units than gays do, at least as things stand right now.



Yeah, I always thought that type of fraternization was severely frowned upon anyway.


----------



## Erik

Cityboy said:


> The fact is, there are lots of gays in all the services, and if polled, I'd bet the greatest number of gays are in the navy. For all you know Doc, your bunkmates could have been closet gays.
> 
> Sex while on duty is forbidden between any military members. Sex is forbidden in the barracks, but I've seen it happen between men & women regularly while I was in. I've also wittnessed several female members intentionally get pregnant in order to get out of the service. Heterosexuals cause far more problems to military units than gays do, at least as things stand right now.
> 
> By "openly" serving, I mean that it is simply known that the members are homosexual. No one is condoning bathouse behavior between gays out on the flight deck. That is disgusting even between heterosexual members.


 
good answer - and better phrased than the similar version I was trying to come up with.


----------



## American Woman

Deerlope said:


> if some of these new recruits with criminal backgrounds can serve then I say let the gays serve also, they will be less trouble.


*I agree*


Big Dog said:


> Nope, no matter how non-discriminating you'd like to be it still ain't natural.
> I think the key word is "openly". I would cringe at the site of 2 uniformed men holding hands and kissing .........
> I know, I know it's meant only as true admission but then you get into "proper representation" issues.


 All this does is narrow the military. *You would let a girl go out there and get shot at, but not a "swishy guy"? *


Doc said:


> Don't ask don't tell is okay by me.
> Openly gay would bother me.  I can't fathom a gay couple being openly gay on a US Navy ship.  I would suspect the openness and various love affairs on ships would get in the way of the mission at hand.  I would not want to serve on a ship under those circumstances.





Doc said:


> So if they are naked or in speedo's I guess they can publicly display affections.
> Relationship issues cause problems on ships even when they are not both serving together, it could come in the form of a dear john letter.
> The Navy strives to keep relationship issues apart from the day to day activities on the ship.   All living the the same quarters would made the issues even worse.  I can only imagine some gay guy prancing around in front of the other guys after his shower.    I can't imagine this would be a good thing for the Navy or the Military at large.


I think the reason they say, "don't ask, don't tell" is because if they do tell...they will kicked out of the military...not because the gays want to run around naked, or in speedos, or holds and kiss in front of other soldiers.If a heterosexual couple acted like this they would be kicked out too, but you give them credit for knowing to follow rules.
What bothers me is some of you act like just because they are gay they are stupid, can't follow orders, or act girlie....when in fact they have served since the beginning and you never knew it. 
You can't get *no braver* than a man or woman that will put thier life on the line to protect America. If someone takes a bullet for me I'm not going to ask how they prefer sex as a prerequsit before letting them protect me, and the ones I love.


----------



## fogtender

The Military has one purpose and that is to Protect the United States of America. It is not a place to do social "Experiments".

A Warship, Air Wing, or Battle Groups are just for that reason, when called upon they destroy an enemy.

Having women on a ship/battlefield is a bad idea to start with, space is very limited. Since Clinton changed the face of the military, there has to be two complete berthing and Bathing areas for both sexes. You have kids that are 18 to 22 years old with the testosterone at is peak and you need to be focused on the job, not the other's ass...

You throw a "Gay" factor into a place that has tight quarters (no pun) and you add another dimension that doesn't need to be there. If the policy was to keep your mouth shut and nobody asks, that is fine, but when you have a person who is openly gay, that is an issue. A "Normal" heterosexual isn't going to want to shower in a common area with the feeling that someone of the same sex is checking his/her assets out. 

There is a lot of "Tepee Creeping" going on in the normal military as it is, you don't need to be in a battlefield wondering how your girl/boy friend is doing in the next fox hole or gun tub, you need to be worried about doing your job. Worrying about a "buddy" is not the same as worrying about your romantic partner.

I feel that if someone wants to tout their being gay, they should not be in the military. Sex is a choice we all can make, being born male, female, black, red, white or green is something we can't control, our sexual appetites are. I don't believe that gays shouldn't be discriminated because of the "Preferences" in the civilian world, but the military is not the same as the civilian world, you don't kill people as an occupation in Corporate Amercian...normally.

The gay movement has been so militant and in your face, that people are now starting to be brainwashed into that is "Normal", it isn't and never has been, if it was, then they could "father" their own children instead of recruiting. 

I don't believe in women in active combat either for the same reasons, unless they want to have a total Woman's combat division where sex isn't an issue there either.


----------



## fogtender

American Woman said:


> You can't get *no braver* than a man or woman that will put thier life on the line to protect America. If someone takes a bullet for me I'm not going to ask how they prefer sex as a prerequsit before letting them protect me, and the ones I love.


 
Being *"Brave"* isn't the issue, I am sure that they can fight as well as anyone can.  

Unit cohesion is the issue, and if you have a someone that causes some kind of friction in that unit, the unit will not be at 100% and their job is to kill the enemy, not get killed.  

People tend to forget what the military's job is.

Patton once said, "You aren't suppose to die for your Country, you are suppose to make the other poor bastard die for his".


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

[ame="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/187304/village_people_in_the_navy/"]Village People - In The Navy - Video[/ame]


----------



## American Woman

fogtender said:


> Unit cohesion is the issue, and if you have a someone that causes some kind of friction in that unit, the unit will not be at 100% and their job is to kill the enemy, not get killed.


Personally I think when they allowed women to be side by side with  men...all the Unit cohesion went out the window, because they will all be trying to protect the female.


----------



## nixon

American Woman said:


> Personally I think when they allowed women to be side by side with  men...all the Unit cohesion went out the window, because they will all be trying to protect the female.



Tell that to Lil Nixon who served 20+ years . Or My daughter Who is on Her second term of enlistment .


----------



## rback33

nixon said:


> Tell that to Lil Nixon who served 20+ years . Or My daughter Who is on Her second term of enlistment .



You make a good point here... I am most interested in the opinions of those serving or those that HAVE served.  I don't feel I have a real dog in the fight having never served myself. I know many of the respondents HAVE served and I hope more reply still.


----------



## mak2

I voted no.  I am not against gay marriage, or in any way think they should not serve.  But the question said openly gay.  I dont think, even though I do not care a bit in real life, that I would be too crazy about spending several days in a hole with an overbearing gay guy.  The key word is overbearing.  I know there were gays even in the Marine Corps (sorry Chesty) sometimes is it pretty obvious.  If there is a rule against being open, that would completely stop them hitting on straights, some homophobes that really bothers (usually I am honored).


----------



## American Woman

nixon said:


> Tell that to Lil Nixon who served 20+ years . Or My daughter Who is on Her second term of enlistment .


*I have never served, and I think I mentioned in past posts how much I respect men and Women that serve*....so please don't misunderstand that.
  We were talking about how a gay person would _may_ cause unit cohesion. I just know how men are as civilians, and it's their nature to be protective of a female. I have trouble believing that a man would not at some point have his mind on where the female is and how she's fairing in gun fire. Just like it could be distracting for a gay man to be in the mix.


----------



## pirate_girl

"Since World War II..110,000 Americans have been discharged from the military for being gay or lesbian. 
Tens of thousands of others have served in secrecy,* with distinction*. 
Some have given their lives in defense of freedom. 
The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy tramples the principles they died protecting. 
It rips at the fabric of liberty that so many thousands have died defending".


----------



## BigAl RIP

Well Hell ! I always thought they bleed red blood just like every other American soldier out there . Guess I was wrong again ...
 I honestly think that the last thing on there mind ,if they are in a fire fight, is going to be whether or not  they get a "little nookie" from their team mates   .


----------



## mak2

It is usually not a secret, the term was openly gay.  By open I think of the gay rights parade in Anaheim (the only one I have ever seen in real life) and other overt activities.  The military has a lot of laws that are there for the convience of the service.  for example, there was no drinking in the barracks.  Every one drank in the barracks, but if they behaved nothing was ever said.  The rule was regularly enforced, but only when somebody got drunk and screwed up.  Then all they had to charge him with was drinking in the barracks.  Not that he was drunk or got in a fight etc, but just that he was drinking.


----------



## American Woman

BigAl said:


> Well Hell ! I always thought they bleed red blood just like every other American soldier out there . Guess I was wrong again ...
> I honestly think that the last thing on there mind ,if they are in a fire fight, is going to be whether or not  they get a "little nookie" from their team mates   .


Really Al....I agree. There could be any kind of distraction in a unit. Soldiers are human. I think the best part of this thread is the majority are not homophobic.


----------



## Cityboy

mak2 said:


> *I voted no. I am not against gay marriage, or in any way think they should not serve. But the question said openly gay.* I dont think, even though I do not care a bit in real life, that I would be too crazy about spending several days in a hole with an overbearing gay guy. The key word is overbearing. I know there were gays even in the Marine Corps (sorry Chesty) sometimes is it pretty obvious. *If there is a rule against being open, that would completely stop them hitting on straights, some homophobes that really bothers (usually I am honored*).


 
Openly was intended to mean that if asked, one would not be required to deny it. It does not mean they cross dress at the Enlisted Club and slap you on your cute little ass, Mak. 

You only get hit on if you have "Gaydar" which is gay radar......You must have that metro-sexual thing going on, eh Mak?


----------



## mak2

Cityboy said:


> Openly was intended to mean that if asked, one would not be required to deny it. It does not mean they cross dress at the Enlisted Club and slap you on your cute little ass, Mak.
> 
> You only get hit on if you have "Gaydar" which is gay radar......You must have that metro-sexual thing going on, eh Mak?



How did you know about my cute little ass, cityboy?  oh but yes you would have cross dressers at the eclub, or at least that was the kind of behavior I was thinking about when I voted against it.


----------



## Big Dog

pirate_girl said:


> "Since World War II..110,000 Americans have been discharged from the military for being gay or lesbian.
> Tens of thousands of others have served in secrecy,* with distinction*.
> Some have given their lives in defense of freedom.
> The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy tramples the principles they died protecting.
> It rips at the fabric of liberty that so many thousands have died defending".



and this country was based on religion as much as democracy and freedom. Ain't too many religions that think gay is OK, if any. I don't think our founding fathers considered gay rights and I don't think they would have fought for gay rights.

Sad state that we're losing our religious base and honoring gay rights, thinking about it pisses me off.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree ..........


----------



## Cityboy

mak2 said:


> How did you know about my cute little ass, cityboy? oh but yes you would have cross dressers at the eclub, or at least that was the kind of behavior I was thinking about when I voted against it.


 
We all know about your cute little ass 'cause you told us about it at least once before

And then there was that time out in town at Camp Pendelton when you had too much to drink &.............


----------



## mak2

Cityboy said:


> We all know about your cute little ass 'cause you told us about it at least once before
> 
> And then there was that time out in town at Camp Pendelton when you had too much to drink &.............



If you only knew how many times I had too much to drink on or around Camp Pendleton.  But I thought that was our little secret.


----------



## Doc

Cityboy said:


> Openly was intended to mean that if asked, one would not be required to deny it. It does not mean they cross dress at the Enlisted Club.



It all depends on the definition of openly.  In my previous posts I interpreted openly to mean they can openly show their gayness at will.  Obama is for an openly gay military.  I wonder how he defines openly?.



American Woman said:


> I think the best part of this thread is the majority are not homophobic.



You are stretching it to call anyone homophobic from the responses in this thread.  I do not feel anyone came off as homophobic.


----------



## ddrane2115

PBinWA said:


> I'm with Doc on this one. Besides, I don't want to give the gay rights lobby any more leeway. They are a noisy and over demanding miniscule percentage of our population. I refuse to support anything that would give them special priviledges in our society simply based on that fact.


 


So you are giving them the priviledge of not serving because they are homosexual?   Why should they have the right/priviledge to not serve if I am forced to serve due to my being of 'normal" sexual tendancies.  If I have to they should have to, and if I have to follow the rules they have to.  The brig is full of those that chose not to follow the rules, and that is what it is there for.


----------



## ddrane2115

Folks, lets get this back on track.   IF IF IF you are serving in the military you are expected to do your service, 110% if needed, and without outside distractions...........such as some dudes cute ass, or some chicks boobs.  If the person violating such rules and ordinances is causing a unit, any unit to preform less than 110% they should be dealt with in accordance with posted requirements.

The military should not discriminate, they should build, respect, and mostly expect your job to be done.  They also are the ones to dole out the punishment, and it should be doled out the same for a male female who have sex as it would be for male male/female female.   

If you keep this on the context the person is EXPECTED to preform their duties regardless of sexual orientation............think about this.  

Remember in the beginning of this war, there was a soldier who threw grenades in his comrads tents................he was straight, normal etc..........give me a gay guy anyday that will watch my back, but will be there to protect me over this MF that deserves to be shot.


----------



## mak2

yea, I just think a gay rights parade on the parade deck might have an adverse effect on unit morale.


----------



## ddrane2115

mak2 said:


> yea, I just think a gay rights parade on the parade deck might have an adverse effect on unit morale.


 

I take this as a comment for a laugh, but will comment that a normal sexual parade would not?   


what about the rights I dont have as a straight, I dont have the right to say I dont want to, or you cant make me I am straight.........


----------



## mak2

Danny, I know you have seen those parades and the over the top behaviors demonstrated by gay rights activist.  I have no problems with gays doing really what ever they want, including getting married.  There was a gay rights parade in Anaheim while I was in the Corps.  Very over the top behavior.  No military bearing so to speak.  Since then I have always thought gay activism and military are mutually exclusive, at least at this point.  seems funny, usually you guys are so far to the right on almost every point I could not see you on a clear day.  why swing so far left on this issue?


----------



## ddrane2115

mak2 said:


> Danny, I know you have seen those parades and the over the top behaviors demonstrated by gay rights activist. I have no problems with gays doing really what ever they want, including getting married. There was a gay rights parade in Anaheim while I was in the Corps. Very over the top behavior. No military bearing so to speak. Since then I have always thought gay activism and military are mutually exclusive, at least at this point. seems funny, usually you guys are so far to the right on almost every point I could not see you on a clear day. why swing so far left on this issue?


 

you are missing my point, a parade for gays in the military should follow the same rules as a parade for straights....................no difference.  If they want special treatment due to being whatever, then they should not be in the military, just as they should not be treated differently in private sector.............We have a few where I work, they follow the same rules I do, or they dont have a job


----------



## mak2

ddrane2115 said:


> you are missing my point, a parade for gays in the military should follow the same rules as a parade for straights....................no difference.  If they want special treatment due to being whatever, then they should not be in the military, just as they should not be treated differently in private sector.............We have a few where I work, they follow the same rules I do, or they dont have a job



Yea, ok, if treated exactly the same maybe i can see it.


----------



## ddrane2115

mak2 said:


> Yea, ok, if treated exactly the same maybe i can see it.


 

in the military as in secular life, there should be no difference.  How you feel privately is your own.

NO ONE should get preferential treatment, especially in the military services.


----------



## American Woman

Doc said:


> You are stretching it to call anyone homophobic from the responses in this thread.  I do not feel anyone came off as homophobic.


To me the meaning of Homophobic  "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" That's what I think...When some have thrown religion in their reason then that is an aversion, irrational fear that they will run around in speedos and slap butts also.



ddrane2115 said:


> Folks, lets get this back on track.   IF IF IF you are serving in the military you are expected to do your service, 110% if needed, and without outside distractions...........such as some dudes cute ass, or some chicks boobs.  If the person violating such rules and ordinances is causing a unit, any unit to preform less than 110% they should be dealt with in accordance with posted requirements.


 Yeah, if you don't like them then why not put them on the front line and get them shot first????



ddrane2115 said:


> Remember in the beginning of this war, there was a soldier who threw grenades in his comrades tents................he was straight, normal etc..........give me a gay guy anyday that will watch my back, but will be there to protect me over this MF that deserves to be shot.


This make sense to me.


----------



## ddrane2115

American Woman said:


> To me the meaning of Homophobic "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" That's what I think...When some have thrown religion in their reason then that is an aversion, irrational fear that they will run around in speedos and slap butts also.
> 
> great point, thanks
> 
> 
> Yeah, if you don't like them then why not put them on the front line and get them shot first????
> 
> whether we like them or not, and that is a personal thing, remember in the military service a brother is a brother whether he wants to do you or your sister back home. Straight would have to also protect the gay, that would be their job.
> 
> 
> This make sense to me.


 

i thought it did, and I meant every letter of it


----------



## pirate_girl

Some of the above comments make me laugh, really.
Do any of you think that if a member of our forces, straight OR gay in active duty would actually be thinking about the gender of the guy beside him?
I doubt it.
My Dad was a Lt. Commander in the United States Navy.
Not once did I ever hear him say a word about gays, who should or shouldn't be serving.
If you have an ounce of respect for the branch of service you are in, you'll make that your focal point and obey the rules.
Much like I am a nurse. I wear a uniform. I've taken an oath.
I wouldn't risk getting my ass in hot water and losing my license over breaking any rules.


----------



## fogtender

pirate_girl said:


> Some of the above comments make me laugh, really.
> Do any of you think that if a member of our forces, straight OR gay in active duty would actually be thinking about the gender of the guy beside him?
> I doubt it.
> My Dad was a Lt. Commander in the United States Navy.
> Not once did I ever hear him say a word about gays, who should or shouldn't be serving.
> If you have an ounce of respect for the branch of service you are in, you'll make that your focal point and obey the rules.
> Much like I am a nurse. I wear a uniform. I've taken an oath.
> I wouldn't risk getting my ass in hot water and losing my license over breaking any rules.


 

If your father was a LT. Commander, I would guess he retired about ten to twenty years ago (not poking fun at age here...), and during that time, gays weren't an issue, if you were gay, you were out on the streets. It wasn't until Clinton started the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy that things changed. So I it would be safe to say that your father was more concerned with the War side of things than the Gay issue for his time period.

People don't seem to understand the reason for the rule, the military simply isn't a place like college, you train for a job and that total package is to kill the enemy, nothing less. 

There is women in the armed forces and they do a good job, I don't agree with putting them on Warships or in the trenches with troops under fire. That doesn't make them any less brave or less able to do their job, they just don't belong in a place that killing is the name of the game. Gays that don't tell what their "Preference" is, should be able to do the same job as their counterparts do, if they want to announce they are gay, then they should be discharged. You can't have "mass" accommodations for Men, Women, Gay men and Gay women, it is bad enough having two sets of accommodations for the two sexes now on the battle lines.

Most of you have never had to live in a barracks with 50 other guys or more, where the only thing that separated you from everyone else at night was your sheets. On my first ship, we slept four high, and the bunk next to each one of those only had two vertical pipes that the bunks hung on,.the outside was held up by two chains. In heavy seas, you slept with one arm wrapped around the pipe so you wouldn't be flung out of bed, the guy next to you slept the other direction so he could hold onto the other pipe.

The Bathroom (head) was a row of toilets with no dividers, you got to be pretty impersonal with your "shitmates", about like getting into your seat at a movie theater.... Showers were in a common area, and all attended the same place unless you were E-6 and above.

You put an openly gay person in that environment and you will cause a lot of problems, now with women on the ships, their is even less room for both sexes... throw in a "third/forth" sexes, and it really gets nasty.

If I didn't know the guy next to me was gay, then I didn't care, but when we did know, there was some issues. One "gay" guy got drunk and was trying to give a BJ to a guy that was a very big Navajo and didn't have much of a sense of humor at 2 AM, or any other time for that matter. They had to helicopter the "Gay" midnight marauder off the ship at dawn with a serious set of black eyes.


----------



## ddrane2115

fogtender said:


> If your father was a LT. Commander, I would guess he retired about ten to twenty years ago (not poking fun at age here...), and during that time, gays weren't an issue, if you were gay, you were out on the streets. It wasn't until Clinton started the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy that things changed. So I it would be safe to say that your father was more concerned with the War side of things than the Gay issue for his time period.
> 
> People don't seem to understand the reason for the rule, the military simply isn't a place like college, you train for a job and that total package is to kill the enemy, nothing less.
> 
> There is women in the armed forces and they do a good job, I don't agree with putting them on Warships or in the trenches with troops under fire. That doesn't make them any less brave or less able to do their job, they just don't belong in a place that killing is the name of the game. Gays that don't tell what their "Preference" is, should be able to do the same job as their counterparts do, if they want to announce they are gay, then they should be discharged. You can't have "mass" accommodations for Men, Women, Gay men and Gay women, it is bad enough having two sets of accommodations for the two sexes now on the battle lines.
> 
> Most of you have never had to live in a barracks with 50 other guys or more, where the only thing that separated you from everyone else at night was your sheets. On my first ship, we slept four high, and the bunk next to each one of those only had two vertical pipes that the bunks hung on,.the outside was held up by two chains. In heavy seas, you slept with one arm wrapped around the pipe so you wouldn't be flung out of bed, the guy next to you slept the other direction so he could hold onto the other pipe.
> 
> The Bathroom (head) was a row of toilets with no dividers, you got to be pretty impersonal with your "shitmates", about like getting into your seat at a movie theater.... Showers were in a common area, and all attended the same place unless you were E-6 and above.
> 
> You put an openly gay person in that environment and you will cause a lot of problems, now with women on the ships, their is even less room for both sexes... throw in a "third/forth" sexes, and it really gets nasty.
> 
> If I didn't know the guy next to me was gay, then I didn't care, but when we did know, there was some issues. One "gay" guy got drunk and was trying to give a BJ to a guy that was a very big Navajo and didn't have much of a sense of humor at 2 AM, or any other time for that matter. They had to helicopter the "Gay" midnight marauder off the ship at dawn with a serious set of black eyes.


 


again, you are talking about people who break the rules!  that is not in question, it is about having them in service at all, gay or not.   

take your bj thing, if that had been a woman, would she be leaving with black eyes?  I am not picking a fight here, I am applying the rules to all, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or nationality, etc.   One set of rules for ALL, not each.   

I agree a gay guy tries to get to me, he is leaving with less than he came with, but if he leaves me alone other than being a service man, we are cool


----------



## mak2

pirate_girl said:


> Some of the above comments make me laugh, really.
> Do any of you think that if a member of our forces, straight OR gay in active duty would actually be thinking about the gender of the guy beside him?
> I doubt it.
> My Dad was a Lt. Commander in the United States Navy.
> Not once did I ever hear him say a word about gays, who should or shouldn't be serving.
> If you have an ounce of respect for the branch of service you are in, you'll make that your focal point and obey the rules.
> Much like I am a nurse. I wear a uniform. I've taken an oath.
> I wouldn't risk getting my ass in hot water and losing my license over breaking any rules.



You have no idea.  military personnel come from all over the country from nYC to the backwoods of Mississippi.  Of course these guys think about the sexual orientation of the guys they have to live with.  When your Dad was in the service the fastest way to get out was to prove you were a homosexual.  Wow. I give.


----------



## fogtender

ddrane2115 said:


> again, you are talking about people who break the rules! that is not in question, it is about having them in service at all, gay or not.
> 
> take your bj thing, if that had been a woman, would she be leaving with black eyes? I am not picking a fight here, I am applying the rules to all, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or nationality, etc. One set of rules for ALL, not each.
> 
> I agree a gay guy tries to get to me, he is leaving with less than he came with, but if he leaves me alone other than being a service man, we are cool


 
Well under that train of thought, there shouldn't be two separate barracks for men and woman, there instead should be one common bathroom, barracks and shower for all.  Which of course isn't right, but that is what having openly "Gays" eliminates, it is in those common areas with those that don't like that "Preferred" lifestyle.


----------



## American Woman

fogtender said:


> Well under that train of thought, there shouldn't be two separate barracks for men and woman, there instead should be one common bathroom, barracks and shower for all.  Which of course isn't right, but that is what having openly "Gays" eliminates, it is in those common areas with those that don't like that "Preferred" lifestyle.


This would be the hard part. ....Assuming a gay woman would be
 attracted me I would rather shower alone. period.
 You know...This is why I like it here.....I'm beginning to think it may too difficult for Gays to come out in the military.
If they don't ask and no one tells then things are left alone. When it's brought out, then there will have to be SO many changes. I guess the main thing that should change is that if it comes out then the military won't kick them out.


----------



## mak2

fogtender said:


> Well under that train of thought, there shouldn't be two separate barracks for men and woman, there instead should be one common bathroom, barracks and shower for all.  Which of course isn't right, but that is what having openly "Gays" eliminates, it is in those common areas with those that don't like that "Preferred" lifestyle.



I forgot this argument, I used to use it too.


----------



## rback33

I see the poll is drawing closer now.  I am still a yes they should server guy. I believe they are already there and people know they are there and they server fine together. I will pose the question to my airforce buddy. He and I have been playing phone tag anyway. I'll see what he thinks.


----------



## American Woman

My main concern is they are being kicked out of the military for being gay.....I don't think that should happen.


----------



## Durwood RIP

I wouldn't have a problem with gays on the battlefield as long as they did their job. But answer me this. Does the military have showers where many guys shower together? If so i would have a real problem with it. It would be like me working with ladies and we all do our job and get along fine , but if we showered together then it would really be a problem.


----------



## mak2

people who have never been in the service do not realize how "close" together every one lives.  We got shelter halfs cause two Marines make on hooch (tent).  My only problem is openly gay.  That is it.  I dont care if I shower with gays or girls, but a lot of straight guys would freak out.


----------



## Volfandt

No,  to either sex acting/practicing like the other openly ...... 
Theres enough stress in just serving in our armed forces without adding a new dimension that has been banned by all militarys  throughout history. 
The exception would be the Spartans who were a formidable fighting force in their day and some certain tribes in the new world. The Spartans reputedly believed that to be with another Spartan warrior was true love while to be with a woman was just to reproduce.The respected time for all of them in the sun didn't last very long with respect to history, which would appear to prove it's not conducive for maintaining a fighting force....


----------



## rback33

OK. So.. I had a LONG talk with my Airforce buddy... He does not really care either way. He has served with NUMEROUS people that he KNOWS are gay. One of which he said he would go to battle with and day of any week of any year.  He can take a gnat off a hat at a thousand yards. Ok...that might have been an exaggeration, I could be more specific with the details, but the would put his career at risk. He does not care either way because they already have community showers in MANY places where men and women shower together already. Men and women can lust for each other just same a gay man can lust for another. He was emphatic that sexuality is NOT an issue in combat. Your too busy not getting killed. He also does not think it will matter after the next election.


----------



## mak2

huummmmm, he is in the Air Force.  They stay in hotels, not tents.  just a thought.


----------



## American Woman

Sounds like a guy secure in himself as a man.


----------



## mak2

American Woman said:


> Sounds like a guy secure in himself as a man.



Hey, who you talking too?


----------



## rback33

mak2 said:


> huummmmm, he is in the Air Force.  They stay in hotels, not tents.  just a thought.



LMAO He did admit to individual quarters and the the Navy was his biggest concern.


----------



## American Woman

mak2 said:


> Hey, who you talking too?


  Not you, that's for sure


----------



## Volfandt

> huummmmm, he is in the Air Force. They stay in hotels, not tents. just a thought.


Their chow halls are more like restaurants and they wouldn't know how to stand in a formation even if it walked up and smacked 'em upside the nogg'n 

All kidding aside, I've several family and friends that has served in the AF and I feel very confident in saying that they wouldn't want to shower with openly practicing homosexuals.....


----------



## ddrane2115

fogtender said:


> Well under that train of thought, there shouldn't be two separate barracks for men and woman, there instead should be one common bathroom, barracks and shower for all. Which of course isn't right, but that is what having openly "Gays" eliminates, it is in those common areas with those that don't like that "Preferred" lifestyle.


 

difference is sexes is not something we have a choice on unless you want to say women or men should not be allowed to serve.   Personally I dont care either way, long as their duties are completed according to the plans, let them be whatever.  

As for the seperate men and women, I would think one or two gays or lesbians would be a lot less of a disturbance, then putting men and women in the same bunk, shower, and quarters............., but yes in theory you should be able to do that and expect the rules followed.............


----------



## American Woman

Volfandt said:


> Their chow halls are more like restaurants and they wouldn't know how to stand in a formation even if it walked up and smacked 'em upside the nogg'n
> 
> All kidding aside, I've several family and friends that has served in the AF and I feel very confident in saying that they wouldn't want to shower with openly practicing homosexuals.....


Wow...if my sons go in I will push them to go in the AF


----------



## Volfandt

> Wow...if my sons go in I will push them to go in the AF


In the rear with the gear IS where it's at. Had my daughter desired to serve in the military, I too would have HIGHLY recommended the AF. But knowing her she would have probably gone in the Marines 
On a related note, I knew a few female Marines who were not happy with the shims they served with.


----------



## fogtender

rback33 said:


> I see the poll is drawing closer now. I am still a yes they should server guy. I believe they are already there and people know they are there and they server fine together. I will pose the question to my airforce buddy. He and I have been playing phone tag anyway. I'll see what he thinks.


 
People are getting two issues crossed, if a gay wants to serve, then then can keep their mouth shut and their "Preference" to themselves and serve as long as they want. If they are open about being "Gay" then they can't. It is their choice alone, and has nothing to do with skin color, born sex or being handicapped with a physical issue.

Someone in a wheelchair can't server period, that doesn't mean they don't want to or have the heart, they just don't have those abilities that are required in a battlefield to be able to get around without assistance. That doesn't mean people hate them either.

In a war, there is no such thing as "Behind the Lines", over and over in history, those areas have been attacked and overrun in warfare. The reason is you destroy the supply side of the enemy, the front lines tend to weaken or crumble. Even in Iraq, the "Green Zone" is the supply area, it is subject to rocket attacks for that very same reason and a source of some deaths of civilians and the like.


----------



## fogtender

Durwood said:


> I wouldn't have a problem with gays on the battlefield as long as they did their job. But answer me this. Does the military have showers where many guys shower together? If so i would have a real problem with it. It would be like me working with ladies and we all do our job and get along fine , but if we showered together then it would really be a problem.


 
In the military, there is very little "Private" area, on some bases there is somewhat more of a private area, but in the real world of war, you "shower, shave and shit" in the same place, elbow to elbow in most cases.

If one wanted to stay married, I doubt your spouse would want you showering with the opposite sex on the other side of the world regardless of how you framed it....

During the last hours of Desert Storm, Saddam launched a scud missile and it hit a dining hall if I recall correctly and killed about 80+- people that were in the "Back Lines" area considered a "Safe area", it clearly wasn't.


----------



## ghautz

Maybe times have changed.  When I served in the Navy, it seemed that the general population of enlisted men included a disproportionate number of homophobes, whose idea of a good time was to "bash queers."  I would expect that attitude to be greater in groups with less education (stereotypical enlisted men) than, for instance, members of this forum.  When the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was started, I figured the motivation was to minimize discipline problems in the ranks.  It is probably easier to ban openly gay enlistees than to overcome the prejudices of many others.


----------



## fogtender

ghautz said:


> Maybe times have changed. When I served in the Navy, it seemed that the general population of enlisted men included a disproportionate number of homophobes, whose idea of a good time was to "bash queers." I would expect that attitude to be greater in groups with less education (stereotypical enlisted men) than, for instance, members of this forum. When the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was started, I figured the motivation was to minimize discipline problems in the ranks. It is probably easier to ban openly gay enlistees than to overcome the prejudices of many others.


 
I have an open prejudice in that I don't like women in the military combat units/ships, it isn't that I don't like them. I just know that when men and women mix, there is a degree of sex that doesn't need to be in a place where it is your job if called upon to kill. In a Corporate Boardroom or on an Assembly line, there should be no differences in the civilian world. The military isn't a civilian world, it can be a world that would tear your soul out with all the carnage that can be created by ones action. Adding a third component of "Open Gay", isn't something that the military shouldn't have to deal with. I don't care what anyone says, it is a personal choice that one makes in their sex lives, you keep your mouth shut with your private life private and nobody would know.


----------



## American Woman

fogtender said:


> People are getting two issues crossed, if a gay wants to serve, then can keep their mouth shut and their "Preference" to themselves and serve as long as they want. If they are open about being "Gay" then they can't. It is their choice alone, and has nothing to do with skin color, born sex or being handicapped with a physical issue.


*The two issues I see getting crossed because of the "don't ask don't tell" could mean being Gay won't get you kicked out of the service, or being able to behave gay causing problems in a unit. (I see where that could happen).* *I think it means a gay man is safe from being kicked out of the military.*



fogtender said:


> Someone in a wheelchair can't server period, that doesn't mean they don't want to or have the heart, they just don't have those abilities that are required in a battlefield to be able to get around without assistance. That doesn't mean people hate them either.


 *This is a lot different than a healthy gay man...*



fogtender said:


> In the military, there is very little "Private" area, on some bases there is somewhat more of a private area, but in the real world of war, you "shower, shave and shit" in the same place, elbow to elbow in most cases.
> If one wanted to stay married, I doubt your spouse would want you showering with the opposite sex on the other side of the world regardless of how you framed it....
> I have an open prejudice in that I don't like women in the military combat units/ships, it isn't that I don't like them. I just know that when men and women mix, there is a degree of sex that doesn't need to be in a place where it is your job if called upon to kill. In a Corporate Boardroom or on an Assembly line, there should be no differences in the civilian world. The military isn't a civilian world, it can be a world that would tear your soul out with all the carnage that can be created by ones action. Adding a third component of "Open Gay", isn't something that the military shouldn't have to deal with. I don't care what anyone says, it is a personal choice that one makes in their sex lives, you keep your mouth shut with your private life private and nobody would know.


 *I agree with this....Anyway you look at it isn't going to be good.*


----------



## rback33

fogtender said:
			
		

> I don't care what anyone says, it is a personal choice that one makes in their sex lives, you keep your mouth shut with your private life private and nobody would know.



I can tell you foggy.... that statement really bothers me. I long ago accepted the fact that you are from a different era, in a different part of the world than I. I KNOW we will never agree on this issue. If for no other reason, you have NEVER known for a day the gay people I have known my whole life. To say so vehemently say that you don't care what anyone says greatly tarnishes the respect I have for you. I sincerely hope I am misinterpreting your representation of your opinion.


----------



## mak2

American Woman said:


> Not you, that's for sure



I am not sure so I am just gonna ask.  did you just insult me or not?


----------



## Volfandt

> Maybe times have changed. When I served in the Navy, it seemed that the general population of enlisted men included a disproportionate number of homophobes, whose idea of a good time was to "bash queers." I would expect that attitude to be greater in groups with less education (stereotypical enlisted men) than, for instance, members of this forum. When the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was started, I figured the motivation was to minimize discipline problems in the ranks. It is probably easier to ban openly gay enlistees than to overcome the prejudices of many others


I've seen more childish homophobic behavior in college students than I have with enlisted service members.

Don't ask don't tell was implemented because Bill Clinton HAD to pay back the homosexual special interest groups that voted for him. He promised them he'd bring it to the table and did. They were not happy with it but it was better than what they had.

I've known openly practicing homosexuals and I've never felt the need nor desire to attack them nor have anyone I've been associated with.
To be honest, I feel quite sorry for them as I just can't seem to grasp the desire to want to bed another of my own sex. I don't think they would ever be happy nor satisfied w/ getting everything they want in regards to legal acceptance in modern society as they know that their behavior is inherently not normal behavior.
I personally know of a woman that has swung both ways. She was once married and has two children and she left her husband to live with another woman, which broke up yet another marrige. She is now back involved in a heterosexual relationship. An argument can be made that in some cases homosexual behavior isn't a hereditary condition but an aquired abnormal behavior such as smoking, alcoholism and or drug abuse......

History is strewn with the remnants of so called great societies that imploded within ....


----------



## Doc

Excellent post Volfandt!!!!!   Very good points.  I also witnessed more gay bashing in college than in the service.


----------



## thcri RIP

Volfandt said:


> An argument can be made that in some cases homosexual behavior isn't a hereditary condition but an aquired abnormal behavior such as smoking, alcoholism and or drug abuse......


----------



## rback33

Volfandt said:


> An argument can be made that in _*some*_ cases homosexual behavior isn't a hereditary condition but an aquired abnormal behavior such as smoking, alcoholism and or drug abuse......
> 
> History is strewn with the remnants of so called great societies that imploded within ....





thcri said:


>



I highlighted the key word there. He said some, not most. This is a fair statement.

Hey Murph.... You just agreed that SOME homosexuals are ARE born that way. 
Never thought I would hear that.


----------



## thcri RIP

rback33 said:


> I highlighted the key word there. He said some, not most. This is a fair statement.
> 
> Hey Murph.... You just agreed that SOME homosexuals are ARE born that way.
> Never thought I would hear that.




  Yeah the only ones that are hereditary are the ones who's parents were gay.    Ok Ok maybe you caught me.


----------



## Cityboy

rback33 said:


> Hey Murph.... You just agreed that SOME homosexuals are ARE born that way.
> Never thought I would hear that.


 
That's what happens with civil discourse. Eventually bigoted people begin to see beyond their blinders. I've been working on my own blinders a lot lately, and that sure has pissed a lot of my constipated conservative friends off. 

Now, back to the military issue. I wittnessed heterosexual military members destroy more homes, family's and lives than any homosexual's have in in private life and military life combined. When the infantry and artillary units went to the field, the wives went to town. I know this for a fact because I was out there in town servicing as many of those wives as I could. I admit it...hell, I was single, young, dumb and full of........

When I was in Yokosuka, Japan, the USS Midway and its battle group was based there. There are 5000 sailors on the Midway alone. A poll of the "Midway Wives" was done while I was there. In that poll, 90% of the Midway wives admitted they were sexually active while their husbands were at sea. The Marines used to do battalion sized 3-mile+ runs around the base. During these runs, they would circle the Midway barracks when they were in port and sing "Midway! Midway! Sail Away!..Let the wives come out & play!" And you know what? The wives DID come out to play with the Marines and Sailors that stayed behind. Yep, lots of divorces were decreed and dear John letters sent with every deployment....broken hearts, broken homes...all by us "normal" heterosexuals.....

The women in the military have over 100 studly young men to choose from for every one woman. Do you not think this causes problems between the men? The fact is, the gays know how to find other gays through some kind of "gaydar". They are not after those 96 other guys slobbering over the one female member, so you boys so worried about some faggot ckecking out your little winkie in the shower need not bother....that is unless you are putting out the "Gaydar...


----------



## thcri RIP

Cityboy said:


> That's what happens with civil discourse. Eventually bigoted people begin to see beyond their blinders. I've been working on my own blinders a lot lately, and that sure has pissed a lot of my constipated conservative friends off.




so you calling me a bigot?  Just because I don't think being gay is natural does not make one a bigot.  No different than if one thinks that Blacks are pushing for more rights than whites doesn't make them a racist.





> I say no, but then I don't give a rat's ass.  BD is right it ain't normal.



From the first post I made in this thread.  I don't give a rat's ass about them.  They can be what they want.


----------



## Cityboy

thcri said:


> so you calling me a bigot?


 
Nope. Just busting your balls and making you think.


----------



## fogtender

Cityboy said:


> Now, back to the military issue. I wittnessed heterosexual military members destroy more homes, family's and lives than any homosexual's have in in private life and military life combined. When the infantry and artillary units went to the field, the wives went to town. I know this for a fact because I was out there in town servicing as many of those wives as I could.


 
Well there is a big difference between what happens off the base and what happens in a military environment or in a foreign Port.  The fact the Wife/Husband/boyfriend/girlfriend doesn't stay at home isn't the same as battlefield romances either between same or opposite sexes, which by the way is illegal in the military as it is.  

That is like trying to compare apples and oranges.


----------



## fogtender

rback33 said:


> I can tell you foggy.... that statement really bothers me. I long ago accepted the fact that you are from a different era, in a different part of the world than I. I KNOW we will never agree on this issue. If for no other reason, you have NEVER known for a day the gay people I have known my whole life. To say so vehemently say that you don't care what anyone says greatly tarnishes the respect I have for you. I sincerely hope I am misinterpreting your representation of your opinion.


 

My statement is a fact in law, not by my making.



> Originally Posted by *fogtender*
> _I don't care what anyone says, it is a personal choice that one makes in their sex lives, you keep your mouth shut with your private life private and nobody would know._


 

If a person in the Military makes an open admission of being gay, they are out of the service. If they keep their mouth shut, then they stay where they are. They could have a fleet of gay friends back at home and nobody cares (or would know), it is what they do in their professional military life that matters on what happens to their career and is totally up to them. 

The policy of "Don't ask, Don't tell" is what Clinton signed into Military Law by Presidential Decree.

Before that, if the Military found out by someone snitching on you, then that alone could get you outed. I believe that Clinton did the right thing by his actions... (hear that BigAl, he was a Democrat too!)

I still don't agree with someone being openly gay in the military, I don't have any objections if I don't know what their belief is, same as a guy's religion, it is totally his choice as long as it doesn't bother me.


----------



## Doc

Cityboy said:


> That's what happens with civil discourse. Eventually bigoted people begin to see beyond their blinders.



The old CB is back.  Your above statement is a low blow.  It's people like you and AW who have to call folks who don't see things the same as you bigots or homophobes that take away from the civil discourse.


----------



## Cityboy

Doc said:


> The old CB is back. Your above statement is a low blow. It's people like you and AW who have to call folks who don't see things the same as you bigots or homophobes that take away from the civil discourse.


 
Bullshit, Doc. You disagree with me and you tend to make statements like this. If you were on my side of this argument, you would be sending me rep points. I see the same old people with their same old arguments over and over again get pissy when someone disagrees with their bigoted, yes, bigoted views that revolve around religion.

Step back for once and question your own beliefs. Try being the Devil's advocate once in a while...it's enlightening.


----------



## Doc

I have stepped back and questioned my thoughts on the subject.  You asked for peoples opinions and  you got them.  Then if they don't agree with you you turn to name calling.

I can disagree with you without calling you a name or labeling you gay or some BS like you did above.

The key to this whole argument is "Openly gay".  No one appears to agree on how far and what openly really means.  And we all know some gay folks would push it further than others.  It happens in society all the time.  I work with gay folks.  Most of them you'd never know their sexual orientation but some have to make sure you are aware of their gayness.  This does not mean they are hitting on you or anything, but they make sure everyone realizes they are different.  I believe "openly gay" would have negative connotations for our military.  I know I am not a bigot nor a homophobe and I do not appreciate name calling when we are trying to have a civil debate.  Debate the issues, name calling only takes away from your argument.


----------



## Cityboy

Doc said:


> I have stepped back and questioned my thoughts on the subject. You asked for peoples opinions and you got them. Then if they don't agree with you you turn to name calling.
> 
> I can disagree with you without calling you a name or labeling you gay or some BS like you did above.


 
I didn't call anyone a "name". I made a statement that you did not like, hence your comments. OK, lets look at the definition of "bigoted". I did not actually call anyone a bigot oughtright, I referred to bigoted people. There are lots of bigoted people here. I admit I have some bigoted views. Are you strong enough to admit the same? 

*Bigoted*
Big"ot*ed\, a. Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion practice, or ritual; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and illiberal toward the opinions of others. "Bigoted to strife." --Byron. 

Syn: Prejudiced; intolerant; narrow-minded. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


----------



## Doc

Honestly, I cannot think of anything off hand that I am bigoted about right now, but yeah, I'll admit that I probably am about one thing or another.  

I do admit I am not sure about the answer to this debate, but never the less like all the other posters in this thread I have my opinion.


----------



## Cityboy

Doc said:


> Honestly, I cannot think of anything off hand that I am bigoted about right now, but yeah, I'll admit that I probably am about one thing or another.
> 
> I do admit I am not sure about the answer to this debate, but never the less like all the other posters in this thread I have my opinion.


 
Hey Doc,

I started this debate and I'm not 100% sure about the answer either. There have been some interesting thoughts posted that have caused me to think. For me, that is the point of posting this poll in the first place. I do not expect everybody to agree with me, nor do I even want everyone to agree with me. Even when people get upset with a provacative post, we can all learn something from it. It's good to view things from different angles and think in a manner different than one normally thinks.


----------



## thcri RIP

Cityboy said:


> That's what happens with civil discourse. Eventually bigoted people begin to see beyond their blinders. I've been working on my own blinders a lot lately, and that sure has pissed a lot of my constipated conservative friends off.





Doc said:


> The old CB is back.  Your above statement is a low blow.  It's people like you who have to call folks who don't see things the same as you bigots or homophobes that take away from the civil discourse.



Sorry CB, I have to agree with Doc here.  I do feel that you called me out as a Bigot even though you posted you didn't.




Cityboy said:


> I see the same old people with their same old arguments over and over again get pissy when someone disagrees with their bigoted, yes, bigoted views that revolve around religion.



You just can't get off of your religion kick can you?  Remember you avatar  "Religion = Ignorance"   Please read definition of "Bigot"  you posted it.



Cityboy said:


> Step back for once and question your own beliefs. Try being the Devil's advocate once in a while...it's enlightening.



Seems to me you have made it a game.



Doc said:


> I have stepped back and questioned my thoughts on the subject.  You asked for peoples opinions and  you got them.  Then if they don't agree with you you turn to name calling.
> 
> I can disagree with you without calling you a name or labeling you gay or some BS like you did above.  I know I am not a bigot nor a homophobe and I do not appreciate name calling when we are trying to have a civil debate.  Debate the issues, name calling only takes away from your argument.



Agree



Cityboy said:


> I didn't call anyone a "name".
> 
> *Bigoted*
> Big"ot*ed, a. *Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion practice, or ritual*; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and illiberal toward the opinions of others. "Bigoted to strife." --Byron.
> 
> Syn: Prejudiced; intolerant; narrow-minded. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.



Remember your avatar, "Religion = Ignorance" 


In all CB, I use to like your posts a lot and actually missed you when you left the two times.  But now that your back I don't care for your posts.  The New CB just seems like he has his own agenda and if people don't follow you then they are wrong not you.  You trying to act like an "All High and Mighty" person and your not.  I do believe you are playing the Devil's Advocate position and it has become a game for you. 


murph


----------



## Doc

CB said:
			
		

> Hey Doc,
> 
> I started this debate and I'm not 100% sure about the answer either. There have been some interesting thoughts posted that have caused me to think. For me, that is the point of posting this poll in the first place. I do not expect everybody to agree with me, nor do I even want everyone to agree with me. Even when people get upset with a provacative post, we can all learn something from it. It's good to view things from different angles and think in a manner different than one normally thinks.



I agree CB.  

The poll has sure gotten closer.  It now stands at 14 for and 12 against.


----------



## rback33

thcri said:


> I do believe you are playing the Devil's Advocate position and it has become a game for you.
> 
> 
> murph



I will admit that I somehow missed the part where you feel he called you a bigot and I am not going to make a decision based off of quotes and snippits.

That said, I don't see too many issues with him playing the Devil's Advocate.  I did that a LOT in college. Even though there were MANY times I was outright going AGAINST what I believed, I did it anyway. I like a good discussion and I like to make people think. I was initially shocked by the custom title with "Religion=Ignorance."  We even talked about that bit when we had lunch with him. I actually thought it was funny simply because I could EASILY argue the opposite to be true. I guess the thing about it is that having met CB F2F, I can put voice inflection and facial expression with the words I read. It makes it MUCH easier to understand what he means.

I hate the word bigot. It's a very strong word with a very negative connotation. I much prefer prejudiced. I am prejudiced... against the word bigot if nothing else.


----------



## Cityboy

thcri said:


> Sorry CB, I have to agree with Doc here. I do feel that you called me out as a Bigot even though you posted you didn't.


 
Didn't mean to hurt your feelings Murph. If I did, well, that's life. If your feelings get hurt by someones post, maybe you need to stop and ask yourself why it really upsets you...and then listen to the answers.




thcri said:


> You just can't get off of your religion kick can you? Remember you avatar "Religion = Ignorance" Please read definition of "Bigot" you posted it.


 
I readily admit I am prejudiced, if not bigoted, against religion. I stopped taking other peoples word for what they say is the truth and started seeking the truth on my own. You should try it.



thcri said:


> Seems to me you have made it a game.


 
Very perceptive. Life is a game. Play hard and have fun.



thcri said:


> In all CB, I use to like your posts a lot and actually missed you when you left the two times. But now that your back I don't care for your posts. The New CB just seems like he has his own agenda and if people don't follow you then they are wrong not you. You trying to act like an "All High and Mighty" person and your not. I do believe you are playing the Devil's Advocate position and it has become a game for you.
> 
> 
> murph


 
I still like you even if you don't like me Murph. 

Come on now...I admit when I'm wrong...do you? Can you? Especially where religion is concerned?

And you are correct. I am not high and mighty and have never percieved myself that way. You for some reason percieve me that way and you are mistaken. 

And once again, yes, it is a game for me. It's a discussion forum, Murph. Think about that.


----------



## American Woman

mak2 said:


> I am not sure so I am just gonna ask.  did you just insult me or not?


 No! I was thinking of these guys that are so homophobic they beat up or kill a gay man.
You have never said anything to that degree.



Volfandt said:


> I personally know of a woman that has swung both ways. She was once married and has two children and she left her husband to live with another woman, which broke up yet another marriage. She is now back involved in a heterosexual relationship. An argument can be made that in some cases homosexual behavior isn't a hereditary condition but an acquired abnormal behavior such as smoking, alcoholism and or drug abuse......


I know people like this. Personally I can't swing both ways. I have known _*legitimate*_ gay people that I knew they were a little too girly while still in diapers. Sometimes you just "know"


----------



## fogtender

Doc said:


> Honestly, I cannot think of anything off hand that I am bigoted about right now, but yeah, I'll admit that I probably am about one thing or another.


 
Doc, everyone is "Bigot" one time or another, just the other day while going through the Burger Joint Drive though, the guy asked if I wanted to "Bigot" my fries and shake... So I said yeah... I guess so.... I felt so ashamed, but it was a really good "Mango" shake and I got over it...


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
call me biggoted or predjudiced if you want.  I will not tolerate or be around a goober smoocher if I can help it.  It is my choice and noone elses. I am old and set in my ways and proud of it!!!!!  Have a goodun!!!!


----------



## rback33

Ross 650 said:


> Howdy,
> call me biggoted or predjudiced if you want.  I will not tolerate or be around a goober smoocher if I can help it.  It is my choice and noone elses. I am old and set in my ways and proud of it!!!!!  Have a goodun!!!!



OK. Maybe I am a tard... I THINK I know what you are referencing, but what the hell is a goober smoocher and where did the reference come from?


----------



## pirate_girl

I'd suspect it's along the same lines as saying fudge packer..
blahh..


----------



## American Woman

I've never heard of a goober smoocher either  I always thought a goober was a big gooey bugger  Or Gomer Pile's friend....


----------



## rback33

pirate_girl said:


> I'd suspect it's along the same lines as saying fudge packer..
> blahh..




I guessed that too, but I was thinking Cory's train of thought...




American Woman said:


> I've never heard of a goober smoocher either  I always thought a goober was a big gooey bugger  Or Gomer Pile's friend....


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
sorry to get too technical for your thought train.  Would weenie wagger be easier for you to grasp??


----------



## rback33

Ross 650 said:


> Howdy,
> sorry to get too technical for your thought train.  Would weenie wagger be easier for you to grasp??



Whoa there cowboy.. I aint waggin anyones weenie...

You hiding something?  ah I don't want to know...


----------



## Cityboy

rback33 said:


> OK. Maybe I am a tard... I THINK I know what you are referencing, but what the hell is a goober smoocher and where did the reference come from?


 
You tard!  You know he was talking about guys who are butt plookin', knob shinin' twinkies. 

But he wasn't talkin' about two hot women booby rubbin' & carpet munchin'. Ole Ross would be spankin' his monkey watchin' a scene like dat!


----------



## pirate_girl

mercy..


----------



## American Woman

Weenie wagger?  I thought that was a guy thing, and all guys wagged their weenies


----------



## rback33

Cityboy said:


> You tard!  You know he was talking about guys who are butt plookin', knob shinin' twinkies.



You sure know a lot about that... and are excited about it.. 



Cityboy said:


> But he wasn't talkin' about two hot women booby rubbin' & carpet munchin'. Ole Ross would be spankin' his monkey watchin' a scene like dat!



Um well I'll plead the fifth!


----------



## CityGirl

American Woman said:


> Weenie wagger?  I thought that was a guy thing, and all guys wagged their weenies


 
I thought the same, American Woman.  Sort of the "Free the little guy" mentality that was demonstrated in the movie with Robin Williams and Jeff Bridges "The Fisher King"


----------



## American Woman

CityGirl said:


> I thought the same, American Woman.  Sort of the "Free the little guy" mentality that was demonstrated in the movie with Robin Williams and Jeff Bridges "The Fisher King"


See! We girls know how proud you guys can be about those weenies of yours


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
I dont think in a combat situation I would want a weenie wagger backing me up!!  Can you imagine telling him, cover my backside, Im going in!!!  That smoocher may end up coveting your back side!!!!


----------



## Cityboy

Ross 650 said:


> Howdy,
> I dont think in a combat situation I would want a weenie wagger backing me up!! Can you imagine telling him, cover my backside, Im going in!!! That smoocher may end up coveting your back side!!!!


 
Hey Ross, be still for a few moments. Get real quiet and reflective..then:

Vividly imagine mortal combat. Smell the human blood, urine and bowels spilling around you, mixed with the smells and sounds of exploding ordinance and the screams of human agony, pain and emotion. Imagine your intestines spilling through an open shrapnel wound, the pain hot and searing and unbearable until you lose conciousness........


........then imagine waking up to find the little faggot Corpsman who risked his life to get to your bleeding body under heavy enemy fire, administering battlefield aid to stop the bleeding and start the breathing.......

....what would you say to this faggot Corpsman that just saved your biggoted life..........


----------



## American Woman

I hope he say's thanks.....


----------



## mak2

Cityboy said:


> Hey Ross, be still for a few moments. Get real quiet and reflective..then:
> 
> Vividly imagine mortal combat. Smell the human blood, urine and bowels spilling around you, mixed with the smells and sounds of exploding ordinance and the screams of human agony, pain and emotion. Imagine your intestines spilling through an open shrapnel wound, the pain hot and searing and unbearable until you lose conciousness........
> 
> 
> ........then imagine waking up to find the little faggot Corpsman who risked his life to get to your bleeding body under heavy enemy fire, administering battlefield aid to stop the bleeding and start the breathing.......
> 
> ....what would you say to this faggot Corpsman that just saved your biggoted life..........




Stop it.  There were little gay Corpsman when I was in and we loved them (er, not that way), my whole point and argument is when it is made ok to be openly gay, were is the control?  If they behave as well as hetros i would probably be ok with it.


----------



## American Woman

I think if you can expect a girl to straighten up and act like a soldier than you can expect the same out of a gay man.


----------



## Cityboy

mak2 said:


> , *my whole point and argument is when it is made ok to be openly gay, were is the control?* If they behave as well as hetros i would probably be ok with it.


 
No, Mak, the real point is, would you give a damn if the guy who picked up your bleeding guts in a puddle of your own urine and feces and save your life was a faggot? 

Think you might view the world differently after that?


----------



## mak2

Cityboy said:


> No, Mak, the real point is, would you give a damn if the guy who picked up your bleeding guts in a puddle of your own urine and feces and save your life was a faggot?
> 
> Think you might view the world differently after that?



the infection would be too bad, I would probably be pissed at him.  i am growing bored with this.  Lets find another topic were I am on the left like I belong.


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
I would ljust call it a day rather  than have a smoocher touch me reguardless of the circumstances.  I have been through military situations and smoochers were not tolerated.  Like I stated previously, the world that I come from did not tolerate them and I will not have them touch or be in close proximity of them. As I stated before I am an old American who was born before Pear Harbor was bombed!!!!  Oh, yeah, have a goodun!!!!


----------



## Cityboy

mak2 said:


> the infection would be too bad, I would probably be pissed at him. i am growing bored with this. Lets find another topic were I am on the left like I belong.


 
That's fucked up bro. I do not see the humor.


----------



## Cityboy

Ross 650 said:


> Howdy,
> I would ljust call it a day rather than have a smoocher touch me reguardless of the circumstances. I have been through military situations and smoochers were not tolerated. Like I stated previously, the world that I come from did not tolerate them and I will not have them touch or be in close proximity of them. As I stated before I am an old American who was born before Pear Harbor was bombed!!!! Oh, yeah, have a goodun!!!!


 
So, ....you would rather die before you had a homosexual save your life?

What if the heart surgeon who could extend your life so that you could spend more time with your grand children was a fag? Would you rather "call it a day"?


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
Yes I would!!!!!!  I will not abide them or have them have the same life that I have had!!!!!   You as you seem to choose can have them around them or be one if you so choose.  I dont give a damn!!!!!  I will not!!!!!!


----------



## OhioTC18 RIP

Cityboy said:


> What if the heart surgeon who could extend your life so that you could spend more time with your grand children was a fag? Would you rather "call it a day"?



Guess I never thought to ask the three that have saved my ass. Maybe I'll put that on my list for next time. On second thought, I don't care nor does it make a difference.


----------



## Cityboy

Ross 650 said:


> Howdy,
> Yes I would!!!!!! I will not abide them or have them have the same life that I have had!!!!! You as you seem to choose can have them around them or be one if you so choose. I dont give a damn!!!!! I will not!!!!!!


 
Thanks for letting us know what kind of man you really are.


----------



## American Woman

Ross, You have a lot anger towards a gay man, I assume woman too. Your not one of those guys that would beat up somebody just for being gay are you?


----------



## ddrane2115

Cityboy said:


> Thanks for letting us know what kind of man you really are.


 

I dont buy it!    not for one second.  But then again, anyone with that much hatred for a person because of something like their sexual preference, I dont think I would want to live with myself really.  

I remember years ago an episode of the Jeffersons, black well to do family with some dry cleaners businesses.  the dude saves a heart attack victim who was clan, the clan guy then chastises his son for letting 'him' touch him.......should have let me die, was his comment.  

I actually feel sorry for a person who hates that much based on color, creed or sexual preference.  650, I feel sorry for you.  Gays, or homosexuals or those with special sexual preferences are not as bad as you think.  I know a few, nice guys and gals, welcome anytime at my home, at my table, or to rest their head.  

they have total respect for me and my choice, and I do theirs.


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
You can have what ever you want at your table.  I was raised during WWII and Japs were Japanese and Germans were Krauts.  My generation called a spade a spade and at that time America was the greatest nation in the world.  Along came the liberals who would abide by anything and we have devolved into the mess that we are in.  Nope, I still do not want a gay to ever touch me or be in my close proximity.  Just remember , my generation is the reason that you can debate this in English instead of German!! I remember WWII quite vivedly!!!!  Also, the Korean war,Vietnam, Grenada,  and of course Iraq!!!!


----------



## mak2

Cityboy said:


> That's fucked up bro. I do not see the humor.



If your guts have shit in them you are more than likley gonna die a long slow miserable death.  Best case you survive but have gI problems big time for the rest of your miserable life.  you brought it up.  Urine by the way is sterile, unless you ahve an infection.


----------



## ddrane2115

Ross 650 said:


> Howdy,
> You can have what ever you want at your table. I was raised during WWII and Japs were Japanese and Germans were Krauts. My generation called a spade a spade and at that time America was the greatest nation in the world. Along came the liberals who would abide by anything and we have devolved into the mess that we are in. Nope, I still do not want a gay to ever touch me or be in my close proximity. Just remember , my generation is the reason that you can debate this in English instead of German!! I remember WWII quite vivedly!!!! Also, the Korean war,Vietnam, Grenada, and of course Iraq!!!!


 


so all there wars have shown you that YOUR KIND are the only kind worthy?  I got Japanese friends, Chinese friends..........eat once week at their restaurant.  There is no reasoning in your post as to why these folks are not just as worthy as you are.   You just seem to not like them, I do feel for someone with that much hatred for others.  I know people like you claim to be, and they are also pretty sad in reality.  I know people who see a black person and they 'know' they are up to no good, just because of their skin color.  I know you have not gone on about skin color, but the hatred is the same.  I know people who wont go to some restaurants because of the waiters and waitresses are of 'non american' decent.  They see nothing in these people but bad.   These people also dont like gays or lesbians.  I will not debate with you on this, but as you like to make sure we know your place, and you are welcome to do that, I will state mine, if you aint done nothing to harm me, steal from me, or my family, regardless of nationality, sexual preference, you are pretty good people.

thank you Sir for you input.


----------



## mak2

You guys are setting up straw men and argueing both sides.  the question was if gays should be open in the military.  i think not simply becasue of unit morale and cohesion.  You switch that to in your own words not allowing a gay little corpsman save your ass if your guts.... Then have a problem with me pointing out your odds of survival with stool and other contaminates in you open gut.  I dont mind debating a topic, but something seems to have really changed around here.


----------



## Cityboy

mak2 said:


> If your guts have shit in them you are more than likley gonna die a long slow miserable death. Best case you survive but have gI problems big time for the rest of your miserable life. you brought it up. Urine by the way is sterile, unless you ahve an infection.


 
You really shouldn't drink and post..


----------



## mak2

Cityboy said:


> You really shouldn't drink and post..



Well I have not been drinking, maybe it is just posting on this fourm that is the problem.


----------



## mak2

I also have noticed you are the one using the derogatory terms towards gays,  are you trying to come out of the closet or something.  Is that the disguised hostility.  In case you dont undersand that means you defend them against others, yet use hateful names to descibe them.  Come out of the closet, it is ok.


----------



## ddrane2115

Dont let the forum get to you, it is each and everyones opinion, that is all.  I dont mind people being gay or lesbian, dont mind them watching my ass in the military, dont want them making advances to me, and I would politely tell them so.  Others seem to have a real hatred for the lifestyle, it is still their opinion.  If you dont like it, then fine, but if you are at an event at my home, and the invited guests include some who you do not like because of whatever, dont come........At any event at my home you could run into gays, lesbians, blacks, chinese, japanese, native americans, I have friends in all catagories...........oh and I would still consider you a friend, and respect your wish to not attend.


----------



## mak2

Danny, the point is not what is discussed, it is how.


----------



## Cityboy

mak2 said:


> You guys are setting up straw men and argueing both sides. the question was if gays should be open in the military. i think not simply becasue of unit morale and cohesion. You switch that to in your own words not allowing a gay little corpsman save your ass if your guts.... Then have a problem with *me pointing out your odds of survival with stool and other contaminates in you open gut.* I dont mind debating a topic, but something seems to have really changed around here.


 
WTF? Jesus fucking christ dude! I can tell you were never a Corpsman and damned sure would not want you taking care of me if you would give up that easily. Shit, and who knows what else in gut wounds is a fact of life in combat injuries.

And you claim you are a nurse? God help your patients at the VA. You are starting to piss me off. Were you really in the Marine Corps or are you just a poser?


----------



## mak2

Cityboy said:


> WTF? Jesus fucking christ dude! I can tell you were never a Corpsman and damned sure would not want you taking care of me if you would give up that easily. Shit, and who knows what else in gut wounds is a fact of life in combat injuries.
> 
> And you claim you are a nurse? God help your patients at the VA. You are starting to piss me off. Were you really in the Marine Corps or are you just a poser?



you are just an idiot.  FO


----------



## Cityboy

mak2 said:


> you are just an idiot. FO


 
You motherfucker, you won't say that to my face. ****.


----------



## Bobcat

Easy, boys. Argue your points ad infinitum, but once you get nasty, you've lost.


----------



## DaveNay

Bobcat said:


> Easy boys.



CB and Mak...don't make me tell you the same thing as Bobcat in an official manner.  Why don't each of you go outside and look at the stars for 10 minuts and have a smoke or a beer or a Grape Ne-Hi.


----------



## Cityboy

Bobcat said:


> Easy, boys. Argue your points ad infinitum, but once you get nasty, you've lost.


 
Bob & Dave...Mak just crossed the line. I'll stop now on the forum, but if he said that shit to me in person I'd stomp a mud puddle into his ass. That was uncalled for, especially from one Marine to another. That is IF Mak was really a marine.


----------



## ddrane2115

mak2 said:


> Danny, the point is not what is discussed, it is how.


 

I do agree, that is why I was saying, take it easy, I wish everyone would really, but we dont.

enjoy posting and if you really want to be pissed off, read my new post in the general area..................someone gonna get their balls busted big time


----------



## American Woman

Ross 650 said:


> Howdy,
> You can have what ever you want at your table.  I was raised during WWII and Japs were Japanese and Germans were Krauts.  My generation called a spade a spade and at that time America was the greatest nation in the world.  Along came the liberals who would abide by anything and we have devolved into the mess that we are in.  Nope, I still do not want a gay to ever touch me or be in my close proximity.  Just remember , my generation is the reason that you can debate this in English instead of German!! I remember WWII quite vivedly!!!!  Also, the Korean war,Vietnam, Grenada,  and of course Iraq!!!!


Your Generation was very prejudiced. None of these wars were against Gays anyway....


----------



## Cityboy

FF members:

I apologize for my language in my last couple of posts, but I am not sorry to the individual I said it to. This too shall pass, but sometimes you get pissed off and you need to say what you mean, and some things cannot be ignored.

Mods..please pardon me for this transgression of the rules of civility. I'll explain my reaction via PM if necessary.


----------



## mtntopper

Okay guys, cool off, calm down, both of you have great valid arguments/statements but the civility is not showing now in either of your arguments.


----------



## American Woman

Ummmmm....I think they already did...a while ago


----------



## Doc

Enough is enough. 

This thread is closed.


----------

