6
2
4
Soldiers
Army Regulations
Don't ask Don't tell (DADT)
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 65
1
1
0
Why does this come up over and over. We are discussing settled law. The Army can not ban homosexuality.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
The problem with that question is that there are going to be multiple perceptions on the matter concerning homosexuals.
When going through AF Basic training I knew of at least 2 guys that were but we're so afraid of what people would think about them if they came out that they stayed yo themselves. Well, that didn't sit well with me, so I got to talking to em and did my best to make them feel apart of the team. Both graduated with flying colors. They were both physically and mentally ready for the Air Forces demands.
Now, enter Army basic training 5 years later. At the time, during basic, I only ever knew of one gay soldier and he was open about it but he also gave homosexuals a bad name. He approached several soldiers sexually, and, from what several DS's said, did it once in the showers. That don't sit well with me. Nothing I could do about it but he eventually got pushed out nearing 6th week. As for anot her soldier, I didn't find out till he was in AIT with us.
It's not for me to say what happened. But it boils my blood what he was accused of and an OSI investigation started. He was barred from graduation because of fraudulent charges (which were dropped) but the poor guy didn't like his MOS anymore and decided to reclass. I don't believe he's still in, which makes me feel bad because he was actually a really good soldier.
So, after my long winded response, which I apologize for, homosexuals are human, if they want to serve, they have every right to. We need to get over our fears of homosexuality as a species even if it's, well, not necessarily distasteful, but different. I've known several homosexuals and like em. They're regular guys and gals and make great airmen, soldiers, seamen and marines. There needs to be a line, though, drawn as to how they approach others whom they might want to start a relationship. But, that also goes with "straight" military personnel.
The whole system probably needs to be reevaluated because you will always have the ones who are scared of such people.
I for one will say that "as long as one minds their own business and stay out of others, everything will run like a well oiled machine".
It'll be a long time before homosexuals are fully accepted as part of the military system without fear or harassment.
Hopefully it comes sooner rather than later.
When going through AF Basic training I knew of at least 2 guys that were but we're so afraid of what people would think about them if they came out that they stayed yo themselves. Well, that didn't sit well with me, so I got to talking to em and did my best to make them feel apart of the team. Both graduated with flying colors. They were both physically and mentally ready for the Air Forces demands.
Now, enter Army basic training 5 years later. At the time, during basic, I only ever knew of one gay soldier and he was open about it but he also gave homosexuals a bad name. He approached several soldiers sexually, and, from what several DS's said, did it once in the showers. That don't sit well with me. Nothing I could do about it but he eventually got pushed out nearing 6th week. As for anot her soldier, I didn't find out till he was in AIT with us.
It's not for me to say what happened. But it boils my blood what he was accused of and an OSI investigation started. He was barred from graduation because of fraudulent charges (which were dropped) but the poor guy didn't like his MOS anymore and decided to reclass. I don't believe he's still in, which makes me feel bad because he was actually a really good soldier.
So, after my long winded response, which I apologize for, homosexuals are human, if they want to serve, they have every right to. We need to get over our fears of homosexuality as a species even if it's, well, not necessarily distasteful, but different. I've known several homosexuals and like em. They're regular guys and gals and make great airmen, soldiers, seamen and marines. There needs to be a line, though, drawn as to how they approach others whom they might want to start a relationship. But, that also goes with "straight" military personnel.
The whole system probably needs to be reevaluated because you will always have the ones who are scared of such people.
I for one will say that "as long as one minds their own business and stay out of others, everything will run like a well oiled machine".
It'll be a long time before homosexuals are fully accepted as part of the military system without fear or harassment.
Hopefully it comes sooner rather than later.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Haha an anonymous dumbass posting an inflammatory topic. Thought I smelled troll.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Provided to YouTube by Warner Music Group Gays in the Military · Bill Hicks Rant In E-Minor 1997 Arizona Bay Production Company. Manufactured and marketed ...
THIS should sum this up with a quickness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLICBBTjqcE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLICBBTjqcE
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The most feared military force in history was composed of all homosexual male couples. They were ruthless yet they protected their partners ferociously. The Spartan Army.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
In a 1992 GAO report entitled "Defense Force Management (available in summary at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-92-98 with a .pdf download link for the entire report) the government stated that in 1990 it cost $28,226 to replace every enlisted person and $120,772 to replace every officer discharged for being lgbt.
When I spoke, in 1993, with the primary editor of the report he acknowledged that the sum of all costs relating to lgbt discharges was likely underreported by a factor of at least 10. This is because the cost estimate for, for example, replacing an enlisted individual was given as the cost of replacing that individual with an E1 fresh from boot camp, regardless of the rank, time-in-service, training and experience of the person being discharged. In my case, if I had been discharged at, say, my 8-year point, the cost to replace me with a person of equal qualifications, experience and training would have had to include the base cost of $28K, plus all the costs of putting that individual through Nuclear Power School (estimated to be $118K at the time), Enlisted Submarine School, Stainless Steel Welding class, Navy Drug & Alcohol Safety Action Program, Career Counselor School, another Class "A" School and two Class "C" schools plus recruiting school, plus all pay, benefits and allowances over an eight year career.
The authors of the report also freely acknowledged their cost summaries for replacing officers were way off in ways they couldn't even estimate because many officers suspected of or determined to be lgbt were allowed to resign, and therefore their discharges weren't included in the totals of those thrown out for being lgbt.
Remember, all those costs are in 1992 dollars. Even without the correction factors made necessary as explained above, the cost of discharging lgbt people were astronomical and made no sense at all.
At the same time this report appeared publicly, a handful of previously suppressed DOD reports dating back as far as WWII on the subject of lgbt people in the military found their way to the desks of every member of Congress, by means not yet publicly disclosed. All of the reports included data which made it understandable why DOD attempted, ultimately without success, to keep the public from ever seeing them. Statistical studies of the service records of 100% of the people discharged for being lgbt gave evidence that by throwing such people out, DOD was consistently losing people who were among the best and brightest in uniform, as determined by career evaluation grade averages, rates of advancement, and decorations and other received.
When I spoke, in 1993, with the primary editor of the report he acknowledged that the sum of all costs relating to lgbt discharges was likely underreported by a factor of at least 10. This is because the cost estimate for, for example, replacing an enlisted individual was given as the cost of replacing that individual with an E1 fresh from boot camp, regardless of the rank, time-in-service, training and experience of the person being discharged. In my case, if I had been discharged at, say, my 8-year point, the cost to replace me with a person of equal qualifications, experience and training would have had to include the base cost of $28K, plus all the costs of putting that individual through Nuclear Power School (estimated to be $118K at the time), Enlisted Submarine School, Stainless Steel Welding class, Navy Drug & Alcohol Safety Action Program, Career Counselor School, another Class "A" School and two Class "C" schools plus recruiting school, plus all pay, benefits and allowances over an eight year career.
The authors of the report also freely acknowledged their cost summaries for replacing officers were way off in ways they couldn't even estimate because many officers suspected of or determined to be lgbt were allowed to resign, and therefore their discharges weren't included in the totals of those thrown out for being lgbt.
Remember, all those costs are in 1992 dollars. Even without the correction factors made necessary as explained above, the cost of discharging lgbt people were astronomical and made no sense at all.
At the same time this report appeared publicly, a handful of previously suppressed DOD reports dating back as far as WWII on the subject of lgbt people in the military found their way to the desks of every member of Congress, by means not yet publicly disclosed. All of the reports included data which made it understandable why DOD attempted, ultimately without success, to keep the public from ever seeing them. Statistical studies of the service records of 100% of the people discharged for being lgbt gave evidence that by throwing such people out, DOD was consistently losing people who were among the best and brightest in uniform, as determined by career evaluation grade averages, rates of advancement, and decorations and other received.
Defense Force Management: DOD's Policy on Homosexuality
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of Defense's (DOD) policy of excluding homosexuals from serving in the armed forces.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The guy next to you is gay, and probably a hero. Wrote about it in my last book, My War With Hemingway.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I find it funny that most of you are like,oh he's trolling because he's in HS . But I guess you don't ask why I want to know or why is this important to me. You just don't care.
(0)
(0)
SPC Eric Cunningham
You're right - we don't care. Because no matter why you think it's important or why you want to know, it doesn't change the answer. It should be fairly obvious to you by now that we stand behind our brothers and sisters, no matter their sexuality, and care far more about how they perform as soldier/sailors/marines/airmen than who they share a bed with. Whatever your personal reason for asking the question, neither the military or Congress are going to ban homosexuals again and those of us who have served with them aren't going to turn our backs on them.
We aren't counselers - we aren't going to dig into your psychi and drag out whatever the root of your question really is - you've picked the wrong group of people for that. If you want to make a point, you better do so directly because we don't do passive aggressive around here. But again, it won't change our answer to the question you asked.
We aren't counselers - we aren't going to dig into your psychi and drag out whatever the root of your question really is - you've picked the wrong group of people for that. If you want to make a point, you better do so directly because we don't do passive aggressive around here. But again, it won't change our answer to the question you asked.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google