Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail

AP ^ | 7/27/6 | DUNCAN MANSFIELD

[FloridianBushFan]

Actually you are wrong. I along with many others in here have served my country in the military. Never in the time I was in did I or any of the people around me have problems with any one coming onto us or doing any kind of homosexual acts and we lived in tight quarters and delt with everyday military life with no problems that delt with sexuality. I am sure that out of 2500 to 5000 people on the ship there were some who were gay.

[jjm2111]

I'm going take your word for it. I get tested all the time for HIV in the reserves and assumed that it was an admin sep. type "offense".

[dfwgator]

Good order and discipline? Obviously you've never had to direct a Broadway Musical..........and neither have I.........

WRONG!! Watch me! It's so simple! Give me the playback! Watch me f@ggots! ...

[mnehring]

Gunny, that was a 'sarcastic' comment, not literal.. but I forgot that you have to post a sarcastic tag on practically everything here lest someone goes off.. I'm just disappointed it was you, I expected more from someone who've I had many a discussion here with for years...

[TheSuaveOne]

"I can't imagine the state of the military if you were to set the policies. To think it is reasonable to have coed facilities for 18 year old hormonaly active people is insane. I have experienced the soldier's lifestyle and I know it would cause major problems."

12 years service in the Air Force tells me if someone can't keep their hands off someone else while serving in the military, there is more reason than that as to why they shouldn't be in the service...la

[Lucky Dog]

Removing someone with this type of training because of their sexual preference is "weakening" our military. Keeping gays out of the military is "weakening" our military.

I'm sorry you missed the logic in that...la

I didn’t miss any of your logic. Your argument isn’t sound. For an argument in logic to be sound, it must be based on true premises as well as valid reasoning. Your posits fail to pass the test.

“Sexual preference” is a meaningless term. No one can know any other person’s “sexual preference” without some action on the other person’s part, i.e., what goes on in your head remains unknown unless you speak or act on it. Therefore, no one can be removed from the military on the basis of “sexual preference,” alone.

If there is an action, then that action is subject to regulation or restriction based upon the law. For example, if a man has a “sexual preference” toward rape, but never acts on it, then he is not subject to any sanction of law. However, the minute he commits rape, i.e, takes action, then he is correctly subject to arrest, trial, and possible incarceration or worse.

Let me get down to the specifics at hand: if a person has a, so-called, “sexual preference” toward members of the same sex, but does nothing, then that person is subject to no adverse actions whatsoever. On the other hand, if that person openly admits (tells) of a same-sex predilection and sexual activities, i.e., actions, then sanctions based upon the law are correctly forthcoming and appropriate.

Now, to address the other portion of your illogical assertion: Removing those military members who are caught violating the UCMJ, is not weakening the military. Rather such action is actually strengthening it.

In the military, the success or failure of everything from a squad level assault to a theater campaign is predicated upon military members executing lawful orders (both standing orders as well as others) promptly and precisely. Anything that interferes with any military member’s ability and the proper discipline required to execute these orders is detrimental and weakens the military. The inability of queers to refrain from engaging in homosexual activities when standing orders (the UCMJ) prohibit such is proof positive that these individuals lack the required military discipline. Therefore, the logic is inescapable: their existence in the military without refraining from engaging in homosexual activities weakens the military.

I trust this exposition has clarified the issue for you.

[Red Badger]

Blazing Saddles if my memory is correct..........

[TheSuaveOne]

"On the other hand, if that person openly admits (tells) of a same-sex predilection and sexual activities, i.e., actions, then sanctions based upon the law are correctly forthcoming and appropriate.
"

Ah yes, because admitting (telling) someone that they are or have had sexual relations of someone of the same sex is a valid reason to remove someone from the military. [/sarcasm]...la

[Retired Army Special Forces]

Er, no. Cloture failed 49-48, which it needed 60 votes for. It needed 67 votes in the Senate. It was nowhere near one vote.

Er no indeed. 49-48 (ONE vote) fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally. So I stand corrected on a technicality.

The fact is, conservatives have been state by state defeating the militant homosexual leftist agenda to legalize so called "gay marriage and are gaining ground in this area - much to the apparent dismay of some here. You seem inclined to be disappointed with Conservative gains in this area.

"And guess what you whiny Left Wing Homosexual radicals? You brought it on yourselves by your own oh-so-friggin-predictiable behavior."

I'm sorry, are you addressing someone at this site?

So, you obviously feeling threatened that this somehow applies to you, I see.... It would appear so - and it's your problem, not mine. Apply it as the shoe fits indeed...


Uh....South Park is a cartoon. It's not a documentary. It's not real - it's fiction.

Really? NEWSFLASH! Thank you for clearing that up, none of us realized that... No doubt metaphors are slightly above the level you are used to.

[Lucky Dog]

Your postulation concerning "gay" theater performers is totally irrelevant.

There is no law requiring these performers to carry out orders that may mean their own deaths or that of others. There is no law that says that they must share gang showers or open bay barracks with "straights" who religiously object to their activities or find their activities disgusting. There is no requirement for "straight" people to render first aid under battlefield conditions to these queers that could result in the infection of the aid render with HIV.

In the military, these constraints exist. That is why your analogy fails miserably.

[Retired Army Special Forces]

What works for largely Socialist countries that the DUmmycRATS love and want to emulate, does not mean it works for or is even good for America.

Screw them, we have our own culture.

[Lucky Dog]

Ah yes, because admitting (telling) someone that they are or have had sexual relations of someone of the same sex is a valid reason to remove someone from the military. [/sarcasm]...la

Your sarcasm is misplaced unless you are supporting the don't ask, don't tell policy initiated in the Clinton administration. Is that your point?

[icdorn]

Redbadger said... "If you're in a foxhole and taking rounds, you don't give a damn what the guy next to you does with his gun as long as he can shoot straight with his rifle........."

You sound like someone who has never spent time in a fox hole. There is a lot more to it then "firing straight", the issue is with all the down time in between the firing. When trying to maintain discipline, the last thing they need are troups who are having or trying to have sex with each other on the battlefield. Especially considering the WAY homosexuals have sex and the lack of hygene (not showering for weeks etc..) out there, there are a host of health problems that could arise outside of HIV/stds. They also don't allow women who can "shoot straight" (sometimes better then men) on the frontlines either for the same reason, they don't want them having sex on the battlefield. It is already bad enough on the Naval ships as it is, women getting pregnant etc..

[Drew68]

Military: "Get him out of here, we have no use for gays in the military"

It's not the military's fault. They're only following the Law of the Land as written by Congress. If they let one admitted gay man stay in, they'll have to let all of them stay in. They can't do this unless Congress re-writes the law. In the military, if you admit to being gay, you are done --for the most part part. If you admit to being gay only to get out of your contract, the military *will* investigate.

I predict that DADT will eventually fall by the wayside. The military is a reflection of society as a whole and as attitudes towards gays change, the military will follow suit. With more and more civilian companies targeting gays for employment, the military is going to eventually ask congress why they are forced to discharge perfectly competent soldiers for being gay.

The truth is that many of today's young people who enlist simply don't care about someone's sexuality. Call it "liberal public school indoctrination" or whatever you want, it doesn't change this increasingly prevalent attitude. Today's Privates and 2nd Lieutenants will be tomorrow's Staff Sergeants and Colonels and they are going to take these, ahem, "progressive" attitudes with them as they move up the chain.

[TheSuaveOne]

No, I don't agree with the policy, but then again, I don't agree with the preceeding policy either...la

[mnehring]

I think you hit reply to the wrong person.. pinging redbadger.

[icdorn]

Redbadger said... "If you're in a foxhole and taking rounds, you don't give a damn what the guy next to you does with his gun as long as he can shoot straight with his rifle........."

You sound like someone who has never spent time in a fox hole. There is a lot more to it then "firing straight", the issue is with all the down time in between the firing. When trying to maintain discipline, the last thing they need are troups who are having or trying to have sex with each other on the battlefield. Especially considering the WAY homosexuals have sex and the lack of hygene (not showering for weeks etc..) out there, there are a host of health problems that could arise outside of HIV/stds. They also don't allow women who can "shoot straight" (sometimes better then men) on the frontlines either for the same reason, they don't want them having sex on the battlefield. It is already bad enough on the Naval ships as it is, women getting pregnant etc..

(sorry for the repost people, I accidently replied to the wrong person previously)

[icdorn]

ya i did, sorry man

[Lucky Dog]

No, I don't agree with the policy, but then again, I don't agree with the preceeding policy either...la

Then you had best come with some logic and facts to support your position or concede that you were wrong.

[Retired Army Special Forces]

And if you come up "hot" for HIV, you are not required to say anything about how you got it. I mean how much more does the friggin gay activist community want? Answer: to totally control America, is what they want. Kind of like Hezbolla vs Israel. You could have got it banging a Thai whore or could have got it being a total queer - whatever. You can refuse to talk about it and there is nothing anyone can do about it and you cannot be discharged for HIV alone.

Now if you say, "yep, I'm a pole smoker sir", then you are out on your ass under applicable laws. You cannot prevent stupid weak people from being stupid and weak, that is why this nation is infested with friggin Liberals. Stupid and weak people that they are.

Just the way it is. Everyone just follow DADT to the "T" and there is no problem. Problem is, its just not good enough for the fu@king Left Wing. Hey, at least I'm not advocating getting rid of DADT even though it is the legacy of those Clinton a$$holes.