majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote: It doesn't matter if straights lie by omission or not, since there job doesn't depend on it and there's not a policy prohibiting them from being honest about something.

There shouldn't be a policy on sexual policy at all, but the current one we have forces one set to lie in order to keep their job and doesn't force that same stipulation on the other set of people...

If a straight soldier is banging someone else's wife or if he is married and is banging somone else, he could lose his job. The military just decides which sexual practices get discliplined.

Ytowngirlinfla wrote:

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote: It doesn't matter if straights lie by omission or not, since there job doesn't depend on it and there's not a policy prohibiting them from being honest about something.

There shouldn't be a policy on sexual policy at all, but the current one we have forces one set to lie in order to keep their job and doesn't force that same stipulation on the other set of people...

If a straight soldier is banging someone else's wife or if he is married and is banging somone else, he could lose his job. The military just decides which sexual practices get discliplined.

This happens a lot more than probably any instances of gay people getting caught. Of course it's almost OK in the military to cheat on your spouse.

majorspark wrote:

Ytowngirlinfla wrote:

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote: It doesn't matter if straights lie by omission or not, since there job doesn't depend on it and there's not a policy prohibiting them from being honest about something.

There shouldn't be a policy on sexual policy at all, but the current one we have forces one set to lie in order to keep their job and doesn't force that same stipulation on the other set of people...

If a straight soldier is banging someone else's wife or if he is married and is banging somone else, he could lose his job. The military just decides which sexual practices get discliplined.

They got rid of that rule of women getting pregnant in Iraq/Af.

This happens a lot more than probably any instances of gay people getting caught. Of course it's almost OK in the military to cheat on your spouse.

This is true. Depends on the level of disruption it causes. Also so if you bang certain officers wives you may want to keep it a secret.

Also their can be discliplinary action if a female soldier becomes pregnant and also for the male soldier that knocks her up. This would pertain mostly to Iraq/Afghanistan (war zones).

majorspark wrote: Basically I see it like this. If your sexual conduct causes a disruption in order and disclipline or discredits the military, you should recieve some form of discliplinary action.

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote: Basically I see it like this. If your sexual conduct causes a disruption in order and disclipline or discredits the military, you should recieve some form of discliplinary action.

do you feel being gay discredits the military?

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote: Basically I see it like this. If your sexual conduct causes a disruption in order and disclipline or discredits the military, you should recieve some form of discliplinary action.

do you feel being gay discredits the military?

Being gay no. If they want to use their position in the military as a known homosexual as a political statement, then yes.

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote: Basically I see it like this. If your sexual conduct causes a disruption in order and disclipline or discredits the military, you should recieve some form of discliplinary action.

do you feel being gay discredits the military?

Being gay no. If they want to use their position in the military as a known homosexual as a political statement, then yes.

getting rid of the policy would eliminate the ability of a gay person to use their place in the military for political purposes simply because they're gay, correct?

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote: Basically I see it like this. If your sexual conduct causes a disruption in order and disclipline or discredits the military, you should recieve some form of discliplinary action.

do you feel being gay discredits the military?

Being gay no. If they want to use their position in the military as a known homosexual as a political statement, then yes.

getting rid of the policy would eliminate the ability of a gay person to use their place in the military for political purposes simply because they're gay, correct?

No. Here is one example. Lets say an officer in the military comes out. Lets say he is from Massachusettes and is legally married in that state. Since the federal government does not recognize gay marriage he would not be allowed to have the benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. He could very easily use his position as a means to advocate for politcal change in this area.

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote: Basically I see it like this. If your sexual conduct causes a disruption in order and disclipline or discredits the military, you should recieve some form of discliplinary action.

do you feel being gay discredits the military?

Being gay no. If they want to use their position in the military as a known homosexual as a political statement, then yes.

getting rid of the policy would eliminate the ability of a gay person to use their place in the military for political purposes simply because they're gay, correct?

No. Here is one example. Lets say an officer in the military comes out. Lets say he is from Massachusettes and is legally married in that state. Since the federal government does not recognize gay marriage he would not be allowed to have the benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. He could very easily use his position as a means to advocate for politcal change in this area.

Ok, so a hypothetical gay officer is going to trash the military that he voluntarily joined (and has accepted his alternative lifestyle) because the US Gov't hasn't officially adopted the position of the military? I don't see how he's hypothetically could trash the military or discredit it simply by voicing opinions...isn't that what the generals are doing now with respect to this policy (i.e. saying it should be overturned)? You don't think they're doing a disservice to the military do you? Or is it that they can/should only question/comment on military policies and not domestic policies?

icskins wrote: I would have no problem with anyone that wants to wear the uniform and can do the job. I think the bigger problem is the physical requirements. Everyone should be held to the same standard because anyone can be put in a situation that requires you to use every once of strength, endurance to get out of. When they decided on lower standards for women, that was/is a travesty. IMO

icskins wrote: Not at all. I guess I should have spaced those 2 thoughts better. I was saying that I would be fine with gay people just like I am fine with women being there. Then I wanted to say that I would like to women held to the same physical standards. My apologies on the confusion.

icskins wrote: Not at all. I guess I should have spaced those 2 thoughts better. I was saying that I would be fine with gay people just like I am fine with women being there. Then I wanted to say that I would like to women held to the same physical standards. My apologies on the confusion.

LJ wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

2quik4u wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve

they do serve

not if they are truthful

That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?

Ytowngirlinfla wrote:

icskins wrote: Not at all. I guess I should have spaced those 2 thoughts better. I was saying that I would be fine with gay people just like I am fine with women being there. Then I wanted to say that I would like to women held to the same physical standards. My apologies on the confusion.

Well women's standards aren't much different. You can't expect women to be able to run as fast as men as it's a proven fact that women are slower. And the weight standards are almost equal and we have extra assets. You can say the same thing for age standards if you want to have this argument. Why have different physical standards for 18 years old then 40 year olds?

BoatShoes wrote:

LJ wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

2quik4u wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve

they do serve

not if they are truthful

That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?

Well a fellow service member might ask..."how come you aren't married" or "how come you didn't bang that skank that was all up on your nuts"

not really asking if they're gay...but they're in a position wherein that are bound by the UCMJ to violate principles such as honesty and honor that the military has typically endorsed as good.

LJ wrote:
"because I am not, it's a long story and I would rather not talk about it"

LJ wrote:

BoatShoes wrote:

LJ wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

2quik4u wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve

they do serve

not if they are truthful

That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?

Well a fellow service member might ask..."how come you aren't married" or "how come you didn't bang that skank that was all up on your nuts"

not really asking if they're gay...but they're in a position wherein that are bound by the UCMJ to violate principles such as honesty and honor that the military has typically endorsed as good.

"because I am not, it's a long story and I would rather not talk about it"