View Full Version : DADT repeal
http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20110629828864.html
or
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/28/a-smoking-gun/
(For you early bird challenged people)
This by Frank Gaffney in the Washington Times
MTN Medic
06-29-2011, 13:29
Wow, there is some powerful stuff in there. Worst is, they assumed that 12% of combat arms troops will not reinlist because of this; and still did it anyways.
Hope the young men who voted for Obama don't mind doing compulsory service. Should be an interesting next couple years. :munchin
The IG went on to say: “We consider it likely that the primary source disclosed content from the draft Report with the intent to shape a pro-repeal perception of the draft Report prior to its release to gain momentum in support of a legislative change during the ‘lame duck’ session of Congress following the Nov. 2, 2010, elections.”
The Washington Times version has a tilt that suggest that the swing GOP leaders were 'tricked' into believing that a repeal would be positive for the military.
These elected officials... These policy makers... These representatives of 'we the people'... Is it normal that they frame decisions of this magnitude on the results of a study that they were given/leaked/whispered in the hallway? Are they not independent thinkers? Are they not capable of critical thought? Are we to just brush away the fact that they made this decision because they 'were tricked'.
I guess they are not responsible for their actions then.
This brings to mind a story I once heard. A friends ex wife had an ex who admitted to her many years ago that a 30 year old man had 'tricked' him into sodomy when he was 18.
Personally, I think the 'tricked' guy is gay and I think these politicians are sheeple too.
:mad:
Roguish Lawyer
06-29-2011, 14:53
This brings to mind a story I once heard. A friends ex wife had an ex who admitted to her many years ago that a 30 year old man had 'tricked' him into sodomy when he was 18.
Personally, I think the 'tricked' guy is gay and I think these politicians are sheeple too.
LOL, "bend over and stay still, I'm just going to check something here . . ."
These elected officials... These policy makers... These representatives of 'we the people'... Is it normal that they frame decisions of this magnitude on the results of a study that they were given/leaked/whispered in the hallway? Are they not independent thinkers? Are they not capable of critical thought? Are we to just brush away the fact that they made this decision because they 'were tricked'.
:mad:
Is this a rhetorical question?
Is this a rhetorical question?
No sinjefe, it was not meant to be. I sincerely hoped that somebody would counter my assertion and make me feel stupid for even thinking such 'silly' things.
If war is politics by other means, should we be surprised that military policy is a political choice?*
In American military and naval history have decisions about who can serve and who cannot ever been driven by independent critical thought alone rather than by political calculations?
__________________________________________________ ______________
* Volker Berghahn, "Navies and Domestic Factors" and Robert S. Wood "Domestic Factors, Regime Characteristics and Naval Forces" provide contrasting conceptual frameworks for this line of inquiry. Both essays are available in John B. Hattendorf, Doing Naval History: Essays Toward Improvement Naval War College historical monograph series, no. 13 (Newport, RI: Naval War College Press, 1994), 53-71.
1stindoor
08-10-2011, 12:51
An online push is under way to pressure the producers of "Sesame Street" into having Bert and Ernie get married.
More than 900 people have signed a petition about the pair of platonic puppets on Change.org as of early Wednesday.
"We are not asking that Sesame Street do anything crude or disrespectful," the petition reads. "It can be done in a tasteful way. Let us teach tolerance of those that are different."
The sexuality of Bert and Ernie -- perhaps the kid show's most popular characters -- has long been debated since the roommates sleep in the same room and constantly bicker.
The petition also asks that "Sesame Street" producers consider adding a transgender character to the show, which premiered in 1969 on Public Broadcasting Service.
The online campaign also has a companion Facebook page that has attracted as least 350 supporters as of Wednesday.
"Part of me is laughing and the other is crying," one posting read.
Another read: "Is Elton John going to play at the wedding?"
In a statement to FoxNews.com, the non-profit Sesame Workshop said the pair are simply "best friends."
"They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves," the statement read.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/10/petition-underway-for-bert-and-ernie-to-get-married-on-sesame-street/#ixzz1UeYPbuLA
Why is this song playing in my head?
One of these things is not like the others...
One of these things just doesn't belong...
Worst is, they assumed that 12% of combat arms troops will not reinlist because of this; and still did it anyways.
Given the recent threats of cutting the defense budget, the defense budget being the first thing to get automatic cuts if the super committee cant approve cuts, etc... is it easier to believe that maybe they actually did it BECAUSE 12% of combat arms troops will not reenlist?
Why is this song playing in my head?
One of these things is not like the others...
One of these things just doesn't belong...
1st,
And, "How-to-get-to Sesame Street..."
OMG! I think I may be sick to my stomach....Wow!:eek:
One of the only shows I was allowed to watch as a child was, "Seasame Street." And Mr. Rogers. I just thought his cardigan was the coolest thing ever!
I must admit though, the popular music today marketed to them is from the likes of lady gag-me, with videos for them to see exactly what is being discussed.
Marketing ploy anyone??? Children are like sponges. Case in point...
True story; We had a strom here when I was about 12 or so, and suddenly, on our hand-punched cable box, the Playboy channel was clear. Curiosity was my motive, but I did watch a movie called, "Black-Sands.":o I remember it, and a few details to boot, as at that age, I was very impressionable!
Wish America would wake the f*ck up!:confused:
Holly
"..........The sexuality of Bert and Ernie -- perhaps the kid show's most popular characters -- has long been debated since the roommates sleep in the same room and constantly bicker..............."
Who's been doing the debating? Nobody I know.
Now just because two guys are living together the thought never entered my mind that they would be gay.
But to the gay lobby - if two guys are living together they must be gay?
Who's doing the stereotyping here? Not me.
greenberetTFS
08-10-2011, 16:03
LOL, "bend over and stay still, I'm just going to check something here . . ."
:D:D:D
Big Teddy :munchin
PedOncoDoc
08-10-2011, 17:29
Remember:
When getting your prostate checked:
1 hand on a shoulder is okay.
1 hand on either shoulder is not.
Sesame Street is one reason that kids grew up to be what they are now-useless adults.
Sesame Street is one reason that kids grew up to be what they are now-useless adults.
You are correct Sir.
Having grown up only able to watch that, I did mature into a very naive and somewhat ill-informed individual, but Bert and Ernie's sex life were not a part of my thought process.
However, my learning advaced, because it was not tainted with any extra "stuff."
And now, all rhumors to the contrary, am a solid formidable force to be reckoned with...especially when it comes to military haters.
My misson is simple...just shoot them with green paintball paint and be done with it....and also destroy frauds.:lifter:munchin
Holly
Navy officer weds partner as gay ban ends
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/19/national/main20108628.shtml
"(AP) DUXBURY, Vt. - When Navy Lt. Gary Ross and his partner were searching for a place to get married, they settled on a site in Vermont, in part because the state is in the Eastern time zone.
That way, the two men were able to recite their vows before family and friends at the first possible moment after the formal repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Just after midnight Tuesday, the partners of 11 years were married......."
Now for the most part I really don't care if two gay people get "married" or not - the libertarian streak coming out sometimes.
But it's the "news & gay agenda" that POs me.
We're still getting "the first woman" and "first black" stories all the time.
Now we'll be getting "the first gay couple married at/in ___________" stories for years.
We're still getting "the first woman" and "first black" stories all the time.Please stop putting sex and/or race in the same category of someone's orientation; especially race!:D
We already had one change his sex.:eek: And, only Michael Jackson has changed is race....:p
Stay safe.
Team Sergeant
09-20-2011, 07:22
I think MSNBC just reported that in keeping with current policy the obama administration DADT (w/barney frank sponsoring the motion) each case of MRE's (Meal's Ready to Eat) will now be issued with a tube of K Y Jelly.
1stindoor
09-20-2011, 07:24
I think MSNBC just reported that in keeping with current policy the obama administration DADT (w/barney frank sponsoring the motion) each case of MRE's (Meal's Ready to Eat) will now be issued with a tube of K Y Jelly.
EWWWWW....was that really necessary?
Originally posted by Team Sergeant:
I think MSNBC just reported that in keeping with current policy the obama administration DADT (w/barney frank sponsoring the motion) each case of MRE's (Meal's Ready to Eat) will now be issued with a tube of K Y Jelly.
Flavored or unflavored??? I have heard that the "happy people" really like the flavored kind.
Tress
Team Sergeant
09-20-2011, 07:27
EWWWWW....was that really necessary?
Maybe not butt it's the politically correct thing to do.....
alright4u
09-20-2011, 07:43
I never thought I'd live to even hear an elected official suggest this, but; here we are becoming and acting closer and closer to European nations .
I recall the problems that just one EEOC warrant officer at BDE level could cause commanders, and; also what one hispanic minority EM 's complaint did to a fine company CO. Those problems will look minor compared to the problems this new special status group will create. There will be complaints and quotas, and; I wonder if anyone has thought about the medical costs of AIDS on the military and the VA?
Admiral Mullen may see no problems for the Navy. The Army and Marines are not sailing on the ocean blue. I foresee major problems with senior NCO's and officers at the troop level.
I think MSNBC just reported that in keeping with current policy the obama administration DADT (w/barney frank sponsoring the motion) each case of MRE's (Meal's Ready to Eat) will now be issued with a tube of K Y Jelly.
And unscented towelettes for tactical and sanitary reasons.
Sad day for our military. Proud to say that I retired 19 years and 19 days BOQ (Before Openly Queer.)
Team Sergeant
09-20-2011, 09:02
Sad day for our military. Proud to say that I retired 19 years and 19 days BOQ (Before Openly Queer.)
Not nearly as sad as what's coming.......
Military hospitals & VA WILL soon be providing "gender reassignment surgery" and you and I WILL be paying for it.
If I was a butt pirate and wanted such "reassignment" butt could not afford it, I'd join the US Military right now and DEMAND it....... :munchin
Maybe not butt it's the politically correct thing to do.....
"Maybe not BUTT...
:D
alright4u
09-20-2011, 09:57
Not nearly as sad as what's coming.......
Military hospitals & VA WILL soon be providing "gender reassignment surgery" and you and I WILL be paying for it.
If I was a butt pirate and wanted such "reassignment" butt could not afford it, I'd join the US Military right now and DEMAND it....... :munchin
Well, we are flying to SOAR in Vegas in three hours. I do not have to wonder what subject will be frowned upon.
Seriously, I think this is perhaps the worse day in our military's history. To use the military for this social experiment in advancing the perverted is not a joke .
Team Sergeant
09-20-2011, 10:22
Team Sergeant, I have read your posts for some time now and come to respect you. And I know you would have worked hard and saved for your reassignment instead of leeching off of a corrupt system.
Under the logic that homosexuals are basically sound individuals, it could be argued that it makes more sense to take gay males and perform a rapid surgery to reverse their gender. They could then be processed as normal females and assigned their roles as such. It'd be a stripped down procedure, of course, in these troubled times there's simply no money to be had for cosmetic considerations in the military.
See this is where I'm thinking there's way more dimensions than the simple M-theory of "11 dimensions".:munchin
Your reality and mine don't mesh. You see in my reality/dimension there is no logic that states that homosexuals are "basically sound individuals" and I share the same view for transsexuals, pedophiles etc.
I don't see the repeal of DADT as a victory for gays in the military, I see it as a perverse "coming out" where now the homosexuals can flaunt it in the face of military servicemen and they will have no recourse. It's already started.
"cosmetic considerations" surely you jest. There's no doubt in my mind that this will be tested (in the military) very soon and it will not fall under "cosmetic considerations". What part of gender reassignment surgery don't you understand?
Under the logic that homosexuals are basically sound individuals,
That's like saying, "Under the logic that pedophiles are basically sound individuals,"
Team Sergeant, I have read your posts for some time now and come to respect you. And I know you would have worked hard and saved for your reassignment instead of leeching off of a corrupt system.
Under the logic that homosexuals are basically sound individuals, it could be argued that it makes more sense to take gay males and perform a rapid surgery to reverse their gender. They could then be processed as normal females and assigned their roles as such. It'd be a stripped down procedure, of course, in these troubled times there's simply no money to be had for cosmetic considerations in the military.
I refer you to: http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=411369&postcount=57
Read the paper 'The Trojan Couch' referenced in that post, and then rethink what you have just said. While your at it, research Alfred Kinsey, specifically the work done by Dr. Judith Reisman on his "research" and "experiments".
............... Do you really think that the military will wind up footing the bill so that gays can get breasts and some sort of mutilated abomination? I didn't even consider for a second they might actually do such a thing. It is patently absurd. I will be disappointed if what you say is true and they actually do that.
One step at a time young Jedi, one step at a time. There are the number "quota for promotion" fight, benefits for spouse, BAQ, repeal of a couple of the nastier ARs all to come first. The surgury stuff will come after the others are locked up.
By the way - review the use of "Pink Font".
Seems as if Art 125 of the MCM could be an issue.
51. Article 125—Sodomy
a. Text of statute.
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.
b. Elements.
(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal.
IV-96 (pg. 379) http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2008.pdf
Richard :munchin
Barbarian
09-20-2011, 14:07
Seems as if Art 125 of the MCM could be an issue.
Hopefully it will be an issue. My suspicion, however, is that it will be labeled as "archaic" or "out of date" and rights groups will eventually nullify Art 125, too.
greenberetTFS
09-20-2011, 14:12
Seems as if Art 125 of the MCM could be an issue.
51. Article 125—Sodomy
a. Text of statute.
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.
b. Elements.
(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal.
IV-96 (pg. 379) http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2008.pdf
Richard :munchin
Hmmmmm!........:confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
PedOncoDoc
09-20-2011, 14:16
Seems as if Art 125 of the MCM could be an issue.
51. Article 125—Sodomy
a. Text of statute.
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.
b. Elements.
(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal.
IV-96 (pg. 379)
Does Lawrence vs. Texas, 2003, declaring state laws similar to the above unconcstitutional, impact the MCM? :confused:
The Reaper
09-20-2011, 18:11
Does Lawrence vs. Texas, 2003, declaring state laws similar to the above unconcstitutional, impact the MCM? :confused:
Yes it does.
Article 125, AFAIK, is no longer applicable to consenting adults.
TR
Heck, In NC the only legal position you can have sex in is the "missionary" position.
I'm going away for a "LONG" time if someone decides to turn me in as I've been a BAD BOY. ;)
If I were in the military right now I'd be DEMANDING to be able to shower with the females. :)
I mean what's the difference. A gay guy can get in the shower with you and look at your goods. Why shouldn't you be able to do the same with the females?
I think they are violating some civil rights if you ask me.
greenberetTFS
09-21-2011, 00:25
Article 125, AFAIK, is no longer applicable to consenting adults./Quote/TR
Does that mean that screwing animals is OK now,as long as the sheep are consenting?.....:eek: Or is that part still considered Sodomy?......:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
PedOncoDoc
09-21-2011, 04:40
Does that mean that screwing animals is OK now,as long as the sheep are consenting?
Or is that part still considered Sodomy?
Perhaps one of the lawyer types could chime in here, but to my understanding the key phrase is "between consenting adults" - neither animals nor children can consent to the activity.
Personal morals/values aside, it's the legal precedent as decided by the Supreme Court.
....... the key phrase is "between consenting adults" - neither animals nor children can consent to the activity..........
Some would disagree with that - namely NAMBLA and PETA.
So, I can f--- my sister if she's okay with it? (wait a minute, I don't have one...damn!) :)
Pedophiles I'd say are different because you are talking about people who are sexually attracted to children, and a child is not a consenting adult. Because of this, a pedophile is a predator, because they go after children. A gay person isn't a predator, because they are seeking a relationship with another adult, albeit with one of the same sex.
Abominal is still abominable.
PedOncoDoc
09-21-2011, 09:08
Some would disagree with that - namely NAMBLA and PETA.
I didn't realize PETA was pro-bestiality. A quick Google search proved me wrong - thanks for the heads up, and I now have another reason to think they're ridiculous. Perhaps they should change their name to "People for the Erotic Touching of Animals". :D
But I digress - it ain't about what you agree or disagree with when it comes to the law - it's what precedent has been set and upheld.
I'm no lawyer, but I do know that an 8 year old can't sign legal consent, but they may have to sign legal assent in some cases, however, and I have yet to see an animal produce and recreate a legal signature.
Cake_14N
09-21-2011, 09:51
Remember:
When getting your prostate checked:
1 hand on a shoulder is okay.
1 hand on either shoulder is not.
Worked with a Doc at USAFA that had a surgical glove filled with flour and water he kept in his pocket. he would put that on one shoulder of the patient and then proceed to do "The Sweep" as normal. Patients felt pressure on both shoulders as well as "The Sweep" at the same time. Lots of panicked screaming out of the exam rooms until the fake hand fell off of their shoulder.
And now I know where Dumb and Dumber hang out...MSNBC.
Richard
Why The Military Still Bans Sodomy
MSNBC, 20 Jun 2013
There’s one U.S. government institution that still criminalizes consensual gay sex: the military.
Two years into the relatively uneventful implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, it may seem strange that gay and lesbian service members are still technically barred from having sex. Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice however, is technically still in effect. Article 125 makes it a criminal offense to “engage in unnatural carnal copulation” with “another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal.” With the Supreme Court having struck down anti-sodomy laws nationwide in 2003, a subsequent military court of appeals decision in 2004, and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in 2010, Article 125 is almost unenforceable, as long as sexual relations don’t run afoul of other military regulations like prohibitions on officers sleeping with enlisted personnel. Technically, the language also criminalizes “unnatural” consensual sexual contact for heterosexual service members as well, but it criminalizes any sexual contact for gay and lesbian service members.
“The circumstances under which it can be prosecuted are limited,” says Beth Hillman, a law professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law. “It would be difficult for them to go far without violating Supreme Court precedent.” In fact, prosecutions of consensual same-sex activity that don’t violate other standards of military behavior ceased during the Bush administration. “Commanders and Judge Advocate Generals do not use [Article] 125 against same sex service members because it simply does not apply. It is moot,” says Pentagon spokesperson Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale. “The sole exceptions are when aggravating circumstances exist, like with a child, or if it’s by force, or without consent.”
Nevertheless, supporters of LGBT rights want Article 125 off the books, saying it stigmatizes gay and lesbian service members. “Article 125 currently includes this prohibition alongside a ban on bestiality,” says Ian Thompson of the ACLU. “To say that is stigmatizing and discriminatory to these service members and their relationships is an understatement.” Even if you’re married, if you’re gay, the UCMJ still views your relationship with your spouse as “unnatural.”
Several Democratic senators agree that Article 125 needs to change. Colorado Democratic Senator Mark Udall, along with his Democratic colleagues Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, have sponsored an amendment to this year’s defense bill that would alter Article 125 so that it no longer criminalizes service members who engage in consensual intimacy with persons of the same sex. The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the Udall proposal as part of the defense bill it sent to the full Senate last week.
“The persistence of it on the books is archaic,” says Hillman. “It would be cleaning up the UCMJ to get rid of it, it makes perfect sense to do so.”
It doesn’t make perfect sense to everyone. The reason Article 125 is still on the books at all is because in 2011, when Democrats tried to get rid of it, the religious right howled that the left was making it acceptable for members of the military to have sex with animals. When Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, got wind of the plan he wrote that “in its rush to accommodate the Left, Congress may have inadvertently opened the door to even more perversion.” Asked what they thought of the new proposal to alter Article 125, a spokesperson pointed MSNBC to Perkins’ 2011 post, titled, “Bestiality Should Give Leaders Paws.”
Repealing Article 125 wouldn’t have stopped the military from prosecuting bestiality because of rules that prohibit “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline” and “conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces,” according to Breasseale. Nevertheless, the uproar was enough to persuade legislators to strip the proposal to remove Article 125, which was approved by the Senate, from the final version of defense bill.
Udall, Gillibrand and Shaheen have taken into account what happened last time around. The new proposal retains prohibitions on “forcible sodomy” and “bestiality,” but alters Article 125 so that it no longer criminalizes gay and lesbian service members’ consensual sexual activity. Even so, it’s not clear that Republicans are any less opposed to altering Article 125 than they were two years ago. Claude Chafin, a spokesperson for the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee, would only say that the Senate should pass the House version of the defense bill as soon as possible, citing an urgent need to approve “substantial reforms designed to combat sexual assault” in the military. The implication is that proposals to amend the bill, like the one that would revise the UCMJ’s sodomy ban, should be set aside.
The defense bill will probably get a vote in the Fall, but the proposal to revise Article 125 will likely run into serious resistance in the House, whose version of the defense bill contains language that could legitimize discrimination against gay and lesbian service members in the name of religion. Even if the sodomy ban is unenforceable for now, it maintains at least a symbolic disapproval of gays and lesbians that most Republican legislators agree with.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/20/why-the-military-still-bans-sodomy/
Dreadnought
06-21-2013, 22:43
And now I know where Dumb and Dumber hang out...MSNBC.
Richard
article
What is your exact contention with the article? There seems to be a lot going on in it.
What is your exact contention with the article? There seems to be a lot going on in it.
Hey Dreadnought, instead of floating around this site trying to poke long time members and asking Bull Shit questions why don't you make a post where you state you're opinion - and then back it up with links to facts.
So your next post should start something like "I support the main idea of the article because............" followed by links supporting your position.
Or the next time you'll find yourself having to post elsewhere.
Dreadnought
06-22-2013, 10:04
Hey Dreadnought, instead of floating around this site trying to poke long time members and asking Bull Shit questions why don't you make a post where you state you're opinion - and then back it up with links to facts.
So your next post should start something like "I support the main idea of the article because............" followed by links supporting your position.
Or the next time you'll find yourself having to post elsewhere.
It isn't a bullshit question, it's seeking clarification on a stance, and I'm not trying to poke anybody. I don't know what Richard was specifically referring to when he said his comment, and I did not want to give my opinion on something if he was referring something else, basically.
As far as the article is concerned, I think that the banning of "sodomy" is an archaic aspect of the UCMJ and needs to be done away with, as well as the banning of consensual sex between two armed service members of the same gender, what with the repeal of DADT and all.
There are other issues in the article though, such as the inclusion of bestiality laws, changes to both of them, reception and action by political groups, etc. Wasn't sure what Richard was referring to so I asked for clarification before giving an unwanted or irrelevant opinion.
It isn't a bullshit question, it's seeking clarification on a stance, and I'm not trying to poke anybody. I don't know what Richard was specifically referring to when he said his comment, and I did not want to give my opinion on something if he was referring something else, basically.
As far as the article is concerned, I think that the banning of "sodomy" is an archaic aspect of the UCMJ and needs to be done away with, as well as the banning of consensual sex between two armed service members of the same gender, what with the repeal of DADT and all.
There are other issues in the article though, such as the inclusion of bestiality laws, changes to both of them, reception and action by political groups, etc. Wasn't sure what Richard was referring to so I asked for clarification before giving an unwanted or irrelevant opinion.
Wrong Answer - go play somewhere else.
Wrong Answer - go play somewhere else.
I tried to politely tell him that the Helo was coming. I thought he might take the hint and hunker down in a hide until it passed........:eek:
Such is life.....
Horrible
06-24-2013, 14:29
[COLOR="Lime"]And now I know where Dumb and Dumber hang out...MSNBC.
Perhaps an amendment to the article that removes the portions regarding "unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex", and keep the prohibition against sex with animals? It seems to me like that would be a very simple solution.
By the way, I don't think I've ever met anyone in real life who listed the repeal of DADT as their reason for leaving the service.
The Reaper
06-24-2013, 17:02
By the way, I don't think I've ever met anyone in real life who listed the repeal of DADT as their reason for leaving the service.
I know several senior NCOs and Officers who said that it was the final step for them in deciding whether to reenlist or not.
It was an indicator of things to come.
TR
Pentagon to extend benefits to gay service spouses
http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/DA75IJ981
"Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says the Pentagon will begin the process to extend health care, housing and other federal benefits to the same-sex spouses of military members as soon as possible.
Wednesday's Supreme Court decision opens the door for married gay couples to get federal benefits................"
OK, Folks, almost there.
Getting close to "special rules for special people".
The last little bit is "How many gays are there in the Military and are they getting promoted at the same rate as non-gays in their MOS and career field?"
To do that they'll add the "GLBT" block to the admin forms. That way they'll be able to run the numbers.
When they do that all you straight people better check the "GLBT" block if you want to be on an equal footing with the GLBT crowd.
Paragrouper
06-26-2013, 20:10
I wonder when they'll change 670-1 to accommodate cross-dressing?
69harley
06-26-2013, 20:46
I wonder when they'll change 670-1 to accommodate cross-dressing?
Do you mean while on duty, like men dressing in female uniforms? I doubt that will ever happen, but who knows.
As for regs prohibiting soldiers from crossdressing on their off time? A buddy of mine is a first sergeant in a non-combat arms unit on Bragg, about half of the company is female and a majority of the company is a minority of some type.
We were talking last weekend (while grilling TS ribs) about the various issues on the company and it was crazy. Crossdressing came up, as their are two guys in his company that are openly, flaming gay and do crossdress. He has had the command lawyers look into it, on their counsel, nothing can be done to them.
On that same subject, well sort of. Another friend of mine in 3rd SFG(A) was telling me that there are two guys in the group that are known as being openly gay and have taken their partners to team and company social events.
This is a crazy time for the military. Will be interesting to see how military history looks back on this period of time.
Paragrouper
06-26-2013, 21:31
Do you mean while on duty, like men dressing in female uniforms? I doubt that will ever happen, but who knows.
As for regs prohibiting soldiers from crossdressing on their off time? A buddy of mine is a first sergeant in a non-combat arms unit on Bragg, about half of the company is female and a majority of the company is a minority of some type.
We were talking last weekend (while grilling TS ribs) about the various issues on the company and it was crazy. Crossdressing came up, as their are two guys in his company that are openly, flaming gay and do crossdress. He has had the command lawyers look into it, on their counsel, nothing can be done to them.
On that same subject, well sort of. Another friend of mine in 3rd SFG(A) was telling me that there are two guys in the group that are known as being openly gay and have taken their partners to team and company social events.
This is a crazy time for the military. Will be interesting to see how military history looks back on this period of time.
Okay, seriously, I meant to pink that one.
Sheeesh!
I'm expecting a flood of straight cats from the barracks starting to get "married" to one of their buddies and immediately moving off post drawing dual BAH or even better, applying for on-post housing. This will be on top of the expected LBGT folks taking advantage of the recent SCOTUS ruling...
With no legal ramifications/repercussions as well as little to no stigma attached to being LBGT in the military, the upside to "marrying" your buddy, even if you are both straight, in order to live off post and make more money will certainly draw more than a few folks in...
Mr. and Mr. Joe Snuffy, come on down...
I'm expecting a flood of straight cats from the barracks starting to get "married" to one of their buddies and immediately moving off post drawing dual BAH or even better, applying for on-post housing. This will be on top of the expected LBGT folks taking advantage of the recent SCOTUS ruling...
With no legal ramifications/repercussions as well as little to no stigma attached to being LBGT in the military, the upside to "marrying" your buddy, even if you are both straight, in order to live off post and make more money will certainly draw more than a few folks in...
Mr. and Mr. Joe Snuffy, come on down...
Sounds about right. I see the following coming in the not too distant future........
Additional complaints against the system for being discriminatory
Serious issues with the base housing system due to certain families being forced to live near gay or lesbian spouses
Additional sensitivity training across the board
EO complaints through the roof
5 more years.........
I'm expecting a flood of straight cats from the barracks starting to get "married" to one of their buddies and immediately moving off post drawing dual BAH or even better, applying for on-post housing. This will be on top of the expected LBGT folks taking advantage of the recent SCOTUS ruling...
With no legal ramifications/repercussions as well as little to no stigma attached to being LBGT in the military, the upside to "marrying" your buddy, even if you are both straight, in order to live off post and make more money will certainly draw more than a few folks in...
Mr. and Mr. Joe Snuffy, come on down...
Sounds about right. I see the following coming in the not too distant future........
Additional complaints against the system for being discriminatory
Serious issues with the base housing system due to certain families being forced to live near gay or lesbian spouses
Additional sensitivity training across the board
EO complaints through the roof
A massive influx of new LGBT troops into federal service in order to chase benefits
Hopefully, we can keep things the same based on which state we choose to live in. However I don't see that happening, I believe that it will only be a matter of time before the USG steps in and forces all states to comply.
5 more years.........
Just got an URGENT MSG from OPM about The DOMA decision. They are running to implement this. Not walking or as they normally do Crawl....... Wish they would get off their fat asses and send me my assignment incentive pay that is over 3 yrs over due with interest. I sure could use that $100,000.00.
They sure do not have their priorities in line.
Hell I guess I should use the system for something good. I should go out and marry one of my former teammates that is disabled, homeless and just living like shit to get him bennifits that the VA or any other government agency will help with.
Hell the VA and SS is trying to screw him....... Knowing my luck some LGBT police would catch us when the girls are running around the house naked and turn us in....... Damn I can never get away with anything..:p
This country is so fucked up...
PedOncoDoc
06-27-2013, 07:10
Just got an URGENT MSG from OPM about The DOMA decision. They are running to implement this. Not walking or as they normally do Crawl....... Wish they would get off their fat asses and send me my assignment incentive pay that is over 3 yrs over due with interest.
Just walk in to the office wearing a dress, and ask if your overdue pay is being witheld due to your lifestyle - they'll probably cut a check on the spot. :rolleyes:
Just walk in to the office wearing a dress, and ask if your overdue pay is being witheld due to your lifestyle - they'll probably cut a check on the spot. :rolleyes:
Does not have to be in pink..... A few of us have thought about it but no one can figure out how to wear our guns....
You are right they would do a backflip if I was one of those protected minorities.
PedOncoDoc
06-27-2013, 07:33
Does not have to be in pink..... A few of us have thought about it but no one can figure out how to wear our guns....
You are right they would do a backflip if I was one of those protected minorities.
I think Thunderwear (http://www.thunderwear.com/holsters.asp) has you covered. ;)
(Not an endorsement, BTW)
I'm curious about the demographic breakdown of the sexual assault numbers recently released. More specifically, what percentage was same sex harassment/assault, and have those percentages increased in the last year?
I'm curious about the demographic breakdown of the sexual assault numbers recently released. More specifically, what percentage was same sex harassment/assault, and have those percentages increased in the last year?
Not sure, but you would think so based on the amount of SHARP propaganda everywhere.........
frostfire
06-28-2013, 15:41
I know several senior NCOs and Officers who said that it was the final step for them in deciding whether to reenlist or not.
It was an indicator of things to come.
TR
Additional sensitivity training across the board
EO complaints through the roof
5 more years.........
I shudder at the prospect of cases the SANE/SAMFE (sexual assaut medical forensic examiner) has to work with in the next few years
I used to have a SOF-career-at-any-cost-or-bust drive, breaking hearts, abandoning relationships, and dissappointing parents/friends along the way.....but now I think I'm going to take my chances with alphabet soup organizations
This fighting force that had adopted me and I have come to love and treasure is turning into an appaling, stomach-turning, circus
5 more months....
It seems to me that, with all of the alphabet soup sexual identity labels, some very confused individual could end up back where they started. :D
Pat
So it begins.......
Over the past few days, I have seen a very disturbing amount of commercials and releases from our "leaders" in regards to the DADT and DOMA appeals, however today I saw the first commercial of a uniformed Soldier being interviewed in front of a gay pride flag talking about the sacrifices that LGBT Soldiers have made.......additionally, showing the pictures and images of the protests and "happy LGBT couples" within our society.
Once again, special people wanting special treatment. Personally, I don't give a fuck either way. Just stop shoving it in my face all of the time am calling me the bigot for not supporting their struggle.
How is it that our leaders (aka: politicians) allow this to happen? We are all Soldiers, we all make sacrifices, some of us much more than others without seeking recognition, yet we still insist on taking small groups of so called "special people" and putting them on pedestals over everyone else. We can't make generalities anymore in regards to the sacrifices that we have made, we have to single everyone out time and time again.
I just don't get it.
I'm going to start a support group for the army cooks. They are so misunderstood and under appreciated. Oh the sacrifices they have made.
Honestly they put in some LONG hours though and I'm sure glad we had/have them. Yea we all rag on some of the (what we consider) easier MOSs but life would SUCK without them and we cannot deny that and many of them gave us GREAT support. It takes all MOSs to make it work and they all make sacrifices in one way or another. GIVE ME A BREAK!