Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/17/2001 8:57:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 9:20:57 AM EDT
I hope you are not surprised, Barney is just being Barney. The real idiots are the Massachusetts morons who keep re-electing this freak-in-a-suit.
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 11:45:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 6:37:26 PM EDT
Since Barney Frank came up with the Orwellian title for his bill, I guess I am railroaded into supporting it.

Link Posted: 12/18/2001 6:23:45 AM EDT
(Sam Kinneson scream!)

That disgusting PERVERT!!!

OK...NOW EVERYBODY LISTEN UP...'cause I got some truth telling for any of you that just might want to agree with Mr. Frank.
After serving in Uncle Sam's Navy for 28 years, I have come to unalterable conclusion that overt homosexuality is NOT compatible with military service. (Well...duh!)
Some years ago while serving on a guided missile destroyer in Hawaii, I had the extreme displeasure of seeing my crew decimated by the loss of seven...that's right, seven homosexual crewmembers in about eighteen months. Over this period of time, each of the seven decided to come out of their personal closet and declare his attraction for his fellow crewmembers. In each case, the local office of the Naval Investigative Service was contacted immediately and an agent showed up to interview the servicemember. After extensive questioning...(Just in case you wonder how extensive, I asked the female agent on three of them how extensive was extensive and she told me VERY! (More disgusting!)) and determining that the guy was telling the truth, he was directed to pack his seabag and was escorted off the ship.
Although the long term impact to the crew was, I think for the better, the loss of a crewmember on a haze grey and underway Fleet DDG was devastating. Somebody has to take up the slack until another body shows up and that body usually takes over six months to do so. Bottom line...our readiness suffered.
Also...and here is the most egregious aspect of Mr. Frank's stupid bill. Practicing homosexuals typically practice a lot...often with multiple partners. As we know for a fact, AIDS in America is almost exclusively contained in the homosexual communities of the major cities; San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. We also know from the latest CDC data that far too many sexually active homosexuals have become resigned to their fate and are engaging in unprotected sex at an alarming rate. (We lost one crewmember because he popped positive on the HIV test. He had not come out...and we quietly transferred him to the Naval Hospital.). Now, lets pull this thread a bit more...
Since it can take up to six months for HIV to be detected in a person's bloodstream, and since so many practicing homosexuals have decided to forego safe behavior and are engaging in unprotected sex, and since military members are often called upon to provide first aid to a fellow servicemember who has been injured in an accident or wounded in combat, the risk of contacting HIV by treating the injured person just went way up. This is unacceptable.
It is fairly obvious that Barney Frank puts homosexual 'rights' and their ultimate acceptance in the general society at the top of his hit parade. Further, he is using the military as a vehicle to that end.
Given this propensity for homosexual men to engage in this risky behavior, it becomes fairly obvious where Barney Frank's prioties lay.
Its about military readiness, folks...NOT about 'fairness' or equal opportunity!)

This bill must be killed.

Anti-PC Nomex Suit on tight!
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 7:00:49 AM EDT
Apply this same "Frank" logic to a submarine. About 115 sailors, on a fast-attack sub, live in unbelievable proximity for up to ninety days - submerged.
Introduce an overt homosexual or female into this enviornment and only trouble can occur. Even the occasional civilian causes disruption to the rhythm of the crew.

I rode the boats and never, never saw a fight at sea. (Now I didn't say anything about the first night back in port !)

With an overt homosexual or female I don't believe that "No Fighting" record would long hold.

Anything prejudicial to good order and discipline in an inherently dangerous enviornment cannot be good.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 12:53:15 PM EDT
Check the UCMJ on the definition of Sodomy. Just about anything but the missionary position is considered sodomy. Hell, I knew a guy who jizzed in his wife's eye, her eye swelled up, and he had to make up a story to explain it at the hospital so he wouldn't get busted for sodomy.

You are so afraid that this might make it OK for non-heterosexuals to serve that you instantly jump to the most radical interpretation that serves your paranoia.

Quit being a spaz. Maybe it will give the anti-gun folks one less reason to want to take your guns away.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 3:48:26 PM EDT
Huh? Want to run that one by me one more time...slowly? (Being old...I need a bit longer to connect the dots.)

Link Posted: 12/18/2001 4:16:32 PM EDT
Walll, I rectum I'm safe as I don't sodomize no eyeballs.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 7:43:43 PM EDT
Huh? Want to run that one by me one more time...slowly? (Being old...I need a bit longer to connect the dots.)

She (his wife) was giving him (the husband, and main subject of the story) head. When the time came for him to "accomplish his mission" (ejaculate) he "missed his objective" (her, his wifes, mouth) and scored some collateral damage (her eye). Semen, having a base pH (opposite of acid, but equally caustic), caused the sensitive surface of her (his wifes) eye to become irritated.

If you don't believe that this could happen, I suggest you try it yourself. PLEASE don't tell me about it.

Seeing as the UCMJ frowns on anything other than the most puritanical interpretation of sexual intercourse, this act of fellatio would be considered sodomy, and could be prosecuted.

Now, how likely would it be that it would be prosecuted in the real-world? Not very, unless it was a conspicuous act, like the story above, or there was some other "compelling need" (homosexual act) to prosecute it.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 7:56:04 PM EDT
The word "inserting" is used alot in that bill...mmmm.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 8:33:46 PM EDT
Why is this in the Firearms section?
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 9:03:17 PM EDT
Because it has a story of a man shooting his "gun" and almost putting his wife's eye out!!!

"This is my Rifle, this is my Gun.
This one is for fighting, this one is for fun!!!!"
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 5:29:32 AM EDT
Why is this in the Firearms section?

Good question. Even better, why is it being brought up in any section on this board?
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 5:56:07 AM EDT
This subject was bound to be brought up by someone here because so many of us have served in the military and know full well how corrosive to discipline homosexuals in the ranks can be.

Men can't be billeted with women because most men view women as an object of sexual desire. It would be prejudicial to good order and discipline to bunk women at random with men. It's just not done. Even in the field, separate tents and head facilities are set up to minimize the possibility that sex will interfere in military operations.

If the doors are thrown open to homosexuals in the military, where do they get billeted?

With other men? How would that work, given that they view other men as objects of sexual desire while most men view that desire with disgust.

With the women? Doubtful, as most women would still be uncomfortable undressing in front of a man, regardless of his sexual proclivities.

With other homosexuals? Again, this would be detrimental to good order and discipline by singling them out, pairing them off and setting up love shacks in the barracks. Men don't get to bunk with their girlfriends and vice versa.

The above only addresses one issue in which the homosexual lifestyle clashes disastrously with the military lifestyle. The only people who advocate for mainstreaming homosexuals in the military are those who have no first hand experience with the military and think that it can be manipulated by passing a law that flies in the face of human nature and group dynamics.
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 2:17:30 AM EDT
Very interesting feedback...just 1 point I to be made when the gays in the military topic comes up....This is a VOLUNTEER military. I was a Marine grunt when Clinton came to office and the topic was raging. I am not gay and could give two shits if someone in my platoon was-and there were. It's very easy for 90% of the men in this country to disagree with gays in uniform...but 90% of the men in this country haven't worn one. If Joe Gayguy wants to VOLUNTEER to hotbunk on a ship for six months at a time, or pick up pebbles on the flight line every morning, break ice in the Artic or play the games the Army and Marines have to offer...all to protect Joe Homophobes right to be a homophobe, then I tip my hat to them.
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 6:33:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GreenLocust:
...all to protect Joe Homophobes right to be a homophobe, then I tip my hat to them.

Now people are afraid of gays? Homophobia? Just another bullshit made up term. A phobia is an irrational fear. Don't confuse it with normal disgust with aberant sexual practices.
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 8:10:53 AM EDT
It is not "homophobia."

I was in the navy for 6 years, 4 years on boats at Pearl Harbor. I don't know what about the Navy that attracts gays, but I came across more gays than you could shake a stick at.

From boot camp, there was the full spectrum - real flamers to the guy you knew for a couple years who was a little different.

The flamers were the real problem - One guy in particular set everyone on edge whenever he was around. Fun and games came to a quick stop - if not, he used it as an excuse for a quick feel or spouting off gayish humor. Never saw him after Nuke school and prototype as he went to a bird farm and not the submarine route. Put a guy like that in a high stress environment and someone will get killed.

The guy who was a little different was probably just gay, but kept that closet door shut tight and everyone was cool with that.
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 9:34:16 AM EDT
Follow-up anecdote to my previous rant:

One morning about fifteen years ago while serving in a DD in San Diego, I was at o'call with the XO, when he told us that the postal clerk (PC 3) had just come out of the closet and was leaving the ship. We all knew the kid was floating a foot or so above the deck plates but we didn't peek or pursue because he didn't state the obvious...besides, he was a great PC, after the previous one that had been taken down for stealing money and money orders.
Anyway...it seemed that the PC, who had been sleeping up forward in First Division berthing, had made a serious error. He left a love letter on his bunk...which the Firt Division boatswains mates, being BMs, decided to read. They quickly ascertained that the letter was from the PC's boyfriend and decided they no longer wanted to be living cheek by jowel with the clearly homosexual PC...so they too sent him a love note: In their own unique style, the kids in First scrawled our young PC a short graphic note (You supply the words.) stating that they knew what he was, and that if he didn't leave the ship that day...they would make sure he left it after we went to sea again. To make their point, they affixed the note, along with his love letter, to his bunk pillow...with a seaman's buck knife! As soon as the kid saw that...he made a beeline to the XO and was off the ship in an hour!
In retrospect I find it very funny...but at the time it wasn't...'cause now we had to find another PC and quick!
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 7:53:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2001 9:46:19 AM EDT by CyKa]
Under the UCMJ, me having sex with my own wife, doggy-style, on a trampoline, while wearing a chicken suit, is just as un-acceptable as two gay people getting it on. It makes no distinction. This new law would make both of the above legal and still allow the military to discharge homosexuals for being homosexual.

None of the stories told so far have indicated that this new law would have changed the outcome in ANY WAY. No one was actually caught having sex. Homosexuals are discharged under a different section of the law.

I have to admit that I would be very uncomfortable showing in the same shower room with a gay man, but would rather have a competent gay soldier covering my ass than one of the many slack-jawed mouth breathers that unfortunately make up a significant portion of our nations military. We have some of the finest soldiers in the world, but I have also served with some the stupidest goons on the planet. I never saw anyone get booted for being a moron.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 8:00:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pogo:

I was in the navy for 6 years, 4 years on boats at Pearl Harbor.

I too rode the boats for over seven years and some out of Pearl.
Did you ever see a "known" homosexual as part of a subs crew ??
(I did not.)
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 10:26:30 PM EDT
Ok, this one is truely a laugher.

First off, do you actually think for one moment that there are no gay men in the military? The men on LWilds destroyer were gay (if they were gay at all) LOONG before they decided to end their Navy careers. Did anyone find them impossible to work with before they said the words "I'm gay"?? Why should they become impossible to work with after?

I hate to break it to you sailors but in all probablilty you shower with gay men every day you are on board ship. They just like their carreers enough to keep their mouths shut. Every man who has served in the Navy throughout the history of the service has done so. If they did not know it it was because their homosexual fellow servicemen were kind enough to keep their habits to themselves.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 11:22:58 PM EDT
Your all going to give me hell for this, but as far as civlian life, I don't care whether or not a guy is gay, so long as he doesn't come on to me. What he does in his spare time is his buisness, same as with any of you. That said, I have no military experience so I cannot have a position on gays in thet military.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:17:57 AM EDT
Here's a good one for you...

My wife's hairdresser and colourist (the man's a wizard! One day my wife left a cute little blonde and came home a positively STUNNING redhead!) spent his six years in the Army. MP/CID. Investigating Sodomy claims. And he is gay.

I like his attitude, tho, and these are his words to the best of my recall... "I don't care if you are gay. Be gay. Be cool about it. If you are some over-the-top limp-wristed flaming queer, then we have a problem. If you are quietly gay, I will try to make the charge go away." That's how he operated. Decent of him.

Personally, I don't care if you are gay either, I just am not interested. Once I make my own inclination known, I seldom have any trouble (unless I run across a real flame job or some other nutcase.) Hell, this guy and I get along great - we talk politics, military, cars, guns, computers, and everything else. I have no interest in his bedroom activities, nor he in mine - and that's JUST the way I like it. With everyone - gay or straight.

I do agree that billeting gay men can be a problem - when they are openly gay. Keep it low-key, and there will be little to no psychological friction in the unit.

The whole thing becomes a problem when the "Act Up" typed get involved. These are the people that quashed the "It's Great To Be Straight" parade that was going to be help in Winsconsin a few years ago (imperfect memory, but the location sounds right.) The individual who was going to mount this parade wound up getting denied his permit at "it might offend certain segments of society." Excuse me?

Have you ever tried to work in San Francisco when the "Gay Pride Parade" ws going on? Dealing with an irate client whose network is DOWN, their machines are USELESS, and you are stuck in traffic waiting for the damn parade to pass? I have even had to hand my cellphone to a nearby cop to explain things because I was tired of being called a lazy liar! It's not that I am so greatly offended by the basis of the parade - but I am FORCED to be here due to the needs of business, and I CAN'T BLOODY MOVE because of all these people constipating the city! But, you can't have a small, quiet, "Striaght" parade bacause someone might get offended. Sorry, "Gay Pride Parades" dig into my livelihood by making it difficult to impossible to do jobe for my customers - and I have to take all the damn heat!

But I digress. I don't see why we have to throw the closet doors wide open all the time. Be gay. Be _cool_ about it - don't make waves. I don't want to know...

Link Posted: 12/27/2001 8:14:48 AM EDT
It seems that FFZ sums up my experience and attitudes towards gays in the Navy, at least till I got out in 1989.

The UCMJ exists in part to provide a standard of acceptable activity. The opposite exists in the civilian world which prohibits unacceptable activity. Articles like the sodomy statute and the fratenization statute are often ignored but can be used to lower the boom on someone who disrupts the smooth workings of the unit.

Apart from the disease issue, an abrasive homosexual can't be treated the way one might in the civilian world (ignoring him and going away). Military members must spend many hours every day and night in very close proximity with a random set of guys, and often it is not practical to move a troublemaker out of the way.

How many of you could be cooped up in the same room for 6 hours at a time, 12 hours apart with your ex wives for weeks at a time? Flagrant homosexuals are a subcatagory of troublemakers, and troublemakers are routinely booted out of the military.

I had been in navy schools for 2 years, one month before I got to the boats. All of the obnoxious flamers in the nuke program were gone before this long.

There were several guys on the boats I figured might be gay, but they did not draw attention to themselves and would deny it if asked. No problem to anyone.

We had a guy, Murray, who turned into a Cpl. Klinger type - do anything to get out of the navy without a dishonorable discharge. Among other stunts, he told the Captain he was gay but noone beleived him ( popular with the crew, one of the fit, tanned beach gods, very handsome ladie's man). Rumor has it that when he told the captain, the captain dropped his drawers and said "Prove it!" Murray wouldn't do it and got laughed out of the captain's stateroom. Murray denied the whole incident, but he was less than convincing.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 10:31:17 AM EDT
Looks to me like this argument is one sided for many of you. You're lumping the problem on the homosexual rather than the homophobe. If the military got rid of all the homophobes there wouldn't be a problem either. Nobodys mentioned lesbians specifically yet. Would you serve with a lesbian but not a gay guy?

LWilde has a great example. Here's a guy who does a great job but seems a little funny. They confirm he is gay by reading his personal mail (!!!), so they threaten him to get him off the ship. Excellent, he wasn't overt, he didn't have an affair on board, his mistake was leaving personal mail where the homophobes could read it.

Would the same have happened if the letter was from the KKK confirming his membership and a copy of The Turner Diaries? How about if it was from some extremist Fundamentalist Christian group and the letter included the ideals that the world would be a better place without Buddhists, Jews, Muslems and Catholics and he should work to make it so?

Who do you want next to you in battle? A guy who might think you have a cute butt (what makes you think you are desirable anyway?) or a guy who really believes you are a lesser human or infidel?
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:53:35 PM EDT
I hate that silly term "homophobe." I wouldn't fear someone who goes around picking up dogshit off the ground and eating it, but I think it's my prerogative to think that guy is a pretty sick bastard. That's what I think of fudgepackers too.

That said, if they leave me alone, I'll be happy to leave them alone. The problem is that so many of them are "in your face," "accept me, appreciate my diversity," etc. etc. Those people, in the military, are disruptive to the military's mission which is to fight and win wars.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 3:36:10 PM EDT
Ranger...you said a mouthful.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 8:26:21 AM EDT
The problem is that so many of them are "in your face," "accept me, appreciate my diversity," etc. etc

This is a stereotype, and not an accurate or fair characterization. You don't count the "well-behaved" gays because you don't know they are gay.

The original posting on this thread was in response to pending legislation that might make it more difficult to expel homosexuals from the service. The fact is this legislation doesn't effect that at all. Hell, I think heterosexuals have a lot to be happy about in this legislation.

The original reason for this thread is more important. The fact is that there are millions (if you follow the 10% rule) of happy, educated, productive homosexual americans. American society is not decline as a result. No other society is in decline as a result of homosexuals either.

There has not been a sudden increase in their percentage of the population, so it would be safe then to assume that homosexuals have made up approx. 10% of the human population for centuries. Human civilization has not suffered as a consequence. In fact, the 20th century saw more changes and advances than any other centry in recorded history.

I've known and worked with several gay and lesbian people since my time in the service and have never had a "problem" with any of them. I even had a gay roomate once. He was pretty "out", but he was never inapropriate with me. Not ever. In the end, any uneasiness I had about living with a gay guy turned out to be my problem, not his.
Top Top