Posted on Jun 29, 2014
'Bring back DADT' post: Personal update. See below
61.5K
614
313
23
12
11
To all who have been personally affected by this post, I extend my public and personal apology. Be assured that IN NO WAY was this post intended to impinge on anyone's personal beliefs. As previously stated, I still have the same stand on 'keep it to yourself' on whatever choices you make. That means gay AND straight.
That also means if I hear anyone talking about how many b**%&es they knocked up or junk in the trunk, I will still politely and firmly ask them to stop. I also realized that I'm a service member just like most of us here. Offending and causing strife amongst brothers and sisters in arms was my ABSOLUTELY LAST INTENTION.
If anything, this post served for me as a personal lesson on how to express myself on public media, especially in writing, and hope it served a lesson for you to choose your words carefully, especially when addressing most of us wearing uniform here on Rallypoint.
I also wanted to thank MAJ Yinon Weiss for encouraging me to deal with it, learn from people's reactions, and restating my view in less hostile manner. Once again, as a brother and sister in arms, I may not like your certain points of view and you may not like some of mine, but let's agree to disagree, express ourselves more tactfully, and stay focused on our mission to this beloved country of ours.
Hooyah, hooah, hoorah, and hip-hip hooray (USAF?)
That also means if I hear anyone talking about how many b**%&es they knocked up or junk in the trunk, I will still politely and firmly ask them to stop. I also realized that I'm a service member just like most of us here. Offending and causing strife amongst brothers and sisters in arms was my ABSOLUTELY LAST INTENTION.
If anything, this post served for me as a personal lesson on how to express myself on public media, especially in writing, and hope it served a lesson for you to choose your words carefully, especially when addressing most of us wearing uniform here on Rallypoint.
I also wanted to thank MAJ Yinon Weiss for encouraging me to deal with it, learn from people's reactions, and restating my view in less hostile manner. Once again, as a brother and sister in arms, I may not like your certain points of view and you may not like some of mine, but let's agree to disagree, express ourselves more tactfully, and stay focused on our mission to this beloved country of ours.
Hooyah, hooah, hoorah, and hip-hip hooray (USAF?)
Posted in these groups: 
Pride
Celebration
Pride Celebration
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 57
1
1
0
Matters of intimacy do not belong in the workplace period. Gay, Straight, or multi-sexual alien war robot. It is unprofessional. The reason we wear uniforms is so that we ARE uniform. Individuality should be minimized.
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
And that answer is why I voted you up. The problem is that the bigots want to equate the former with the latter, ONLY in the case of gay men and women.... when it's not.
As a straight, married male currently on active duty for training (WOAC @Ft Gordon), I can tell my classmates or my cadre: "Don't call me after class on Friday, I'm spending the weekend with my wife, we're celebrating our anniversary". No one will bat an eye.
Substitute ONE word.....if I were not straight and had a husband, and all of a sudden the mere mention of it is the crime of the century. I call bullshit on that.
As a straight, married male currently on active duty for training (WOAC @Ft Gordon), I can tell my classmates or my cadre: "Don't call me after class on Friday, I'm spending the weekend with my wife, we're celebrating our anniversary". No one will bat an eye.
Substitute ONE word.....if I were not straight and had a husband, and all of a sudden the mere mention of it is the crime of the century. I call bullshit on that.
(0)
(1)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir,that is totally false. While there are many who DON'T support the lifestyle, many will NOT summarily discriminate against homosexuals. I 100% agree with SSG Kevin McCulley's comment above as it illustrates how many of us look at the issue. The problem is when the lifestyle is shoved down our throats or done in a "in your face" type of manner. The same goes for religion. I have seen a plethora of posts on here alone that are so vile and hateful towards Christians or people who DON'T support the homosexual lifestyle. WHO CARES!!!! It is those people who keep bringing up "the question". It is NOT us. Go live YOUR life and stop forcing others to accept the things you do. I would NEVER EVER shove my lifestyle down someone's throat. That is dishonest and dishonorable.
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
I've seen prima facie evidence that it is NOT totally false. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides. No one's hands are clean. But you go on believing what you want. In the meantime, I'll use my eyes and ears.
(0)
(0)
SSG Kevin McCulley
And there is the real problem: The debate is so poisoned that any rational discussion is quite difficult.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
You have to remember, the military is often the face of america overseas. If other countries see we discriminate like that in our own ranks, its a sign of weakness. Plus every American, service member or not has the right to be happy in what ever way they legally can, and last time i checked you can not make a thought or feeling illegal.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm sorry I had to laugh a little bit at this thread before I responded. Now to the topic at hand. DADT really has no place in our military and honestly when it comes down to it I don't give two rips if your gay or not as long as you do your job. Look LGBT are not going anywhere and there has been many who have served in the military before my father even joined so this is not a new thing.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Hey, I'm with you on that note that it shouldn't matter. Now then, the essence of DADT was to KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. I don't want to know nor do I care if you hump donkeys for living. Just don't advertise it. I had to shut straight guys mouths at my job as well when they were getting carried away, because I just didn't want to hear about it. Period.
(1)
(0)
SGT Isaac Ferreira
Sexual Orientation has nothing to do with someone's ability to be a professional. DADT was a stepping stone for a progressive military. The Roman Legionnaires considered heterosexual sex to be for procreation only. Homosexuality was not only common, it was the standard.
(2)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Some interesting reading. Most everyone one on here is from a different world than I (which is of no surprise).
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I'd say maybe they should just castrate everyone that makes it through IET. If we're all eunuchs then there is no preference. The Sexual Assault problem goes away. The only problem with doing that is... after a couple of generations of no soldiers breeding, we'd run out of people who are willing and able to be soldiers.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Have not had a chance to read all of the responses so I will just go ahead and mention that the local Joint Base Lewis-McChord newspaper printed an article by an Air Force Pilot bragging how she and her female partner were now fully entrenched in Military Life and how happy and proud they were to be a couple accepted regardless of their same gender attraction sexuality.
Who, back in the day, would have ever guessed such an article would be published in a military newspaper. Go figure?? God Bless America!!
Who, back in the day, would have ever guessed such an article would be published in a military newspaper. Go figure?? God Bless America!!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Whether homosexuality is a preference or an orientation may be debatable (part of that question depends on what one means by each word). It is also largely irrelevant to the question of DADT repeal.
Discrimination for any number of choices are not allowed in our military - religion (or lack thereof), political affiliation (or lack thereof), racial/ethnic identity of one's partner/girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/husband/wife are just some of the examples of choices that are protected. The fact that some religions (or political parties, families, etc...) believe and teach that some choices are wrong is also protected - another example of protected choices.
The idea that no one was hunted down under DADT is preposterous. The 1999 case of PFC Barry Winchell and the case against Margaret Witt (Witt v. Department of the Air Force) are just two examples of the way that service members could be victimized in the DADT environment. That leaves out the pervasive fear that many gay and lesbian service members felt.
Discrimination for any number of choices are not allowed in our military - religion (or lack thereof), political affiliation (or lack thereof), racial/ethnic identity of one's partner/girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/husband/wife are just some of the examples of choices that are protected. The fact that some religions (or political parties, families, etc...) believe and teach that some choices are wrong is also protected - another example of protected choices.
The idea that no one was hunted down under DADT is preposterous. The 1999 case of PFC Barry Winchell and the case against Margaret Witt (Witt v. Department of the Air Force) are just two examples of the way that service members could be victimized in the DADT environment. That leaves out the pervasive fear that many gay and lesbian service members felt.
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
And let's not forget those who may very well have been straight, but didn't conform to accepted gender norms either. Back then, a young private who didn't spend his weekends wenching and drinking was automatically suspect.
(2)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
Yes - I know that well. Particularly when I worked at the Pentagon (and was going home every night) I didn't often mention my wife at work - she wasn't pertinent to work, IMO. When I did talk about stuff we did on weekends and other times, I always said "we" did this (or similar phrasing). Eventually I understood that various coworkers had decided I was gay.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
When you say "I don't think we should celebrate one's sexual CHOICES" then you are also lumping in marriage ceremonies in a traditional (man/woman) wedding (i.e. your choice to be heterosexual).
I have no problems with gay/lesbian couples as they are people too; and they have been serving honorably long under the radar. However, a display of action like in the caption you have provided is wrong on the part of the service members to a certain point. Should they be able to celebrate their newfound freedom of sexual preference oppression? Yes, but not while wearing anything that actively displays their service or unit. The service member should have to "celebrate" their activities in civilian clothes as though they were taking part of a political function; out of uniform and in civilian attire. Do I believe the caption above is a little tacky? Yes. Should they be allowed to celebrate? Yes. Should they be able to carry their banner? Yes, because it represents all the armed forces. Should the individuals above (if indeed service members) be wearing what they are wearing, displaying service affiliation? No.
Of course, these are just my opinions.
I have no problems with gay/lesbian couples as they are people too; and they have been serving honorably long under the radar. However, a display of action like in the caption you have provided is wrong on the part of the service members to a certain point. Should they be able to celebrate their newfound freedom of sexual preference oppression? Yes, but not while wearing anything that actively displays their service or unit. The service member should have to "celebrate" their activities in civilian clothes as though they were taking part of a political function; out of uniform and in civilian attire. Do I believe the caption above is a little tacky? Yes. Should they be allowed to celebrate? Yes. Should they be able to carry their banner? Yes, because it represents all the armed forces. Should the individuals above (if indeed service members) be wearing what they are wearing, displaying service affiliation? No.
Of course, these are just my opinions.
(1)
(0)
(4)
(0)
PO1 Rudy Lopez
Maj Dews, I think you have taken my posting out of context because your response is out of scope. I was merely point out that the response I was referring too also lumped in straight marriages; I think you may need to review the depth and breath of the response I was referring too.
However, in response to your question the answer is a resounding "No" on my end. That goes for straight and gay marriages and my reasoning for this is that Marriage is a private matter. You may announce it publicly, but the ceremony itself is private, thus the ASUs are more than welcomed.
However, in response to your question the answer is a resounding "No" on my end. That goes for straight and gay marriages and my reasoning for this is that Marriage is a private matter. You may announce it publicly, but the ceremony itself is private, thus the ASUs are more than welcomed.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Ever been to an enlisted barracks on a Saturday night? We got Sodom and Gomorrah beat by miles.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
An upvote brought me back to this (I didn't remember commenting) and I just wanted to say that I'm glad to see the original post has been updated. I respect PO1 (Join to see)'s willingness to recognize his post had angered people and took action to rectify the issue. The willingness of members of the military community to admit they screwed up and take action is one reason I've always kept one foot in it. I mean, we're going to make you work for that win, but I don't see an "I really shouldn't have acted that way" retraction in the civilian world, pretty much ever.
God knows I've stepped in it a few times myself. Apparently, I like my crow extra salty.
God knows I've stepped in it a few times myself. Apparently, I like my crow extra salty.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
PO1 (Join to see)
Eh, I moved on, points or not. Still holding #6 on E6 pole position for whatever that's worth
(0)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
I'm not even talking about the points. You basically got lambasted for the original thread, came back to apologize, and got hammered again.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google