Repealing DADT
In the State of the Union address last night, President Obama called on Congress to repeal the "ban" on gays in the military. I think it's going to happen eventually, so it might as well happen now (although I doubt it will pass the Senate before 2013, since there's no political gain to doing it before the next Presidential election; however, it could sneak though as part of the conference report on the Defense Appropriation Bill after the November 2010 mid-terms if the Democrats don't do as badly as expected). What do you think?
posted by Bubblehead at 7:27 AM
107 Comments:
We're a decade into the 21st Century, long past time to let them come out of the closet.
1/28/2010 8:35 AM
Don't really care. And I guess, if they go ahead with a repeal, we can stop talking about whether or not to repeal it.
1/28/2010 8:49 AM
As much as I like to see gay people serve openly in the military, I think that there are still many in leadership positions who will continue to interfere with this initiative. Much of the opposition is religiously based (hiding behind the morale argument,) but there is a political echelon that will oppose anything the the Obama administration initiates. 2013 at the earliest.
1/28/2010 9:05 AM
I think we've pretty much crossed the Rubicon with allowing men and women together on combat ships (and, the bell tolls for our submarines, too), so the old argument about sexual tension,etc, doesn't hold much water anymore.
My only fear is that someone will use some perceived harrassment as an excuse to create big public flap, or, that political correctness will lead to the services being unwilling to discipline abuses perpetrated by homosexual soldiers.
1/28/2010 9:07 AM
As long as it's ok for them to get their ass beat (with no accompanying NJP) for propositioning some dude who's not interested, go for it Barack Homobama.
1/28/2010 9:08 AM
I've no problem with Congress changing the law on homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces.
I think the issue (particular to the Submarine Force) becomes one of privacy. Figure out how to make all of the berthing and heads gender-neutral and qualified women and gays would be welcomed aboard.
1/28/2010 9:20 AM
bill,
"Figure out how to make all of the berthing and heads gender-neutral and qualified women and gays would be welcomed aboard."
Gays have been part of the crew since the beginning of the submarine force, why should we have to make special accomodations now?
1/28/2010 9:29 AM
It is past time. In my time, we lost a number of fine sailors to the "I am gay" revelation.
1/28/2010 9:51 AM
I served on a boat where COB was discharged for being gay. That was a crying shame as he was, by leaps and bounds, the best COB I've ever dealt with.
1/28/2010 11:11 AM
"My only fear is that someone will use some perceived harrassment as an excuse to create big public flap..."
Such public flaps will most likely involve lawsuits based upon allegations of homophobic discrimination in denial of promotions or plum assignments.
Since serving gays currently DADT, such embarrassing litigation has not been possible. If/when gays serve openly, civilian military lawyers and JAGs will find a legally acceptable way to break ground in suits against the military.
As taxpayers, you and I will pay. Unfortunately, many taxpayers and patriots do not comprehend the liberal agenda, yet.
1/28/2010 11:14 AM
Hide your pecker boys, those rascally liberals are out to get you! Sheeesh...
1/28/2010 11:23 AM
Would they get a separate berthing? Then everyone (male & female) should be berthed regardless of sex or inclination.
-3383
1/28/2010 12:53 PM
I don't want no damn queer looking at my apparatus. Queers are more consumed with their queerness than straights are with their straightness.
We know they're on the boats. Hell, they're everywhere these days. But if allowed to come out while underway, they'll get all brave and start hitting on anyone they think they might have a chance with. It's all highly disgusting.
1/28/2010 1:56 PM
We already have standards of conduct that will apply to gays such as no sexual harrassment, no public displays of affection, etc. The problem is where we share facilities. There's no privacy from real or perceived "interests." There'd probably be more perceived than real. Another seldom mentioned issue is the policy of having observers during urinalysis. Changing this policy would provide an excuse for a drug user to object. I think there are certainly gays who would (and do) serve honorably, the worst of them get all the parades and publicity, but there are still obstacles to overcome. I'd rather serve with an honorable gay sailor than a dishonorable straight sailor.
Rackburn
1/28/2010 2:18 PM
A question for everyone to respond to: if you had to allow gays or women aboard submarines, which would it be?
My response: gays are already there, so it's means almost nothing while women will screw things up because they'll cry sexual harassment if someone calls them a whinny bitch. That's not to say all woman are whinny bitches; only that it's not acceptable to call a whinny bitch female a whinny bitch, and it is acceptable to call a whinny bitch male a whinny bitch.
1/28/2010 3:22 PM
Finally.
God forbid the president actually do something for which there is no political gain (though I don't necessarily accept that notion as fact).
However, I won't hold my breath for the Democratic Congressional leadership to get anything done, despite the overwhelming public support for DADT's repeal and large majorities in Congress, due to their demonstrated ineptitude.
That said, I do think it will be repealed in the next decade considering those who are overwhelmingly opposed to it will be dead/out of power.
Or Obama can just repeal it with an Executive Order in the name of National Security since apparently that trumps any and all laws.
1/28/2010 4:40 PM
I liked how the camera shows the Joint Chiefs while the prez was spewing about DADT, and the chiefs don't applaud, don't smile, don't frown..in fact none of them moved a muscle.
1/28/2010 5:57 PM
Well there goes all the Rainbow Chits.
1/28/2010 6:00 PM
and it is acceptable to call a whinny bitch male a whinny bitch.
In my day, the whiny bitches were called ROs.
1/28/2010 6:17 PM
The requirement for this change to be acceptable necessitates everyone pretend homosexuality is normal, it is not, any more than pedophilia is normal. This will certainly come as a surprise to some, but the colon is not a sexual organ; it is the septic tank of the body. Pretending it is perfectly normal for two men to use each others large intestine as a substitute for the female sexual organ defies biology.
For every major religion on the planet homosexual behavior is a sin, alternately on the survival of the species side of the equation it is evolutionarily unsound by definition. The question will have to be raised and answered: should buggery become official Navy policy will those who disagree be given honorable discharges as homosexuals are currently given? That is only fair, you cannot force someone to serve in the military who comes out of the closet as being one who finds homosexual behavior unacceptable. The shoe will effectively be on the other foot and DADT will need to be applied in this reverse manner. Homosexuals weren't punished with restriction/reduction in rank, this will have to be reciprocated. Lets just see if the perfumed princes (miss you, Hack) will show any iota of reverse tolerance.
Knowing the Navy (and liberals) as I do I will bet they would not be anywhere near as fair to those who object as they are now to homophiles.
1/28/2010 6:57 PM
"In my day, the whiny bitches were called ROs."
Now that's funny, because that's how I remember it too! And that's what we need around here, more humor dammit. It's OK to have gay guys on board, as long as they're funny gay guys! Bring on the funny gals too! Submarining would have sucked without the funny people.
1/28/2010 6:59 PM
@Anonymous 5:57,
"the chiefs don't applaud, don't smile, don't frown..in fact none of them moved a muscle."
That's SOTU tradition. The supreme court justices and the chiefs don't react much to demonstrate that they're not political.
1/28/2010 7:29 PM
I liked how the camera shows the Joint Chiefs while the prez was spewing about DADT, and the chiefs don't applaud, don't smile, don't frown..in fact none of them moved a muscle.
Yet Perfumed Prince Numero Uno jumped right on getting DADT guidelines ready to be released next week. What a sad state of affairs.
WELL SAID SONARTECH!
1/28/2010 7:43 PM
The Joint Chiefs didn't move a muscle for anything.... that's the point.
Those of you that are opposed to homosexuals are absurd. What drives you people to hate? Why do you discriminate so? Agree with it or not, denying these people the rights that you enjoy by being attracted to a member of the opposite sex has a name; it is DISCRIMINATION.
Wake up and join then 80s.
1/28/2010 8:16 PM
Sonartech, Breaking out the religion and sin card is a lame argument. Like the the book says, religion poisons everything. Anybody can say, Oh yeah, well its a sin you know! Big deal. It's like saying, "Oh yeah, well fuck you!" Zeus, er, God, doesn't run boats, Sailors do. Live with whatever policy they passdown, or leave. It's a free country thanks to you and everybody who came before you.
1/28/2010 8:16 PM
Despite the obvious attempts of one rediculous dinosaur to piss the rest of us off, I'm pretty encouraged by what I read here. Of course, looking at the people I have served with for more than a decade I'm not at all surprised. Submariners are very fair, and usually only care about two things: Are you qualified, and are you safe to have around?
Hey Sonartech? Religion is a personal choice. Maybe we should extend DADT to that as well, since lord knows discussion of religion has caused nothing but problems on the boats I've served on. Keep your abnormal lifestyle to yourself - the rest of us have booze and women (or men) to enjoy.
-Proud ETC (SS) who happens to be one of them nashty evuhl howmowsaxshuels
1/28/2010 8:54 PM
Before gays and women, the big issue was blacks in the millitary. Segregation was the rule, and most people who opposed integration of the armed forces used the same arguments that are now being used against homosexuals, including
"The Bible says..." They also said it would damage unit cohesion, morale, etc. They also said that it was not the right time or place during the Cold War. At the time, integration was such a "dangerous" and "radical" and "liberal" idea that it could destroy our entire millitary! History has proven those nay sayers wrong. Now, discrimination aginst anyone of any RACE is one of the most dispicable tings in the service. Then the next big thing was women in the armed forces. Same arguments, sans religion. Same ending. Now discrimination based on SEX is just as distasteful as discrimination based on race. Whether the homophobes out there like it or not, there are already gays in the millitary and yes, there are gays on submarines too. One could be on your boat at this very moment! He could be staring at you in the head and you be none the wiser! Oh no! Grow up people. Discrimination against anyone, whether based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, is wrong. It is unamerican. It goes aginst the very culture of the submarine force. Who cares if the others on the boat are black, white, hispanic, asian, jewish, christain, muslim, or dare I say it, GAY! Who gives a rats ass as long as they are qualified and standing the watch? Who cars as long as they wear the same dolphins as everyone else? Who gives a rats ass as long as they are serving honorably and are doing their job in a professional manner along with everyone else? All the arguments of sexual harassment and unprofessional conduct are without merit. There are rules and regulations aginst sexual harassment and disruptive conduct that are applicable to any and ALL service members. Yes, we already have male on male sexual harassment in todays Navy. Allowing gays to serve openly won't change that. It's already here. What business is it of anyone on the boat what, or who people do in their private time away from work as long as it does not involve fraternization? I have served on a ship where several members of the crew were gay. All but one of them served honroably and were amongst the best professionals I have ever seen. One was not, but not because of his sexual orientation. It was because he was a liar and thief! Straight guys lie, steal and demonstrate unbecomming conduct too. The time has come to repeal DADT. It should be replaced by a "Don't Care!" policy. To the homophobes, I say "Grow up!" To the gays I say "You will be held to ALL of the same standards of conduct as everyone else." As long as everyone minds their own business and keeps their conduct professional, we will be just fine. If you think that as professional adults that we aren't capable of accomplishing this, then you are dead wrong. The millitary has done it beofre with racial integration, and with the integration of women. And we will do it again with gays. And we will be just fine.
1/28/2010 8:56 PM
Discrimination towards an immutable characteristic of birth (e.g. skin color) is irrational; discrimination against unsound behavior is not. It is the "hate" argument that is absurd.
It is a fact that every religion considers homosexual behavior a sin, I merely stated it. I also stated that homosexual behavior is evolutionarily unsound which is obvious.
Go back and read my words, leaving the military was a point I was making, a get out of the military free & clear argument if you will for those who oppose the policy flip flop.
And if you are not a submarine sailor past, present, or married to one, then f--k off. This is a bubblehead blog!
1/28/2010 8:57 PM
"...but the colon is not a sexual organ;..."
Sonartech,
Don't tell your wife that! Seriously, dude, you never went anal on a chick? How sad!
So following your logic, lesbians are ok? Because we all know they have the sex organ everyone wants.
----------------------------
As for gays, who cares, they are there now and some are great Sailors and some are bad...just like everyone else.
Ps. most of the gays I know are sonarmen. I have a good friend who is an STS(SS)and gay. We both served on our first boat together back in the mid 80's. You would probably be suprised where he is in the COC today.
1/28/2010 8:58 PM
Proud ETC (SS):
I hardly even mentioned religion in my post but that is all you seem to be able to focus on. I can only assume that you have no rebuttal for the majority of my post so you stick with the ad hominem attack. Not surprising, but lame (or perhaps limp is the term).
1/28/2010 9:15 PM
The inevitability of this step is the main reason I've felt pretty sanguine about women coming on board submarines. I would dread how submarining would be if subs became a magnet for openly serving gays because they were the only exclusively male community in the Navy.
1/28/2010 9:18 PM
Anonymous:
My statement was made from the stand point of biology. If you have evidence that the colon is not the septic tank of the body then please share it. That someone would use it as a sexual organ does not negate the point. There are no women on subs so I do not address that issue.
And as to your other point, there are pedophiles serving honorably on submarines right now; there is one if not more on your boat rest assured. So long as they are not acting on their sexual orientation and dont tell then that is all that matters isnt it?
1/28/2010 9:34 PM
Sonartech,
I agree it is a septic tank, so what is the harm of sperm deposit?
As for the pedophile comment, there are no kids on a submarine, so why did you address that issue?
There are a lot of big issues for the military and the country to really worry about...this is not one of them. I don't really like the idea of serving with some flamer, but after 24 years, I have gotten over it. You can either do the same and continue your career or get out and move on to bigger and better things.
Either way, thanks to everyone, straight or gay, for their service!
1/28/2010 9:46 PM
Anonymous:
Ever heard of AIDS? Operating the human body outside of it's design parameters has consequences.
You wrote about homosexuals serving honorably which no one disagrees with; I simply made a comparison in support of my argument for don't ask don't tell.
1/28/2010 10:09 PM
Sonartech- More straight people have AIDS than gay people. AIDS is a worldwide disease that knows no race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation you ignorant piece of Sh#t!!! Even the religously devout who have nothing but straigt vaginal sex get AIDS! Ignorant f#cks like you give members of the millitary a bad reputation.
1/28/2010 10:50 PM
Gays in the Military? They've been there in the past, they're serving now, and will serve in the future. I feel the same way about them as I do about any other sailor, to paraphrase Anon 1/28/2010 8:54 PM and NAVET, "So long as EVERYONE has to meet the EXACT SAME standards, I don't give a rat's a$$."
1/28/2010 11:51 PM
Sonartech- I thought this blog is by Bubblehead, not solely for bubbleheads.
-3383
1/29/2010 12:04 AM
I don't understand why there is this notion that when DADT is repealed, homosexuals will be trying to suck you off every minute. I have served with some that came out after they got out of the navy, and it was no surprise when they did. We knew who they were. They did a better job than most usually did. Oh, and guess what. They still did all of the normal shit that all of the other guys did when we made port calls, except for the women. But seriously. This is only a negative issue for the homophobes and the intolerant religious groups.
Sexual harassment is sexual harassment, regardless of gender. The Navy already has these rules in place. It is sad to see that Americans, especially the defenders of our civil liberties, trying to deny others from serving their country over a simple matter like this. Let's all be adults on this issue. You don't have to like it, but at least accept it.
1/29/2010 1:12 AM
embarked staff on the USS Dixon and USS McKee (AS-37/41) just a few years after the after the lesbian witch hunts of the late 1980s (I was CSTGWC/CTG 14.6). And the sub tenders were over 50% female when the ADs were maybe 10%. Let's just say I met a few female couples when I was embarked. They all did a great job. It took me awhile to figure out the euphemism of “special friend.” [OK, I was dense]. I might have been more observant to the women than the males, don't know. But my eyes were opened when the hottest E-5 I've ever seen was assigned to my group and she was afraid to go to the female berthing area during our underways. Yes, afraid. Today she is a CPA with one of the big-10 accounting firms.
We had the drydock San Onofre in 1989-90, where every officer (mostly LDOs) got into trouble for having sex with enlisted (example, deck division officer female (non-LDO) married her E-4 BM – and she got into the most trouble while the LDO men were allowed to retire). Somehow this one has been allowed to disappear.
My view is that the real issue is fraternization and sexual politics (not just harassment, it is the E-3 with the E-5+ wrapped around her/his finger).
And was ookie cookie gay? {my view it was weird and I'd never do it]
I don't want to see PDA (public displays of affection) in a submarine crews.
1/29/2010 2:36 AM
I can think of a lot to say about this, but the second comment on this thread pretty much sums it up. I don't care if the person next to me in uniform has a different sexual orientation than me. Do the job, do it well, what's the problem?
Get the lift of the ban over with, and move on to the next silly-assed problem. Too much time wasted arguing this one.
1/29/2010 6:56 AM
It was an open secret that the LAN guy (an ST1) on our boat was gay. Our LAN was pretty much the only one on the waterfront that consistently was operational- he'd come in nights to do reboots and maintenance. We recognized that he was probably the best submarine LAN guy in the Navy, and it would have been a damn shame to lose him.
Personal business is personal. If a gay guy does gay stuff in his free time, I don't care. If he behaves improperly at work, then throw the book at him. Same is it should be for all sailors. Anyone who thinks that gays "can't keep it in their pants", or somehow behave worse on average than other submarine sailors (have you met the average A Ganger... j/k), does not have a realistic view of how people behave. For most gay people, being gay is as significant to their career/job performance as being straight is to my job.
Former SSN JO
1/29/2010 7:06 AM
Those of you that are opposed to homosexuals are absurd. What drives you people to hate? Why do you discriminate so? Agree with it or not, denying these people the rights that you enjoy by being attracted to a member of the opposite sex has a name; it is DISCRIMINATION.
Those of you that are opposed to pedophiles are absurd. What drives you people to hate? Why do you discriminate so? Agree with it or not, denying these people the rights that you enjoy by being attracted to a member of the opposite sex has a name; it is DISCRIMINATION.
1/29/2010 8:22 AM
Comparing pedophiles to homosexuals is ludicrous- one commits violent acts against non-consenting children, the other commits non-violent acts with consenting adults.
1/29/2010 8:37 AM
Didn't you guys have "Miss Ustafish" pageants on halfway night? I know I've seen photos from as far back as the 40s, and I can guarantee that it wasn't the first time some of those guys wore a dress or put on lipstick: no one does it that well by accident! ;)
Seriously, my roommate on the boat was gay, I had a few gay Chiefs, and more gay sailors than I can count. If you don't think there are homosexuals on the boats, you're oblivious to reality. The only homosexuals who I have had problems with based solely on the basis of their homosexuality were the hopelessly closeted ones who grew up in reactionary evangelical christian families, married some poor girl from home to perpetuate the ruse, and then got caught in bad situations coming to grips (excuse the pun) with who they really are.
And for all you guys who are insecure with your masculinity, and think as soon as the "queers" (people still use that term?) are out will imediately start hitting on you, let me share something from one of my gay shipmates when the question was posed to him: he asked "so what do you straight guys think about 95% of female sailors?"
"Built like refrigerators with heads and personalities like cheese graters; no way in hell I'd ever date one of those things."
"Yeah, male sailors aren't much different."
-LT L
1/29/2010 11:23 AM
"queers" (people still use that term?)
Yep, and faggot, pole smoker, ass pirate, fairy, cock sucker. Care for more?
As for having more fags on boats than you could count LT L, I highly doubt your claim. There was one known on my boat (think Luke Sissyfag), and contrary to utopian claims in this thread, he was not just "one of the guys." Instead, he was ostracized - rightly so.
Silly faggots, dicks are for chicks.
1/29/2010 11:42 AM
One of my prototype friends had been sent to a tender. He told me that as new sailors (female) came aboard, there was always a current crewwoman nearby who would ask if they played softball.
-3383
1/29/2010 12:11 PM
To those who all they can manage is the ad hominem attack: learn how to debate and in the mean time kiss my ass!!! I chased soviet subs all over the pacific at times with tubes flooded and weapons hot - you are not capable of intimidating me.
I am surprised no one has touched on another primary point of my thesis to wit that should congress (not the perfumed prince in chief) repeal the Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993, all those who cannot support buggery as official Navy policy be given the same honorable discharge currently awarded homosexuals. This of course will not happen as there would be a mass exodus as large numbers take the opportunity to jump ship (pun intended). That would make the brass look very bad. So that will only mean one thing: those who do not support the policy change will have to be harangued, harassed, sent to NJP, and drummed out of the service with bad papers. Now I ask: Who are the intolerant NAZI f--ks in this scenario?
And again, to anyone who is not a submariner and doesn't even know what the term bubblehead means, f--k off! Friggin non-quals.
1/29/2010 12:19 PM
Next thing you know they'll be letting Carnies and the Irish on submarines.
1/29/2010 1:39 PM
Sonartech:
Thank you for your service during the cold war. You are a stud. I always wanted to meet a real hero who chased those Soviets everywhere. Tell me, how could you hear them so well with all those hot weapons? And when you talk about flooded tubes, I just get shivers all over. My, what a man. Could you bring your ad hominem over here and come hum me numb?
1/29/2010 2:00 PM
'Bout damn time.
Thank God some of you aren't submariners any more.
1/29/2010 2:27 PM
Lame, Gayass, Debate Tactic Number 125 (From section 4 of the Losers Guide to Shouting Down Opponents, Change 12 to Revision 14)(Pending NAVPERS Document 102-32): Excerpt - If you have thoroughly lost the argument and are completely clueless as to how to save face, change the subject over to whomever it was who just kicked your ass. Do not engage in any more debate as you will just look more and more stupid.
1/29/2010 3:21 PM
On ustafish in the late 80's we were in port in Yokosuka between far north east ops when we in E Div got wind of a new EM reporting on board. An ELT, who was previously a staff pickup, claimed to know the guy from prototype and said, "That guy's a fag." We all said, "Yeah, right." But the ELT kept telling us that he was serious.
This went on for a few days, all the while the ELT kept insisting that he was dead serious. Finally the new E-divver shows up. However, the CO had gotten wind of the scuttle-butt (no pun intended), and had the guy report to him immediately upon embarking.
To make a long story short, the EM never even got to open his sea bag - the CO sent him packing. When we asked what happened to the guy, the CO responded, "He was a damn fag." What a great CO!
On a related matter, will squids face NJP for referring to other squids as "homos" or "fags" when the individual really is a fag?
What about the term "boomer fag," will it become too un-PC a term for the new fag-friendly Navy?
Can't wait to see the updated version of "In the Navy." Glad I'm not in now, too damn PC.
1/29/2010 3:22 PM
Ya know, I try to stay out of these discussions, but I just can't allow this sonartech jackass to pretend to be representative of normal submariners.
The submariners I know and work with care about job performance, level of knowledge, qualification and mission accomplishment. On the list of things we worry about, who you bang is on page 7 after, "Did CS division order enough chicken liver pate?" If you're really so distracted by the fact that the guy next to you on TAWS likes the cock that you can't accomplish your own job, then you really are way too thin-skinned to be a dolphin-wearer anyway.
The vile crap that issues forth from this character is startling to behold; I thought people like him didn't exist outside of the Phelps clan (those folks who picket funerals.) It takes a lot of chutzpah, and in current company that is saying a LOT, to equate gays with pedophiles, call them septic tanks full of filth, call their intimate relations buggery, and basically manipulate the language in any way possible to make them seem vile and disgusting - and then try to paint yourself as the victim here. What breathtaking nerve!
There was a cartoon a few years ago of a young gay man being hit on the head with a stick by a man carrying a Bible. When the young gay politely asked the man with the stick to stop, he responded, "Why, that's anti-Christian bigotry!!!"
Bullshit.
I have plenty of arguments to rebut that kind of bigoted nonsense, but I have learned from experience not to bother. I will instead ask the reader to look around in the thread and ask himself who he would rather serve with: a gay guy who was good at his job and who showed basic respect to the people he worked with, or this sonartech character?
I know my choice. In my experience, which continues on active duty still today, the best way to spot gay guys is to look for single guys who look good in uniform, rarely talk about their "conquests" or dates, do their job in a manner that suggests they have something to prove, are respectful to those they work with, and keep a large degree of separation between their private life and their work life. In other words, they're hotrunners.
They don't want a parade. They want to be treated the same as the rest of us. It seems churlish to do otherwise because some sonar pansy thinks they're icky.
1/29/2010 4:24 PM
"Sonartech" has finally revealed his real identity with this corny statement:
"I chased soviet subs all over the pacific at times with tubes flooded and weapons hot - you are not capable of intimidating me."
Guys who have BTDT don't talk about it and definately don't refer to it that way.
I think it is time for "Sonartech" (who is afraid of sexual organs, gays, and oddly enough, septic tanks) to come clean and admmit he is a closet skimmer.
1/29/2010 5:07 PM
. . . call their intimate relations buggery . . .
Uh, that would be because they are:
Buggery is historically referred to as a "crime against nature." It is an offense under both common law and statutes. Although prosecution for buggery is rare, the punishment upon conviction can be a fine, imprisonment, or both. The term is often used interchangeably with sodomy.
But more to the point, not a single argument has been put forth to logically refute SonarTech's posts. Instead, as he stated, you have resorted to calling him names simply because you don't like what he had to say. Not that I'm above name calling, but I typically have a valid argument to go along with it.
And another point: I served in the late 80s and early 90s and I can tell you without a doubt, the guys that I hung out with wanted nothing to do with fags - qualified or not. Face it, there is a large percentage of the general population (which translates into the submariner population) who find homo practices detestable. And despite how un-PC you or Big Navy and Homobama seek to make it, a majority will never accept homos knowingly in their midst onboard a submarine. They will tolerate, but they will not accept it. There is a huge difference. Say what you will, but I'm pretty sure YOU are in the minority.
1/29/2010 5:43 PM
Anonymous
Talk about twisting words, I didn't coin the term buggery, it's a Navy term you condescending ... I could go on but what's the point.
Bottom line is I support the current policy like the majority of the veterans and current military (google it). It is clear to see what you think of anyone who does so and it's also clear that you can't stand anyone who dares to support their own opinion. It is because of people like you that those in the military who hold the majority opinion are in trouble. What awaits them is either they change their personal beliefs on a highly controversal issue, or dickheads just like you will see that they are drummed out of the Navy, no honorable discharge for them, zero tolerance for their personally held values. My how fine and upstanding you are! Its not my problem. But those who are at their EAOS have something more to think about. Fin
1/29/2010 6:10 PM
There was a cartoon a few years ago of a young gay man being hit on the head with a stick by a man carrying a Bible. When the young gay politely asked the man with the stick to stop, he responded, "Why, that's anti-Christian bigotry!!!"
1/29/2010 6:19 PM
Sonartech is nothing more than an immature bigot. It was his kind that fought long and hard aginst the integration of blacks in the armed services. Yes, in my time in the Navy, I HAVE been hit on by a gay shipmate. I told him I was not interested, and not gay. He said sorry, and I said no problem. And that was that. So who is to say that two men or two women fooling around is a crime aginst nature? It's amazing how hot a pair of dykes can be! When it comes to the whole "unnatural sex" thing, I bet Sonartech has never gotten a blowjob or ate p#ssy either! God know's that's unnatural! Or maybe he has never thought of doing a chick up the @ss either. God knows that good, devout straight men don't have anal sex with women! Are you so full of youself that you claim to speak for the whole natural world? Wow. You are one concieted SOB. By that way, 10 percent of animals, yes, animals, engage in sexual activities with other members of the same sex. About the same percentage as humans. Kinda strange isn't it that homosexuality is found in other forms in NATURE. I have no problem with people having beliefs. I DO have a problem when those beliefs become a disruption to good order and dicipline. If your bigoted beliefs would preculde you from serving honorable with ANY proud, serving, professional member of the Armed Services of the United States, then the millitary is not the place for you. This is a volunteer service. If your beliefs prevent you from carrying out your duties in a professional manner, then you may get out at then end of your current obligation. There is no room in todays Navy for those who cannot carry out their duties in a professional manner. I would pick a gay shipmate, any day over a closed minded bigot. Oh, by the way, employment discrimination aginst someone based on sexual orientation in the civillian world is a crime. I wonder what the civillians do about gays in the workplace? Oh, that's right, they DEAL WITH IT!
1/29/2010 8:32 PM
Sonartech, I did as you said and googled polls on the service members' opinions on gays in the military. You might want to try that for yourself, but don't let these facts get in the way of your opinion.
According to a Zogby poll (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1222) of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans (which matters in the instance one may say not to enact change during a time of war), 73% are comfortable around gays and only 2% said that knowing gays can't openly serve factored as a major reason when joining the military. And after people realize that the gays aren't out to get them, I'd imagine those numbers would improve.
Next, a Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1292) shows that families that include a military member believe DADT should be repealed 50-43 percent. And 56-39 percent believe that having gay military servicemen would not be divisive.
Perhaps you meant to refer to a militarytimes.com poll that showed otherwise. However, that poll required people to respond on their own initiative, only getting those who truly care to reply (which I bet is in itself not that big of a number) and tends toward more senior ranks.
However, this isn't your military, mine, or just that of those currently serving; it is that of the American people. And those polls show much larger margins for the repeal of DADT, but its repeal shouldn't depend on polls but on what is the right thing to do.
1/29/2010 8:53 PM
Not to generalize, but the vast majority of the most rapid homophobes have serious issues with their own sexuality. To say they 'hate in others what they fear in themselves' is trite but often true.
1/29/2010 8:59 PM
Sonartech,
You should know that trying to convince 95% of sailors that anything is wrong for religious reasons is a waste of time. They believe in nothing but themselves. Right now all they are doing to you is dragging you down to their level and beating you with experience. Personally though, I think that the Iranians have the right approach to homosexuality.
1/29/2010 9:14 PM
@anon at 4:24 - your argument struck me as pretty fuckin' gay...lol...this blog is a hoot these days...
1/29/2010 10:59 PM
We all know that the mouth is the food processor of the body. It is full of hard, sharp teeth specifically designed to cut, tear, and shred meat. The idea of a heterosexual man using the most dangerous orifice on a woman's body as a substitute for the proper sexual organ defies common sense. And since conception from oral sex is an impossibility, it is evolutionarily unsound as well. In fact, even vaginal sex when a woman isn't ovulating is a waste of precious energy.
As for all major religions considering homosexuality a sin, it's pretty much just the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). This is more about their common history than that they all came to the same moral conclusions. The priests of the one ancient god who became more popular than the rest just happened to believe homosexuality was wrong. Hinduism accepts homosexuality as a personal choice, and Buddhism doesn't really give a crap.
There's bound to be problems with allowing gays to serve openly. But there were problems when the navy decided to do away with corporal punishment, and during racial integration, and any other significant change in the military due to cultural evolution. But the military has been reasonably good at working out the bugs and has emerged stronger after each change. The fact is, regardless of the vast differences of soldiers' and sailors' backgrounds, we all share a common pride and purpose. We all recognize that we're doing a vital service for our country, and THAT mission absolutely must come first.
I am amazed at the general acceptance on this thread. I got out about 10 years ago, and DADT was still too liberal for a lot of guys. I hope that we're moving towards a future where we don't care about who the guy next to us is screwing, as long as he's not screwing the watchbill.
1/30/2010 6:26 AM
AnnoyedNAVET, you are correct in stating that my beliefs will now preclude me from serving in the military. Fortunately, I've already done my time. However, once this policy change goes into effect, I will no longer recommend the military a worthy option to those considering it. And just so you think it will have no impact, it was through discussions that I had with youth that no less than a half dozen chose to serve - two on subs. Strike any more from that list, as I will actively persuade all not to join.
And btw, you continue to make the point that not a single person who has disagreed with SonarTech can logically refute his points, all you can do is throw around the term "bigot" and stupidly compare a biological trait with that of a choice. (And if you want to claim that fags do not choose to be fags, they most assuredly can choose whether or not they have sex.)
1/30/2010 8:59 AM
However, this isn't your military, mine, or just that of those currently serving; it is that of the American people. And those polls show much larger margins for the repeal of DADT, but its repeal shouldn't depend on polls but on what is the right thing to do.
Problems with homos in the military - out or not
1/30/2010 9:09 AM
I don't have a problem w/ DADT getting repealed. We have plenty of other much bigger problems that have a more significant impact on mission accomplishment.
My pre-liberty port speeches will get a line added that everyone needs to double-wrap their junk, regardless of whether they are straight or bent.
If the guy can show up to work on time, do what he is told, and tell me the truth - I could care less what he does in his off time if he is staying out of trouble and not hurting himself or someone else.
1/30/2010 11:29 AM
STSC, Well put, Chief.
1/30/2010 4:37 PM
So what happens when there's a couple on board? Can they bump uglies while underway?
What a great half-way night money maker: CO's stateroom for a night.
We can also have a Ms. and Mr. half-way night.
Instead of putting the smoke pad in shaft alley, we can put the smoking pole pad in shaft alley.
I don't care if there are gays in the military, but I wouldn't want it rammed down my throat, literally and figuratively.
Why can't they just change DADT to DADTDC (Don't ask, don't tell, don't care). But most likely we'll have to celebrate gayness. Heck, we'll eventually add Gay Pride Month (like Asian Pacific Islander Month) or Gay Engineer of the Year.
But again, please no Carnies or Irish. We've got to draw the line somewhere.
1/30/2010 5:27 PM
There was a carnie on my first boat. A-ganger who drove trucks for the circus.
Damned carnies...
(True story. He was actually a really good guy)
1/30/2010 6:48 PM
I'll tell ya the God's Honest Truth: When DADT is repealed, many of the homosexuals currently serving won't come out of the closet because of people like sonartech.
I would now like to redirect the direction of this thread; everyone come up with new post-DADT jokes:
"That guy's always been a boomer-fag"
"Yeah, but that's ok now..."
"I hear the new guy that just reported is a faggot."
"Yeah, but nowadays we can't call 'em that, they're just called Sonartechs."
"Well, it's my turn to dance with the one-eyed lady..."
"Actually, we just found out recently that she's actually a man."
1/31/2010 8:35 AM
"That guy's always been a boomer-fag"
"Yeah, but that's ok now..."
"I hear the new guy that just reported is a faggot."
"Yeah, but nowadays we can't call 'em that, they're just called Sonartechs."
"Well, it's my turn to dance with the one-eyed lady..."
"Actually, we just found out recently that she's actually a man."
Exthept given the thenthibilities and the P-thee nature of the crowd to whith you are referring, anyone uttering thimilar "jokeths" will be written up and drummed out. Don't you get it? The P-thee crowd hath thero senth of humor!
1/31/2010 9:53 AM
Bwarney Fwank is going to get mad!
1/31/2010 10:05 AM
I'm just looking forward to some dude on dude action.
And honestly, I don't care about having gay guys on the boat... but women.....?
1/31/2010 10:44 AM
They went out with 140 crew members and came back with 70 couples might actually turn out to be accurate.
1/31/2010 3:45 PM
To Sonartech's-
The colon is not a sexual organ, nor is the mouth, the fingers, hands, breasts, etc.- so any sexual activity besides vaginal sex (no kissing, oral, nothing with the breasts, etc.) is "unnatural". Want to live a "natural" life? Get off the computer, go live in the woods, get rid of your clothes, don't go to the doctor, and probably die at 30 from some infection. That's the "natural" way to live.
I think I prefer the "unnatural" life- taking the subway to work, watching tv, cooking my food, and having an extremely varied (many different positions and orifices) sex life with my wife.
-former SSN JO
2/01/2010 6:00 AM
Known male homosexual sailor/soldier is injured and bleeding, do you stop and think about the potential for HIV/AIDS or hepatitis contaminated blood being present? If you answered no you are either a liar, an idiot, or you already have one or both of these diseases.
The comment posted earlier about more heterosexuals than homosexuals having HIV/AIDS is somewhat retarded. Of course there are more heterosexuals infected, since they make up the vast majority of the population. Homosexual males make up between 2-5% of the U.S. population, but account for 48% of total HIV/AIDS cases (source: CDC).
2/01/2010 4:09 PM
Known male homosexual sailor/soldier is injured and bleeding, do you stop and think about the potential for HIV/AIDS or hepatitis contaminated blood being present?
--------------------
I'd be more worried about cooties.
2/01/2010 10:00 PM
Yes, of course you think about HIV/AIDs when dealing with blood- whether it's from a known gay sailor or known straight sailor (or unkown). Luckily, all sailors now get blood tests (annually, I think), and HIV+ sailors can't serve at sea. Of course, it's always possible he/she caught it since his/her most recent test, so that's why you should be careful.
Not sure what the point is here...
2/02/2010 5:45 AM
Additionally, we are hardly the first nation to consider allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Israel has allowed gays to serve openly since '93, and the UK followed shortly after that. Compare Israel's military competence and readiness to its neighbors (who do NOT allow gays to serve openly), and it should be pretty clear that a military can be capable, competent, and ready for action while allowing gay men and women to serve openly.
-former SSN JO
2/02/2010 7:07 AM
@ ac, I'm just going to assume that you were joking when you said that Israel allowing homo's into their military is the reason that they have a more capable military force than their neighbors. It has nothing to do with the billions of dollars in military aid they receive from the U.S., right?
I've met some dipshit SSN JO's, but if you were being serious when you made that comment, you win the prize. Please tell me you got out and are now doing something without national security implications.
2/02/2010 7:43 AM
Read again what I wrote. I'm not saying Israel's military is better because it allows gays to serve, I'm saying that a military can remain a competent, ready military while allowing gays to serve. In fact, a military can be among the most capable in the world while allowing gays to serve openly. Do you deny that Israel has a competent and capable military? If so, I think you're the dipshit.
-former SSN JO
2/02/2010 8:04 AM
Really? You're using the Canadian military to justify your cause? Please pick a military that could actually win a battle, skirmish, or fist-fight without assistance from their evil neighbors to the south.
"In other news, the Canadian armed forces are joining the fight in Afghanistan by sending a canoe and a slingshot."
Are you going to praise the military prowess of the French next?
2/02/2010 10:45 AM
How about the two militaries I mentioned, Israel and the UK? The experiences of these and several other militaries of the world demonstrate that it is possible to maintain military readiness and competence, indeed even at the highest level, while allowing gays to serve openly.
2/02/2010 10:57 AM
Point taken, ac; the armed forces of Israel and the UK are not to be messed with. Although, I would like to see some sort of statistical information regarding the percentage of their fighting forces (not support personnel) that are openly homo.
There were a handful of guys on SSN-680 that were clearly, but not openly, homo. It worked because a submarine isn't really a frontline combat unit anymore. I'd be interested to know how an openly homo soldier who is part of a real ground combat unit is treated by his fellow soldiers.
2/02/2010 11:33 AM
Just no way...
Fags are the aberration 10% of the nation that all politicians and politically correct people are sucking up to...
Fags don't belong openly on subs...nor in the military period...never had...never will...silently is just fine in my opinion...
I discharged 2 while CO and that gave me much more pleasure than the single druggie that I had to also let go...
2/02/2010 1:24 PM
Top fag hag Bet this guy is a closet peter puffer. To be continued . . .
2/02/2010 5:42 PM
I have a very hard time believing that anon@1:24 was ever a CO, or even an officer, frankly. I don't say this because of the views expressed, because I'm not thrilled about gays in the military either. I just can't see anyone considered qualified for command (of a nuclear submarine) writing so poorly.
2/02/2010 6:32 PM
"I just can't see anyone considered qualified for command (of a nuclear submarine) writing so poorly."
Obviously you have never seen some of the crap given to the ship's office written by the CO/XO.
2/02/2010 6:39 PM
WASHINGTON—Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation's top uniformed officer, made a strong appeal for allowing gays to serve openly in the military, a shift that highlighted the Pentagon's growing support for lifting the "don't ask, don't tell" law.
Adm. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee he believed the "don't ask" restrictions—which require gay troops to keep their sexual orientation a secret—could be eliminated without harming military morale, recruitment or readiness.
2/02/2010 7:28 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704022804575041101835826096.html?mod=WSJ_article_LatestHeadlines
Story was by By YOCHI J. DREAZEN
2/02/2010 7:29 PM
Well, now we know where the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stands. Do you know were your CNO is today? MCPON?
2/02/2010 7:31 PM
Mullen's a shameless suck-up. Don't forget his earlier testimony for women on subs - he's clearly angling for National Security Advisor or similar in a second(?) Obama administration.
2/02/2010 7:58 PM
To help out the html-challenged STSC who supports open homos in the military
2/02/2010 8:05 PM
Hey, wasn’t Alexander the Great in the military? Just saying..
610ET
2/03/2010 8:52 PM
I can't believe some of the bigotry on here. Some of you are abhorrently close-minded. I couldn't care less if the guy next to me is gay, straight, or tranny as long as he can take a joke, tell some funny stories, and isn't a bell tapper or a skimmer. And I honestly think that the majority of sailors under 35 feel the same way. I've served with a few guys who were outed as gay and kicked out, and in every case I was sad to see them go. They were good sailors.
I get the feeling that most of the inflammatory language is from retired guys, and well, the Navy has changed along with society. In some ways for the worse, and in some ways for the better.
2/04/2010 12:32 AM
anon 2/4 1232,
I don't know, I'm a retired guy and I put up the first comment in this thread. I think you would find that most of the retired guys are some of the more tolerant former-Sailors around. They help facilitate some of the change you refer to in your comment. They had to, they were the only guys with enough juice to lead the 25 year olds through it. The attitude on gays in the military has slowly but steadily changed over the years. It's a conservative organization and big change usually takes time and strong leadership. I don't know what the percentage of comments above have been for DADT repeal, but it is a hell of a lot more than it would have been 20 years ago, and I think that change is due in large part to the contributions of the Chiefs and Officers who have only recently retired, say over the last five years, or so. They were the guys who said, Just do your job, Shipmate, it'll be OK.
2/04/2010 3:38 AM
Mullen's post: Tweet heard round the world
By Philip Ewing, Navy Times
News about one of the biggest changes for the modern U.S. military circulated around the world this week at the speed of light - and in fewer than 140 characters.
In case there was any doubt, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen - America's highest-ranking service member - put himself on the record for millions of Internet users with an update to his Twitter account that reaffirmed what he told lawmakers earlier Tuesday: He supports letting gays and lesbians serve openly in the military.
Tweeted Mullen: "Stand by what I said: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly is the right thing to do. Comes down to integrity." He elaborated on his views Wednesday with a statement on the Pentagon's Web site.
Within moments of appearing, Mullen's Twitter post was picked up and passed along - "retweeted," in user-parlance - countless times by countless users across the globe. Perhaps the most prominent user to give him an 'RT' was the account of President Obama, adding an endorsement for Mullen's stance from the U.S. commander-in-chief (or at least one of his aides).
Continued at:
2/04/2010 7:18 AM
Comes down to integrity.
Actually, doing what is in the best interest of the defense of the USA despite what the PC crowd wants would be integrity. As was said earlier, Mullen is, and always has been, a suck-up.
I predict people voting with their feet.
2/04/2010 10:09 AM
"I predict people voting with their feet."
Shoot, guys voted with their feet when we had to shave off our beards in '83! Sailors vote with their feet to use the new GI Bill. Hell, Sailors vote with their feet when they have to go to sea, for cryin' out loud! It doesn't matter if it's a good thing or a bad thing, Sailors vote with their feet. Big deal. Everybody else says, "See ya!" And collects their retirement check...every single month. Breathe in, breathe out. Make trip to bank. In, out, bank.
2/04/2010 3:09 PM
When the military was first desegregated (a process started in 1948 by Truman, I believe), opponents stated that this would harm military readiness because many veterans would refuse to serve in mixed-race units. That turned out to be rather false. I don't see why it would be true now- American soldiers and sailors are a tough, adaptable bunch.
2/05/2010 5:34 AM
. . . I don't see why it would be true now- American soldiers and sailors are a tough, adaptable bunch.
And soon to be effeminate.
2/05/2010 10:13 AM
From the Onion:
"Allowing gays to serve openly in the Army is a long overdue reform, but it must be accompanied by an assurance that heterosexuals will be able to serve openly in the Navy."
Classic.
2/05/2010 2:20 PM
Well, as an older but still active bubblehead, I think we are arguing a moot point. The younger generation doesn't care. Pop culture being what it is, there is less sensativity to the whole issue. Just like women on submarines, they will come out, there will be some adjusting, and we will move on. Way back on SSN 677, we had a cook who we all knew was gay. He was the best one in the galley. Most of us didn't care as long as the food was good. The language will have to change. Just like NUB has been replaced by Currently Unqualified Nuclear Trainee, we will have new submarine terms for everything.
2/09/2010 5:16 PM
I've been pretty much out for a year at this point, and prior to that it wasn't exactly the most carefully kept secret on the boat. No problems. Yes I get teased. Yes, some people are probably not comfortable with me but they suck it up and I make an effort to be respectful of people's privacy as much as is humanly possible. I'll be out of the Navy before congress considers this issue, but even if they repealed today it wouldn't change my decision to get out. Honestly, serving under DADT wasn't terrible even before the cat got let out of the bag and I stopped bothering to try and hide my orientation from the crew.
2/10/2010 12:29 AM
My youngest daughter, (14) asked me last night whether there were any gay guys on the boat when I was there.
I told her I knew at least two. She asked if they ever had sex with each other. I said I doubted it.
Then she asked me if I ever worried about it when I was on the boat.
My reply:
All you really want in a shipmate is someone who will stand there watch in a way that allows you to trust them so you can get some sleep.
Of course, there's a lot that goes into that statement, but isn't that really what it boils down too?
Joe Alferio
2/25/2010 8:03 AM
Hey Sonartech, isn't it amazing in this overly long line of defenders of sodomy, you've yet to encounter one person willing to address the facts you set forth, let alone, even remotely agree with you.
You're probably already quite aware, the homosexual lobby actually hires people to troll every single forum and blog and news story where anything about homosexuality is. Then, they're either given instruction on how to author all this trash, how to "AVOID" responding by responding with generic answers that "sound" reasonable to the ignorant masses. e.g. "you have to be pretty stupid if you don't know by now, being gay is a biological fact, one that we cannot control?" Of course, 99.99 percent of the actual science and research says otherwise.
Or how about the now tired responses that have been found to be almost entirely made up and authored by homosexuals and writers paid to say it; "as long as they do their job I don't care" and, "I've worked alongside lots of gay people, they are some of the best we have." Both of which, of course are fallacies.
How you tell that they are such is simple. Go out into the world where people cannot hide behind the name "anonymous" or a made up avatar and ask the people who ARE ACTUALLY in the service. I've done this repeatedly, to date, after asking dozens, I've yet to hear these FALSE statements from one sailor, one Marine, one Air Force Pilot, or one Army representative. In fact, EVER SINGLE PERSON I've asked, both serving and retired, is wholly disgusted with the removal of the policy, and yes, they plan on either ACTIVELY working against it or leaving the now demoralized military.
But I thank you for your VERY WELL researched comments, and especially your service to me and my family and my country's safety and future.
Just know, this battle is FAR from over. And I only hope, when the real (honest) fight begins, you're up in the ranks of those on the side or morality and justice.
God bless you!
1/11/2011 5:51 AM
Hahaha. Your so funny guys! How'd you get here? Theres so much comment on this page, what is going anyway here?
mind if I put a link back to you?
tuxedos suits
by the way I'm william
5/12/2011 10:51 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home