Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Saturday, December 18, 2010

DADT Repealed

President Obama says he will sign the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" when it reaches his desk next week, and the new policy will be implemented in a few months.

For all those who oppose the change, like this guy, please provide specific predictions of all the bad things that will happen, along with a timeline, so we can come back later and see if you were right. "A plague of locusts o'er the land" is too general -- please predict something like "10% reduction in legume production in the southeastern U.S. due to Orthoptera infestation in 2011". Likewise, rather than "re-enlistment rates will drop like a rock" say "re-enlistment rates will be down 45% by the end of 2012" or something to that effect. (Anecdotal, non-statistical predictions like "I'm going to be molested by a phantom pole-smoker in April" are also accepted, but please be prepared to provide verification if your prediction comes true.) Anyone on active duty who plans to leave the military because of this are especially invited to comment -- let us know your EAOS, and please check back in when you follow through.

On the other hand, if you think the military will adapt to this change as it has all others, you can say that too.

Bell-ringer 1411 20 Dec: Here's a statement from the CNO on the Senate vote.

Update 1743 21 Dec: Closing comments.


Anonymous Anonymous said...


I will begin to loudly and graphically proclaim that I love men to all who will listen to me at work, even though I'm not gay.

Probability of this occurring: 100%

12/18/2010 3:37 PM

Blogger Vigilis said...

Predictions appear here:

Eliminating Bill Clinton's DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) policy will empower unscrupulous gays to file [assignment and promotion]grievances publicly. To avoid disruptions of good order and discipline, unfavorable press, and resulting slumps in recruiting, the military will be compelled to either waste resources attempting to prove negatives legally [impossible], or grant undeserved promotions.

Timeline for above: Litigation will not begin until after September 2011.

If enough litigation is successful in terms of court awards, back pay, choice assignments, etc., a few unscrupulous "straights" will join the litigation bandwagon by claiming they are gay, further eroding good order and discipline.

Timeline: During the term of the next liberal president.

12/18/2010 4:02 PM

Anonymous T said...

I actually do have a serious prediction.

Military benefit payouts change significantly in how your spouse is determined. My guess is that Single vs. Married BAH "goes away" and there becomes some method for who you designate as your spouse that doesn't involve being married.

I figure that happens inside of two years. Personally I think it's a positive move. I've always thought the married BAH thing was unfair (even though I am married now)

12/18/2010 4:27 PM

Anonymous Can't Wait said...


I will run back to my rack and beat off after seeing two lesbo officers making out in ERLL.

Timeline: within the next 34 months.

12/18/2010 4:31 PM

Anonymous Can't Wait said...


I don't see that happening for while. Here is a rundown of gay benefits...BAH is not one of them.

But that doesn't mean that court cases on not in our future which supports Vigillis' first prediction.

12/18/2010 4:37 PM

Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

BFD. A non-event. Get back to work.

12/18/2010 5:01 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You predict a non-event. mostly women gays in the military are going to "come out". Of the honorable male gays we have all served with and worked with, perhaps 10% will "come out" at first.

Twelve years after repeal male gays will still not have come out 100%; 40% at most. What is really in it for them, they don't have already - bragging rights?

For gay males it is almost a non-event, unless they are also JAGs or MDs. See, even you could be half correct.


12/18/2010 5:14 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chicks on submarines is a bigger deal.

trying to figure out how the detailing process or promotion boards know your gay. Frankly, you can get to 1st class with being a pretty poor leader but a pretty good test taker. (and in the other pipeline (ha!) make it to O-4 with subpar leadership skillz too)

12/18/2010 5:16 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and retention (in the Navy) is going to be above what is required as long as the economy sux and the drawdown continues due to no dinero.

12/18/2010 5:19 PM

Blogger Comrade Misfit said...

I'll go with your last choice and I'll second Rubber Ducky's comments.

12/18/2010 5:30 PM

Anonymous T said...

Can't Wait:

I agree.... at first. But you're fooling yourself if you don't think that the "Gay Eye of Mordor" is going to zero in quickly on the military benefit package as evidence of discriminatory hiring practices of the US Military, especially when benefits are extended to gay couples in federal and non-govermental positions. I realize that there will have to be some Congressional wrangling, which will slow it down, but it will happen at some point in the future. It's only the fair thing to do. I would expect some kind of legal challenges in the next year or two and lots of complaining from LGBT sailors (rightfully so). American citizens are increasingly in favor of gay rights, it's just a matter of time until enough old people die off to extend the right of marriage and anti-discrimination laws to homosexual people as well. FYI, younger generations are overwhelming supportive of gay rights.

If not, I guess the Navy can abandon its plan of being a "Top 50" employer (tongue in cheek), as a lot of employers do offer medical benefits to gay partners.

12/18/2010 5:32 PM

Blogger Vigilis said...

@ Anon 5:16 PM

It may come as a surprise to you, but under civilian law, notice to agent is considered notice principals. If the recommendation by the command is signed by an agent (from a leading PO, chief or CO) who cdould know an individual's gender preference, then it can be legally assumed that the chain of command (including detailers and promotion boards) should have also known.

Lawsuits merely allege things; unprovable facts are secondary. The plaintiffs lawyers WILL NOT be inexperienced public defenders, either.

But, hey, the JAGs have alreadty reviewed things like this with top brass. You don't think some of those JAGs could be gay, do you?

12/18/2010 5:37 PM

Anonymous MMC(SS) said...

I have no specific prediction wrt this issue. I will follow orders because it's my duty. However, the Secdef and ADM Mullen have shown their true colors as politically correct Svengalis who spin facts into lies. Their arguments about discrimination and integrity are pure BS. As far as my personal opinion, I believe that homosexuality is not a social norm but the behavior of a few misguided deviants. I will now ask nubs checking in if they are fags as part of the checkin process. For the record, I served with a gay shipmate and everything was fine until he molested a passed out shipmate in the barracks. On a lighter note, why restrict women to 4 subs and only officers. I say open up fwd and aft berthing and put them on a 688 just like the guys. What is the difference in sleeping or showering next to gays or women -- apparently nothing. For reference on this issue you should all read Gen Mundy's eloquent letter to the Congress from Nov 30, 2010.

12/18/2010 5:41 PM

Anonymous Get Some Man Meat said...

No doubt this will become a legal nightmare...but hey, what else does the military have to do?

Maybe this is, and I am just spitballing here (no pun intended), what the Marine Corps Commandant had in mind by "distractions"? But then again, bloggers are much smarter than Generals!

12/18/2010 5:46 PM

Anonymous Officers Suck said...

Ropeyarn Wednesday, Aloha Friday and now Lawsuit Monday!

Luckily our Sailors have nothing else better to do.


The Military Caste System goes down in flames within the next 10-15 years.

As a leftist, surely something that the Duck coud agree upon.

12/18/2010 5:52 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I predict that Rocky Horror Picture Show re-enactments will replace Shellback ceremonies!

North Korean nukes are a threat. Gays are not.

12/18/2010 6:34 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

How is this whole thing supposed to work out in a good way?

12/18/2010 6:55 PM

Blogger wtfdnucsailor said...

Back in the dark ages, the only time a person came out was to avoid a deployment or a hardship duty station. The "I am gay" will no longer be ticket out of a hardship assignment. I also served with outstanding sailors who "everyone" suspected were gay but they never mentioned it or did anything to harm good order and discipline. Some straight sailors I served with were not able to make the same claim. I suspect this will be a non event in the submarine force. I don't know if the front line troops will have a problem with it once it is established. I detect a "fear of the unknown" reaction for those who have never served with a gay person.

12/18/2010 7:00 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The feshlight game we play in control while at PD in the dark will have a whoe new feel to it!

12/18/2010 7:07 PM

Anonymous Former 3363 said...

A sea story to start things off...

We had an MM2 who worked back aft. He had a "cousin" named "Faith" who was a cross dresser. He told us about "Faith" and related his own (I mean, her) adventures by talking about Faith. He was a hardworker, and nobody really had an issue with him until he played his DADT card to get off the boat.

Sure, we all knew he was gay and a cross dresser, but it didn't bother us until he decided to use it to his advantage.

Moral of the story...

Nobdoy really cares until you try to use your sexuality to your advantage. Nobody cares that sally sailor is hot (we all stare, but we don't care). But when she uses her boobs to get a good deal, then we label her and talk about her behind her back.

I think we can look back at the decisions to allow minorities and women to serve in the military to see how people will react. For the most part, the majority of the navy won't care, and they'll go about their day. Unfortunately, there will be some intolerant bigots who will make our entire military look like ignorant fools.

12/18/2010 7:17 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not afraid. I was on 721 when McVeigh was fired for being gay. He was a good man with integrity and an excellent COB. The guy that replaced him was not homosexual but was a real cocksucker.

12/18/2010 9:36 PM

Anonymous NHSparky said...

Bingo--you just hit the nail on the head right there. Now that they can serve openly, we'll get the, "I wasn't promoted/given augment/sent to school because I'm gay" bit. That will start almost immediately.

Another near-immediate effect? DEP attrites will increase significantly. So will entry-level separations.

Under 2 years? Expect reenlistments to drop significantly as well.

Down the road? More Holly Graf scenarios, only this with the ghey lobby, promoting unqualified officers far beyond their abilities or competence solely based on plumbing or which plumbing they prefer rather than aforementioned abilities or competence.

And NO, you still can't smoke a Marlboro.

It amazes me that we kick out people for bodyfat/PFT, other medical issue, adultery, etc., but someone acts all butt-hurt because THEY don't get to play. So anyone who tells me it's about equal treatment, I say bullshit. It's NEVER been about equal treatment--the GLBT lobby wants special "rights" accorded to them. They can't meet the standards, so they want them changed. Okay. 2 percent of the military is gonna screw it up for the other 98 percent, and kill readiness. Nice goin, guys.

12/18/2010 9:43 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The best FTC I ever met in my time in has been monogamously partnered with a really awesome guy - a former submariner himself - for over a decade. The man is an absolute model sailor and - dare I say it? - model husband (or whatever), and is hopefully on his way to a COB tour.

How many of you folks slinging dire predictions around can point to that sort of dedication to family in your own lives while you were/are Sailors?

Just wondering.

My prediction on the macro level. This model Chief will no longer be afraid to hang out with his division and include them as family, like any other (good) Chief would do.

Also, intrusive leadership won't be so damned scary for the gay guys out there any more. Every time the Chief tried to butt his nose into a gay guy's business at home, the guy risked being fired. That's no longer the case, and we'll be a better fleet because of it.

DADT had a lot of unseen costs - well, unseen to everyone but the gay guys and those of us who know them well - that are going to disappear, and it will make us a safer and more effective fighting force.

I'm posting anonymously because the policy is still in effect, and some of the readers know me. There's only about 1,000 FTs, and not many of us are Chiefs. I bet more than one is gay, though. In fact, I know there's more than one, because I met them while I was still in.

Settle down folks. I don't often agree with RD, but he's right. Big Freaking Non-Event.

12/18/2010 9:47 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does this mean a guy and his wife Legally (UCMJ) enter at the back door now?

12/18/2010 10:08 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

A number of countries allow Homosexuals to serve openly in the military with minimal impact. I suspect that will also be the case for the US.

1)If the military reflects the general population, and open Homosexuals are only 3% of the US population, then only 3% of the military would have any desire to proclaim their homosexuality.

2) Of that 3%, a large majority will choose to stay in the closet, especially those in frontline/combat units. 33% come out..max.

3) 33% of 3%=1% of the military openly Homo...MAX..and much lower in units where the mission allows little privacy

4) Of that small 1% (or less), only 25% (.25% of total military) will result in unit disruptions or personnel problems.

I just don't see this as a big issue - as long as I'm not in the .25%. Nobody wants to be a statistic.

Of course, if my assumptions are off, and harassment and frat cases jump substantially, I doubt we can ever put the genie back in the bottle. We'll just have to make due with a degraded military - which is a Win/Win for the Homosexual Elites.

12/18/2010 10:25 PM

Anonymous Your Boss, The Taxpayer said...

Since so many compare this moment to desegregation and the civil rights movement, can we change the holiday from Martin Luther King Day to Homo Day or Fag Day?

I know it sounds dumb, but imagine how black people feel when their real struggle is cheapend by repealing DADT.

But as a taxpayer, I can really care less who a person loves. All that I want is that person that I pay to be able to go out and kill the bad guys. In fact, that is your sole purpose and the reason that I own you, my ships, my submarines, my tanks and my airplanes.

So stop worrying about this silly stuff and get out there and do wht you are told.

12/18/2010 10:32 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Might consider piping in the Bravo channel for the gays and girls. A mid-patrol fashion show onboard might just ease that home sick blues. Maybe old traditions such the uniform of the day and that tacky duty belt will become "what not to wear" instead. And the poopy suit, my-my-my-my-my is long overdue for a stylish update - don't ya think?

12/18/2010 10:46 PM

Anonymous NHSparky said...

A number of countries allow Homosexuals to serve openly in the military with minimal impact. I suspect that will also be the case for the US.

Minimal impact to whom? The squad of Dutch sous chefs deployed to Bagram? Wow, we never would have succeeded in Tora Bora without those guys, I'm tellin ya.

No offense, but those nations you speak of got their asses rolled over twice in the last century. Don't expect me to give them such high marks, especially since western Europe (the biggest examples you cite) have basically had us and the Brits do all their heavy lifting for them for the last 60 years or so.

12/18/2010 11:03 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Guess what, Sparky. The Brits you cite allow gays to serve. So do the Israelis, and you won't find many people willing to say the IDF is a bunch of sous chefs.

12/18/2010 11:19 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Life after DADT on board doesn’t have to be boring. Quiche, a fruit cup, and endless flowing mimosa will be a spirited breakfast for the gays and gals preparing for watch. The bug juice machine can double as a frozen daiquiri machine on special occasions. After watch, a Tupperware party featuring fondue is always a hit. Having an argument with that special someone onboard - a simple I’m sorry note left on the brine pump always does the trick. Changing shift, why waste time talking just leave a few decorative notes instead.

12/18/2010 11:32 PM

Anonymous T said...


Within 10 years, I think you'll be able to say we got rolled over twice in the last century too. Vietnam, ok. Iraq? Afghanistan?

You really think both of those last two are going to be all hugs and kisses 5 or 6 years from now? We might proclaim victory, but I'm willing to be in at least one of the current wars, conditions on the ground after we leave are going to look pretty damn ugly.

I fully support the rights of all Americans, and all people everywhere. That's why I support Gay rights, Julian Assange, and fair pre and post trial treatment for Bradley Manning (though I do not support PFC Manning's alleged actions). If we want to claim to be the best, fairest country, we need to lead by example. Repealing DADT is a good first step.

On a side note, the best CS we ever had was gay, and got kicked out for bf'ing some guy in the barracks. It sucked. I would have proudly served with him for longer (and enjoyed the benefits of having my laundry actually properly laundered.)

12/19/2010 1:58 AM

Anonymous T said...

To fully flesh out my opinions, I don't support letting women on submarines for two reasons.

1) I think this will actually have a detrimental effect on readiness.
2) I think it's a waste of money to try to figure out how to do this in a time when the money could be better spent on other things. (I have no doubts that women can physically and mentally perform the job).

I also acknowledge that some people might see this as hypocritical.

12/19/2010 2:02 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

ERLL huh? You sir must be on the Ohio...everyone loves lesbians.

12/19/2010 4:25 AM

Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Some things to note:

1. The comments and predictions here are somewhat muted, certainly compared against previous posts both on the topic and hijacked to it. This suggests that repeal of DADT was pretty well anticipated and worked out mentally well before this time, here and in the military in general.

2. The serious predictions of possible bad effects in the boats seem mostly based on what individuals might do to take advantage of being gay rather than of any direct effect.

3. Those whose gaydar proved correct and found they were in fact serving with a gay shipmate express easy acceptance of someone who 'thinks different.'

So let me expand my BFD prediction in three ways:

A. A gay shipmate will be judged the same way the boats have always judged individuals, on his willingness to do his job well and his acceptance of the cultural norms in the boats (which traditionally included giving everyone a bad time - this just expands the list of what that bad time can be about).

B. The experience of learning to accommodate this shift in the rules will help the boats accept the next shift with women in the crew.

C. Straight sailors serving in those boats who have known or suspected gay crewmembers will be breathing easier now that one of their shipmates is no longer at risk of being hauled away for what is legal and largely accepted everywhere else in society.


12/19/2010 5:27 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I joined the Navy, being GAY was illegal, then it became Optional. I'm glad I got out before it became mandatory.

12/19/2010 6:57 AM

Anonymous NHSparky said...

t--bit of a difference between a system like the IDF which has a draft and the US, which doesn't. Also, not a valid comparison to use Vietnam as an example when the civilian leadership lost the war, not the military. Please show me one major battle in which a US military unit was defeated, from I-Drang on. Again, PC bullshit is what hampers us in Afghanistan, and what hampered us in Iraq.

Next, yes, I have served with gay/bisexual shipmates. No, I really didn't care because their sexuality didn't define them. They were sailors first, gay/bi second. They put the team, the unit, first. Think that's gonna be the case now?

But we lost a few of them (not to DADT.) It was this little thing called HIV. See, like it or not, gays still make up the largest group and the largest number of new HIV cases. And no, that unplanned loss was not made up. Also note that the STD rate in the gay communities is on order of 40-50 TIMES higher than heterosexual men. Syphilis rates among homosexual men are DOUBLE what they were in 2008, and the strains are more resistant.

Nah, no readiness or medical issue there, kids. None at all.

12/19/2010 7:01 AM

Anonymous Below Decks Watch said...

12 month prediction:
more port stops in Key West, FL and Provincetown, MA.

12/19/2010 7:41 AM

Blogger Sandy Salt said...

Let the record show the RD has nailed it, this will be no BFD. I am also in agreement with women on submarines, but with no special treatment because they are just another sailor and should be treated as such. If we want to show the world how grown up we are then put them on the boats and hold them to the same standards. No need to modify the ship to suit because we are all humans and have all the same parts with a few exceptions. I know there is going to be some seaman that has never seen a naked woman, but that shock and awe will soon pass as he sees a Navy woman. I think we coddle the women in the military way too much and should stop separating them out because what is the big deal. Some of us have lived with women most of our lives and it isn't a big deal, really!

12/19/2010 7:47 AM

Anonymous n said...

I am also in agreement with women on submarines, but with no special treatment because they are just another sailor and should be treated as such.

We tried that. Tailhook, anyone?

Oh, I can't wait for "crossing the line" ceremonies in a year or two.

12/19/2010 7:55 AM

Anonymous NHSparky said...

Clarification--above post was mine.

Look, I hope the best case scenario DOES come about, that it's all Kum-Bah-Ya and no issue, etc. Reality and experience tells me it's not going to be all that smooth a transition for a while. Not worst case, not best case, but I think we can all admit it's going to be somewhere between the two.

12/19/2010 8:05 AM

Blogger Sandy Salt said...

I also agree with NHSparky. It won't be as bad as a certain group thinks, but it also won't be problem free as we saw at the prototype when the first females in a long time showed up. Like everything else in this world it is rarely as bad as the predictions nor as good either.

12/19/2010 10:52 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"C. Straight sailors serving in those boats who have known or suspected gay crewmembers will be breathing easier now that one of their shipmates is no longer at risk of being hauled away for what is legal and largely accepted everywhere else in society."

Therein lies the argument. It is a behavior issue and an openly gay shipmate is not generally accepted by crew members.

12/19/2010 12:11 PM

Blogger J said...

"Therein lies the argument. It is a behavior issue and an openly gay shipmate is not generally accepted by crew members."

And the argument is pure horseshit. Of all the military subcultures out there, Submariners will probably have the LEAST amount of difficulty dealing with this so-called change. We already don't really care about anything but how well you do your job, or how bad you smell. The two worst things to be on a boat are dumb or dirty. Gay doesn't even enter into it.

12/19/2010 12:45 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


Your tailhook analogy is 100% FALSE. The women in that situation were not treated like one of the guys, they were sexually assaulted, then a couple of high ranking clowns didn't do their jobs in the investigation phase. Last I checked being treated like one of the guys didn't include sexual assault...unless it's in sonar, then it's totally cool

12/19/2010 1:32 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gay muslims will join the US military. (within 12 months).

12/19/2010 2:11 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gays may serve in the Israeli Defense Forces, but they do NOT serve in Combat or Intelligence positions. The legal system of the United States will not allow that sort of segregation.

Other Nations may allow open Homosexuality, but none of them could sustain a major deployment. Sure, alot has to do with equipment and logistics, but a strong Military Culture is a big factor too. The Dutch are Unionized! The Euro's are one step above defenseless, and not for want of equipment or training..but of a military culture that will kill people and break things without remorse.

12/19/2010 2:15 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Old guys thoughts on subject,

I sailed MSC ammo ships for five years until retirement (again) in 2008. For those not familiar with MSC crew personnel policies, as civilian mariners you must comply with federal non discrimination and harrassment rules. Crew size small for example approx 120 to operate an ammo ship. Ya gotta know your stuff just like on the boats. Uploading a carrier everyone and I mean everyone works that. No margin for error either or someone gets hurt bad or something big gets broke.

On all three ammo ships I sailed on over five years we had gay mariners onboard. No big deal as long as they pulled their load. If they couldn't handle the load they were paid-off for performance related problems as any problem mariner would be. On the other hand the real problems were heterosexual relationships between crewmembers. I know of a stabbing by a female on one of her male partners, and in another case a couple that got drunk and got into a fight in town that resulted in arrest by local law enforcement and both being paid-off and sent to the pool for disciplinary action. In another situation I was witness to a retired Navy CPO working as a DMAC assault a gay Filipino YNSK in the chow line because he didn't like gay's. He was paid-off immediately upon return to port and sent to the pool for disciplinary action.

I offer these examples from the standpoint that MSC culture is a lot closer to USN than foreign militaries. Although a major difference I would note is that average age of MSC Mariner is 53 vs average age of USN sailor I would think is in early to mid 20's.

Overall my impressions are that these concerns are largely overblown. There will be a few personnel issues for sure. The key will be for leadership to resolve them rapidly. I'm with RD on this issue.

My two cents................


12/19/2010 2:16 PM

Anonymous portnstarboard said...

I predict that the Navy will be forced to provide honorable discharges to a large number of servicemen due to their objections on moral grounds. It is perfectly normal to have objections to homosexual behavior. This will create a new type of conscientious objector claim and it will be 100% valid especially for any servicemen who entered the military prior to the repeal of DADT. My other prediction which isnt really a predition so much as a foregone conclusion, you will see men in women's uniform claiming that they are transgendered. Those who think repeal is a good idea should be proud to see that day.

12/19/2010 3:40 PM

Anonymous submarines once... said...

The military and submarine force will get through this just like the last move with the invention of DADT in the early 1990's. But it will come (no pun or spelling intended) with some issues at the deck plate level that those of us removed from that environment will never see or hear about.
However, I predict there will be a negative readiness impact due to the senior chain of command having to deal with the new regs without any help from above. This same challenge will manifest itself when the women show up. Gives a whole new meaning to "don't drop the soap"!
Good luck to all on active duty-

12/19/2010 4:05 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It has been my understanding that berthing males and females separately was not based on different anatomy but rather sexual desires. How do we intend to berth those who find the same sex sexually attractive? I understand not all gay men find all men attractive; just as I, as a male, don’t find all women attractive. But odds have it if you put me in female berthing I will be peeking…..

12/19/2010 4:12 PM

Anonymous MentalJim said...

This vote only happened when it did because of Wikileaks blackmail. A deal has been struck if we repeal DADT then they will not make public the other 99% of their stolen classified documents.

12/19/2010 4:16 PM

Anonymous T said...

Anon @ 2:15 PM:

As you may know, the Spartans used to regularly have gay man love with each other to increase unit cohesion. So, in theory, the repeal of DADT will actually make us a more battle-hardened corps of steely eyed spartans of the deep. We're going to put the mate back in shipmate!

As for the trannies, I just want to know where they will sleep, and how I get one in my bunk room! Best of both worlds!

12/19/2010 4:16 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's still a milestone, not a complete, victory. Victory will be when the discriminating language is removed from the UCMJ article(s) and a same-sex spouse can be listed as a dependent.

12/19/2010 5:25 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As you may know, the Spartans used to regularly have gay man love with each other to increase unit cohesion."

So, if I'm better at sucking my Chief's cock (deep throating and swallowing) than anyone else in my division, that could be a guaranteed EP on my next eval? If I take it in the ass, by my detailor, XO and CO would I still have to submit a package and stand a board for LDO?

12/19/2010 5:26 PM

Anonymous Time To Fight Back said...

"Victory will be when the discriminating language is removed from the UCMJ article(s) and a same-sex spouse can be listed as a dependent."

There you go...they will never be satisfied. Yes, our military has lost it's way thanks to feel-good politicians.

Gays onboard? Of course, they have always been there and have done great work. BAH for two dudes? No way.

Oh well, maybe the liberals are right, it is time to take down the industrial-military budgets?

I am sure Europe will come and defend us!?

12/19/2010 5:59 PM

Anonymous DanielFBoone said...

I predict those who feel threatened or unwilling to accept gay shipmates will experience significant problems with their post Navy transition to the realities of the 'real world.'

12/19/2010 6:09 PM

Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

A gay man who hailed from Khartoum

Took a lesbian up to his room.

They spent the night

Arguing who had the right

To do what and with which and to whom.

12/19/2010 6:15 PM

Anonymous portnstarboard said...

I further predict that in this age of wikileaks this will not go smoothly and that those who will not allow the liberals to shove this sickness down their throats are going to raise one hell of a racket. It's one thing to tell servicemen that they must comply with some misandrist policy the brass concocted to appease the feminazis but those who disapprove of homosexual behavior and other types of sexual deviancy are in the right and therefore can oppose this policy with a clear conscience. This will mean a nuclear powered headache for the brass. Those of you who are currently enlisted can make use of the internet to get the word out if you or someone else is harassed by the command for your morally held beliefs. You do not have to just salute and do what you are told when the orders are immoral. In fact it is incumbent upon you not to. Become a contentious objector.

12/19/2010 6:27 PM

Anonymous Just Bi-Curious said...

Bubblehead has been silent so far. How do Mormons and their church feel about gays?

12/19/2010 6:27 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do military members have to follow orders if they do not believe they are just or moral? Will this become the "Nuremburg Defense" in reverse?

Will we continue to do God's work on submarines or was that just a bunch of hype? Will God pick a different team?

I predict one US submarine will sink to the bottom with all hands in the next 5-10 years. And the cause will not be due to women or gays. More likely the cause will be due to lack of maintenance funds or because it is just due.

12/19/2010 6:38 PM

Anonymous POOD said...

Can't Wait said...
I will run back to my rack and beat off after seeing two lesbo officers making out in ERLL.
Timeline: within the next 34 months.
12/18/2010 4:31 PM

1st prediction to cum true (sort of): I was thinking about this all day and when the duty section was watching football in the mess decks (with the BDW of course), I rubbed one out in the torpedo room!

I have to go...I am sending this via my IPhone while standing POOD. The Eng is the SDO and he always comes topside after dinner to call his girlfriend (quite the scandal, although everyone knows except his least we know he isn't gay).

Protecting America for you!!

Peace Out,
MM2(SS) B********

ps. we active duty guys love the site..keep up the great work!

12/19/2010 6:49 PM

Anonymous Gay is Good said...

An oldie but goody recruiting film...sure to make a comeback now!

12/19/2010 7:45 PM

Anonymous Millington said...

I predict a downward spike in enlistments and reenlistments as the military right sizes with the new "type" of member (those who might not have joined will now see an "welcoming" service).

Should be relatively no impact on the Navy other than increased IA's to support other services.

Probably little impact on the officer side of the house because they tend to be a little more liberal.

At least that is the thinking here in Millington as we game this out.

12/19/2010 8:53 PM

Anonymous T said...

Well, I think it seems like the people in Millington are willfully ignorant. But that's not really news to anybody else.

I don't see how this is going to be a big deal. If you don't want to work with gays, then be unemployed or move to Iran, because in today's USA, there isn't anywhere that outlaws gays from working. A lot of you guys are bitching, but you know that by the time you are up for reenlistment, this shit won't even factor into your decision.

The military already voted on this. A majority thought that repeal of DADT would have little effect on readiness. If you are against it, you are in a very vocal minority, composed of bigots.

12/19/2010 9:36 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spoken like a true biggot, T.

12/19/2010 10:05 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Approximately 20% of homosexual males have AIDS (aka GRID or Gay Related Immunodeficiency) according to the CDC. This is probably a conservative number. I predict this is going to become a much bigger problem for the military.

12/19/2010 10:56 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Approximately 20% of homosexual males have AIDS (aka GRID or Gay Related Immunodeficiency) according to the CDC. This is probably a conservative number. I predict this is going to become a much bigger problem for the military."

Bullshit. You got me curious, so I looked it up and did a little math. With the most conservative estimates of the gay male population at 3-4% (source for that was CDC, by the way) that would give us almost 3 million AIDS diagnoses in the past twenty years. The total number of people who have ever been diagnosed with AIDS in the US, living or dead, including women and children (and straight dudes) is about a third of that.

You're just making shit up, and attributing it to the CDC. I would accuse you of never having heard of the internet, but we're kinda ON it. Maybe you just never heard of Google.

Joel, you're getting freeped, and it's been happening for a while. I can guarantee that a whole bunch of posters have never even seen a submarine. You can tell by their language, and the topics they congregate in (conspiracy theories, "chinese" missile launches off our coast, gays will cause submarines to sink, etc). Some actual submariner who happened to be a right-wing dipshit ran to another online forum for "reinforcements" a couple months ago and we got invaded by TEH KRAZEE. Happens all the time. The left-wing dipshits do it, too, just not here (yet).

12/20/2010 12:21 AM

Blogger SonarMan said...

I will give it about 24 - 36 months, and thn watch watch with great amusement when the Brass try to figure out what to do with the discrimination complaints from homosexuals who's requests to wear female uniform items gets denied. One thing I can guarantee is that there won't be anyone standing under the ladder for those guys when they climb down into the boat.

12/20/2010 12:30 AM

Blogger Former 3363 said...

Wow, I leave for 24 hours and all hell breaks loose. While most of the comments are entertaining, I'm reasonably certain that 90% of them are from pure emotion and lack any real substance.

I have to agree with an earlier poster about the treat us all equally. Separate but equal is pure BS in my mind. In a recent Human Resources class, the following statements were on one slide having to do with Equal Opportunity:

Blind to differences
Differences among people should be ignored and everyone should be treated equally.
Affirmative Action
Employers are urged to hire groups of people based on their race, age, gender, or national origin, to make up for historical discrimination.

How does that make any sense? We should be blind to differences, but we should hire groups of people based on their differences.

Until WE (that means you too NHSparky) figure out that their are plenty of different people in the world, and WE are powerless to change them, we will never truly have equality.

I hate the fact that I see people being hired because of their heritage and not because of their qualifications or skills. But at the same time, I love the fact that my status as a veteran puts me into one of those protected classes.

This whole issue (equality not homosexuality) is a ticking time bomb that won't go away for quite some time.

12/20/2010 2:05 AM

Blogger DDM said...


W/in 3 years, there will be an ALNAV promoting Gay and Lesbian Recognition month.

NNPTC/NPTU will find replacements for "Rainbow Chits".

The Navy will have a disproportionate number of gays because of the number of young men placed in high stress environments with less fear about relieving stress with their buds.

The best policy should be no policy. Don't ask, Don't tell should be Don't ask, Don't Tell, Don't Care.

12/20/2010 5:09 AM

Anonymous AC said...

The LAN guy, an ST1, on the LA Class I served on was gay and everyone knew it. People made jokes about him behind his back; he didn't have any close friends among the crew.

But our LAN was up and running 99.9% of the time... because he came in nights and weekends in port to do resets and other LAN maintenance, and took ownership of the job. The average LAN down time for the waterfront was around 25%.

The whole crew knew he was gay. The whole crew also knew he was the best damn LAN guy on the waterfront.

12/20/2010 5:30 AM

Anonymous Brandon Baker said...

When I was on the Louisville, we had 2 guys that everyone knew were gay. One dude was a quartermaster, the other was a cook who made 2nd class the same time I did. Both did their jobs well, and nobody really cared that either was gay. I will say this, if you're a pickle kisser, you better be good at your job and not some dink shitbag.

12/20/2010 6:21 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anecdotaly, I too think this will be a non-event. I served with a gay A-ganger on my last boat...he was a heck of a sailor. One of the best guys to go to for QA. His orientation was an open secret; his nickname was Skittles, as in "Taste the Rainbow," and he had a penchant for singing songs from Beauty and the Beast and the Lion King at the top of his lungs while field-daying FCML. Somehow it never seemed to affect the ship in a negative manner.

12/20/2010 6:38 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're just making shit up, and attributing it to the CDC. I would accuse you of never having heard of the internet, but we're kinda ON it.

Actually it is you who needs to learn how to use the internet. Check out this article, dink.

12/20/2010 7:13 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Key phrase that you missed, dipshit (yeah - I stand by that)

"In a study of 21 major US cities."

Urban gays have HIV at higher rates because there is a higher concentration of disease vectors in the cities. Better care, better bars, all that. The guys with HIV are the partiers, and the partiers move to the cities - not the Army.

How many gay guys in the military do you think come from NYC or Boston?

Chump. There's a difference between reading and understanding. I ran the numbers. They don't add up. Try it yourself. 1 million doesn't equal 3 million, no matter how hard you try. Besides....GIRD? It hasn't been that since before most of our nubs were even BORN, and there's a good reason for that. You're a propagandist, and if you are indeed a submariner, you weren't one recently. We're smarter nowadays.

12/20/2010 7:46 AM

Blogger reddog said...

It will be a big problem in the officer corps.

It will be very clear after the changes are implemented that all officers are Gay. There will be a big push to try and recruit straight men into the officer corps. None will apply.

Eventually, they will have to solicit a hitherto unheard of group for service in the military, straight women.This will change American military culture drastically and mostly eliminate warfare.

12/20/2010 9:08 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like the coolest A-Ganger ever. I lust after his mighty shaft.

12/20/2010 9:32 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The more I think about it, the more I think a gay A-Ganger sounds like a good idea. A little poop gets on you? No big deal!

12/20/2010 9:33 AM

Anonymous Elephant in the Room said...

Hard to know for a fact that being a homosexual is any more deviant -- or "chosen," rather than being of an organic quality -- than, say, becoming a submariner.

But there are things about the DADT repeal that I find disquieting.

For one, the group-think, too-quickly-adopted appeal (largely by Democrats) that being anti-repeal is due to "bigotry."

Tell me honestly, is one a "bigot" if they are against child molesters, who could easily make the very same organic, "this is who we are" claim as homosexuals? If not, then logically why not?

The etymology of the word "bigot," by the way, is rooted in allegedly sanctimonious behavior...specifically, one's frequent use of the oath "by God."

And therein lies the which Joel has ordained -- so far, through inaction by lack of comment -- to be simply worthy of being ignored: homosexuality does clearly go against the word of the Bible.

Boiling down all of the above, the question that remains unasked: "Is homosexuality immoral, and if-so, do we want immoral people with their fingers on the nuclear button?"

For die-hard boneheads who imagine that I'm some "bigot" by their definition of such, I once stood up to quite a lengthy submariner chain-of-command to ensure that a an enlisted nuke -- most likely homosexual, but without overt evidence -- remained in his honorable service. That chain of command included the Commanding Officer, Commodore, Type Commander...and the local NR you can imagine the administrative slap fight that was necessary to emerge victorious. So don't try to hang your anti-gay epithets on me. It won't stick. [For those curious about the apparent dichotomy, lack of evidence/overt behavior eventually triumphed over the most-thundering 'opinions'.]

But at the same time, I am disturbed by the obsequious so-called judgement on the part of many here and elsewhere to set aside any foundation for moral behavior as they are -- without honest dialogue -- choosing to set sail on a path that lacks for moral foundations, or, perhaps worse, invokes "morality" on the basis of collective opinion alone.

That's one very slippery slope. Sample: Nazi Germany.

Prediction: we will see people altogether ignore this core issue of morality, perhaps especially in the submarine force, or address it in a highly superficial (or even prevaricating) way.

[Sample: the JCS Chairman's claim that homosexuals are "required to lie" under DADT.]

Timeframe: immediately.

12/20/2010 9:50 AM

Anonymous Elephant in the Room said...

Hard to know for a fact that being a homosexual is any more deviant -- or "chosen," rather than being of an organic quality -- than, say, becoming a submariner.

But there are things about the DADT repeal that I find disquieting.

For one, the group-think, too-quickly-adopted appeal (largely by Democrats) that being anti-repeal is due to "bigotry."

Tell me honestly, is one a "bigot" if they are against child molesters, who could easily make the very same organic, "this is who we are" claim as homosexuals? If not, then logically why not?

The etymology of the word "bigot," by the way, is rooted in allegedly sanctimonious behavior...specifically, one's frequent use of the oath "by God."

And therein lies the which Joel has ordained -- so far, through inaction by lack of comment -- to be simply worthy of being ignored: homosexuality does clearly go against the word of the Bible.

Boiling down all of the above, the question that remains unasked: "Is homosexuality immoral, and if-so, do we want immoral people with their fingers on the nuclear button?"

For die-hard boneheads who imagine that I'm some "bigot" by their definition of such, I once stood up to quite a lengthy submariner chain-of-command to ensure that a an enlisted nuke -- most likely homosexual, but without overt evidence -- remained in his honorable service. That chain of command included the Commanding Officer, Commodore, Type Commander...and the local NR you can imagine the administrative slap fight that was necessary to emerge victorious. So don't try to hang your anti-gay epithets on me. It won't stick. [For those curious about the apparent dichotomy, lack of evidence/overt behavior eventually triumphed over the most-thundering 'opinions'.]

But at the same time, I am disturbed by the obsequious so-called judgement on the part of many here and elsewhere to set aside any foundation for moral behavior as they are -- without honest dialogue -- choosing to set sail on a path that lacks for moral foundations, or, perhaps worse, invokes "morality" on the basis of collective opinion alone.

That's one very slippery slope. Sample: Nazi Germany.

Prediction: we will see people altogether ignore this core issue of morality, perhaps especially in the submarine force, or address it in a highly superficial (or even prevaricating) way.

[Sample: the JCS Chairman's claim that homosexuals are "required to lie" under DADT.]

Timeframe: immediately.

12/20/2010 9:53 AM

Blogger Curt said...

I love reading this blog. A tolerant bunch - agreeing to disagree, when appropriate.

p.s., 90 % of the 'real Navy' thinks that we're all gay, anyway...

12/20/2010 10:35 AM

Anonymous NHSparky said...

3363 said: "Until WE (that means you too NHSparky) figure out that their are plenty of different people in the world, and WE are powerless to change them, we will never truly have equality."

Problem is, dude, I've never had a problem per se with gay/bi shipmates, as I've stated here numerous times. When are we going to realize it's NOT about "equal" treatment, it's about "SPECIAL" treatment? Why was DADT so horrible? Was a single gay or lesbian person who truly wanted to join prevented from doing so?

It's about the difference between accepting and condoning. It's about someone who all of a sudden isn't a sailor or submariner first. Anything other than the submariner/sailor first can potentially endanger the entire crew when the shit hits the fan.

I'll be the first one in line calling for the head of someone who harms or threatens someone simply because they're gay. What I wouldn't be looking forward to is the innumerable hours wasted telling us how we're supposed to behave, etc. Go back to the Tailhook analogy--I was on AD then. IIRC, there wasn't a single enlisted guy in that gauntlet, but if I also recall correctly, at all those, "You fuckin guys" training lectures we had, how many officers did you see there?

Aircraft carriers and other ships with women on them have problems prior to deployment with unplanned losses. How about when 1 or 2 guys come down with the gonk right before 'Pac, or worse?

Look, I don't give a shit if they guys I worked with were gay or not, provided they could do their jobs and not make their sexuality more important than the mission. What we've achieved here is a standard that says who you are is more important than the team, unit, or mission. No more, no less. People are leaving not because they're afraid of gays, but because of the additional layer of PC-bullshit that's going to be piled on in the coming months and years. Can't say I blame them.

Oh, and for those who equate civilian employment with being on a boat, bad analogy.

12/20/2010 10:42 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you think the CDC study performed in 21 major cities has no statistical relevance outside those cities and not much relavance in general. Amazing. And to revel in such ignorance believing it to be intelligence!

You obviously believe that very few servicemen are recruited from major cities by your question. Military recruiting stations are located in metropolitan areas, not in podunk one horse towns.

Also, you infer that which is not mentioned in the CDC study to suit your own opinion. How the hell do you know what the "partiers" do? Unless of course you are one of them.

The military recruits from the general public, not from isolated groups living in cloistered communities. Occurrences of infectious disease in the general public will be reflected in the military unless policies (DADT) are in place to alter this equation.

Submariners today may be smarter but alas you are not one of them, douchbag. Wow you see, I can throw out personal insults just as easily as a punk like you. Yea, I stand by that.

12/20/2010 10:46 AM

Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

"homosexuality does clearly go against the word of the Bible"

A. Who gives a shit. Push the bible, you're pushing an entire collection of deviant activities (e.g., slavery, ethnic cleansing, subservience of women) roundly condemned by all civilized societies. You're free to advocate for those, too, of course. But don't go to a 'this counts, that doesn't' interpretation to make your point.

B. The gigantic problem with your basic claim is that — even if you do think the bible the unaltered word of your Invisible Friend — biblical condemnation of homosexuality is at best ambiguous and by most fair readings MIA.

C. Under the First Amendment, your personal religious beliefs are allowed (Pecksniffian), but so are mine (tolerant). Keep yours to yourself and I'll do the same.

12/20/2010 10:47 AM

Anonymous NHSparky said...

Duck--you forgot incest, human sacrifice, and public execution.

12/20/2010 10:50 AM

Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

nhsparky: thank you. Maybe we need a new thread to catalog all the truly abhorrent behaviors finding favor in the bible.

12/20/2010 10:54 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

RD - I wouldn't call your personal beliefs "tolerant" - you seem to be quite defensive and intolerant, judging by your rants on this board.

12/20/2010 11:02 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you are going to call someone a douchebag, at least spell it correctly.

12/20/2010 11:14 AM

Blogger Curt said...

12/20/2010 11:15 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't worry, those "abhorrent behaviors" from the bible to which you refer (e.g. incest, polygamy) are now most certainly getting ready to step up and claim their civil rights and place in the military. And of course they will expect your complete acceptance, naturally.

12/20/2010 11:42 AM

Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Just for the record:

Incest and polygamy are felonies in all 50 states.

Sodomy (homo- and hetero-sexual) is legal in all 50 states, per the US Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.

12/20/2010 12:26 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

And, by golly, if it's's moral.

Right? I mean...right?

12/20/2010 12:53 PM

Anonymous Brandon Baker said...

Seriously, we had a guy who would jerk off at battle stations in sonar...14 guys crammed into a room and this dude is floggin the dolphin, yet he wasn't gay so that shit was found to be "funny". I think most people are reacting as though they've never had an interaction with a root smoocher before. They're everywhere. Yes there will be problems, but they'll be handled. Being a submariner stopped being fun the day that kid on the LA killed himself. It was a horrible trajedy, and it directly led to fish not getting tacked on, shellback ceremonies canceled and a bunch of other crap. This is just a natural progression. Besides, without gay submariners, we wouldn't have FT's....

12/20/2010 1:18 PM

Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

"And, by golly, if it's's moral. Right? I mean...right?"

That's kinda up to you, boobie. Right? I mean...right?

12/20/2010 1:31 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Knowing that you pray to the God Of Politics, Duck, you need to learn a little lesson: showing anger is equivalent to demonstrating that you are the loser.

Stiff upper lip and all that.


12/20/2010 1:40 PM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

@just bi-curious said...
"Bubblehead has been silent so far. How do Mormons and their church feel about gays?"

The official Church position on homosexuality is here. Excerpt: “People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are."

The Church teaches that sex outside of legal marriage is wrong, and since homosexual marriage is not legal, then homosexual sex is immoral.

Personally, I'm fine with my Church restricting membership to those who aren't practicing homosexuals. However, I have no problem with what others may do in their own bedroom (or dirty book store back rooms, or wherever) with another consenting adult(s). I'm fairly libertarian that way. Re: gay marriage, my thoughts are at the bottom of this post.

12/20/2010 2:07 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just for the record:
Sodomy was illegal until the homosexual behavior rights groups kept pressing the envelope until these laws were overturned by the Supreme Court. Amazing that anyone would insinuate that this cannot/will not happen with laws against the behavior of other sexual subcultures. And anyone who supports homosexual rights hasn't a leg to stand on to oppose those subcultures getting acceptance. Support would in fact be expected and will soon be called upon. That's not a prediction but a guarantee.

12/20/2010 2:45 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anecdotal, non-statistical predictions like "I'm going to be molested by a phantom pole-smoker in April" are also accepted, but please be prepared to provide verification if your prediction comes true."

Pics or it didn't happen.

12/20/2010 2:50 PM

Blogger MT1(SS)WidgetHead said...

Oh No!!!! The Gays are coming to get us. Oh shit, what do we do next? Help, I'ma' skeert dammit!!!

This whole thing has been waiting to take it's turn on the political turnpike for sometime. We've had gays in the military since we came from the Romans and since Alexander the Great. The gays are already here. They've always been here...does it really matter?

This whole thing is much ado about nothing and here's why...Here at Bangor I walk into ADMIN and I start hitting on the first cute little soccer mom I see or female YN or PS. I run the risk of being written up for articles 82 and 134 and more.

The only thing that matters is if they can do their damned jobs accordingly. That simple topic has been touched upon already, but it seems to be an important one to me. I don't care if you like to suck dick, if that's within your personal interest then go for it. I will say I have a considerable fetish for licking the sweet sultry taste of a girl's pussy as I try and see just how far up inside of her I can place my tongue. Range and depth can be a biggy with girls as I've noticed over the last 5 or 6 years.

As for DADT, My whole attitude is...CAN I TRUST YOU????????????
Just do your damned job accordingly and we'll have no problems. As a straight guy, that's all I want. Afterwords we'll all go out and get a few beers and a Patron shot together as SHIPMATES!!

Yeah, it's that simple Gents. Those of us born in the late 70s to mid 80s don't have that much of a difficulty with gays serving with us. Like I said, this whole thing has been a long time commin'

12/20/2010 4:29 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


So, if I read that right, the Church position is that if it's a "Legal" marriage, then it's ok by the bible? That's a weird definition, which country's laws do they use? If gay marriage is legalized, then it will be ok? Or are there "laws of the church" that they are referring to?

Anon @ 2:45 PM:

Equating homosexuality with bestiality is just ignorant. Animals clearly cannot give consent to marriage or a sexual relationship. That difference is pretty obvious. I'm not sure what the justification is for keeping polygamy illegal, and I'm also not so sure that it really matters if it is made legal. (I'm sure Joel would agree).

12/20/2010 4:35 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The consent of animals to be consumed is not required, why should their consent for usage in sex acts be required? Why should someone who is animal oriented have to deny who they are? If you support the rights of subculture A to their sexual interests then you simply have no leg to stand on to oppose subculture B their's. So long as they do their job, which appears to be the metric of concern for many bubbleheads and skimmer pukes posting on this site, what do you care if as in this one example they prefer to have sex with animals? Once you've started down this slope there is no turning back and no way to stop the slide.

12/20/2010 5:33 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You continue to show your amazing ignorance. Congratulations. While, yes, we do not require to consume animals (as it's a biological necessity to eat), it is widely recognized that we cannot purposefully torture them just for our own enjoyment. An intelligent person would agree that using animals for sex is closer to the former than the latter.

Where do you think the slippery slope started? The moment we stopped stoning gays in the town square? How much gay is ok? Are we disrupting the natural order of the things by giving Negros the same rights as the White man? At what point will your invisible friend in the sky smite us for our transgressions?

12/20/2010 5:49 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, smartass. What about incest? If two consenting adults want to get it on but happen to be brother and sister is that ok? If not, why not?

12/20/2010 6:10 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

And by the way, who's to say that animals can't consent? I've seen plenty of dogs willingly hump a girl's leg - it's not a stretch to think that those dogs would willingly consent if she were in a different position with fewer clothes on. Should she be allowed to do that? For that matter, the dog would probably take Rubber Ducky just as willingly. Should he be allowed to do that? If not, why not?

12/20/2010 6:15 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The donkey show I saw in Mexico is proof that he definately enjoyed his role.

Sex with animals is kind of wierd. Sex with young girls (13-16) is hot!

If we are going there then I say game on!

12/20/2010 7:28 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: incest

1) As far as I know most cases of incest start out as child abuse.

2) incest has genetic consequences that the human race has real reasons to want to prevent. Starting an incest family is sort of like trying to drink heavily during pregnancy knowing that you will give your child FAS.

What specifically is your problem with gay relationships. Why is DADT the line in the sand? What if we retroactively turned all marriages into civil unions that are purely financial in nature, the marriage part only being the religious recognition, not governmental? Would this meet your ethical guidelines or is the only thing to do to make being gay illegal?

12/20/2010 7:49 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's exactly why I said two consenting adults - to remove the child abuse issue. And to answer your genetic concerns, that can be tested for and avoided - just like HIV, which has homosexual behavior as one of its highest risk factors.

Actually, you touched on one of my core beliefs in your discussion. Marriage is a religious, not governmental, function. If you don't like gays marrying, join a church that forbids it and your marriage won't be defiled. Government should decide through the political process which benefits should be conferred on which civil unions.

12/20/2010 8:07 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

And what is a "consenting adult"...exactly?

From Wikipedia:

"The ages of consent in North America for sexual activity vary by jurisdiction.

"The age of consent in Canada is 16 and all US states set their limits between 16 and 18.

"The ages of consent in the countries of Central America range from 15 to 18.

"The age of consent in Mexico is complex. Typically, Mexican states have a "primary" age of consent (which may be as low as 12), and sexual conduct with children below that age is always illegal. Sexual relations between adults and teenagers are left in a legal gray area: laws against adults "corrupting" minors may be used sometimes to punish such sexual encounters, as well as laws against engaging in sexual relations with "chaste and honest" teenage girls by means of "seduction". These laws are situational and are subject to interpretation."

Slippery slope...? We're already there.

12/20/2010 8:19 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

And, according to Rubber Ducky, if it's's moral.

12/20/2010 8:21 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: incest and polygamy

Right now there are people defending a liberal professor who ahtes Sarah Palin and everything she stands for who is being defended by the liberal community because his incest was with an over 18 year old daughter, and therefore, consensual betwen two adults. And Switzerland is debating whether to legalize incest- this link covers both-

As far as slippery slope and polygamy go, there are court cases now in Canada arguing that since gay marriage is allowed, so should be polygamy.

12/20/2010 8:22 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree, if the little lady at 14 is willing then come to papa. Let the two dudes next door play on hershey highway all they want.

Maybe this moral abandonment thing ain't so bad after all?

12/20/2010 8:30 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

And if polygamy is OK, what's up with all the senior submarine officer firings for "adultery?" Bad timing regarding regulations? Sex before 2nd marriage being counted against them as fornication?

Oh wait, fornication is OK's perfectly legal.

Clearly, "Adultery" could be next to go out the window. How European of us. And that's a good thing...right? At least, I've been told to think that by the NY Times.

12/20/2010 8:35 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

On my first ship, USS Austin, back in 1974, I was felt up by a midnight marauder. Woke up and yelled, and my shipmate in the rack below mine swiped out with his knife and almost got him. He bounded away into the next compartment and further and got away. I reported it to the quarterdeck- apparently I wasn't the first, and not the last. But my complaint wasn't logged in.

About two weeks later, someone in deck department berthing managed to fall down three decks worth of ladders. Several witnesses swore to it. He was transferred off, and the midnight molesting miraculously stopped.

Do I see a problem with gays openly serving on ships? Yes.

I suspect most of it will be in the form of "He hurt my feelings- do something!" Sort of like sexual harassment. Gotta be defined by the victim, so the accused, therefore, is always guilty. The complaints will occupy time that is already scarce.

In case you didn't figure it out, I'm not a big fan of women on board ship either. My wife was even less of a fan. I suspect most Navy wives feel the way she did and does.

12/20/2010 8:37 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

With split tails and gays onboard, might as well declare friday nights disco night in LL AMR 1 - complete with velvet ropes and disco ball.

12/20/2010 9:54 PM

Blogger Scuba Steve said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12/20/2010 10:14 PM

Blogger Scuba Steve said...

With perhaps a few exceptions, this will turn out to be a non-issue. Those of us in the military have known this was coming and that it was only a matter of time before DADT was repealed, and as such, are mentally prepared for the repeal. Per the recent poll by DoD, most of us (70% if im not mistaken) feel that this is correct course of action.

However, it seems that the military's quest for equality in the ranks often results in a quota system (intentionally so or not) which requires a certain percentage of minorities, women, etc in leadership/command billets. Unfortunately, it seems that it has sometimes been the case that those individuals were put in said billets more for the reason of their minority (ethinic/sexual) status rather than their actual qualifications for the job. I have not been in the military long enough to be able to give any sort of statistics on this but my guess is that those of you with more experience would not have to look too hard to find examples. The end result is that PC is sometimes placed before mission readiness.

I support the right of all Americans to be treated equally, but it needs to be truly equal treatment, not better-than-equal. Since a CO can no longer be relieved of duty based on sexual orientation (rightly so), a CO should not be placed in command so as to fill a quota for a certain number of homosexual COs or to be the first openly gay CO, etc, but based solely on his or her qualifications for the job.

I want to serve in a truly "colorblind" Navy that neither gives nor does not give preferential treatment based on race, orientation, etc, but rather on ones talents and qualifications. That is true equality and I hope that is what the LBGT lobby wanted. Unfortunately, I find it hard to give the Navy the benefit of the doubt in that the minority status of the first openly gay CO and female sub skipper will not be a deciding factor in the decision to place them in command. I hope that I am proven wrong.

Maybe the Navy will continue their quest for true equality by doing away with the lower physical standards in place for women on the PFA/PRT in addition to allowing them to serve in frontline combatant units, but something tells me that is just wishful thinking...

12/20/2010 10:21 PM

Blogger Uncle Walt said...

Will there be problems at first, of course there will be. Desegration brought some problems, women are still not completely integrated into all the force structures and Tailhook was only the most visible problem associated with sexual integration. But the problems will get resolved. Short term there might be some small impact, long term this is a non-event.

I served with a couple of people who everybody just assumed were gay and as long as they were good at their job, nobody cared.

Some people will care, they will be offended or feel threatened for some reason. Those people will get out and the military will be better off without them.

As an aside, the Isreali military stopped excluding homosexuals from serving in combat or intelligence in 93. There are no restrictions on which MOS a gay Isreali soldier can have and we all know that the Isreali army is man for man as good as any in the world. I haven't heard of any problems with the Brits allowing openly gay service men and women and their forces are almost as good as ours.

Will some gays try to game the system with bogus claims of harrassment or some such bullshit, of course they will. But shitheads like that will always be trying to game the system and fuck the rest of us no matter what gender they fall in love with. Shitheads are shitheads. I have no reason to believe there will be any more or less gay shitheads than straight.

All in all a good conversation, some of you are funny as hell.

12/20/2010 11:10 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's all about choice: One can choose to enter into a monogamous marital relationship (true marriage), one can choose to practice bestiality, or one could choose, as Andrew Dice Clay used to say, to find "love" in another man's hairy a$$hole. Your choice . . .

12/20/2010 11:20 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

When people use examples of other military forces around the world, there is one thing they don't mention:

When things get ugly, who do they call, either overtly or covertly? That's right...America!

Why? Because we are good at killing. Our military-industrial system is unmatched.

Is the repeal of DADT a social and political stunt? Of course it is. Will it really matter in the end? Probably not, I hope not.

Let's face it, the military is a conservative man's world. Gays tend to be moe liberal. Liberals tend to shun the military as a whole. Unless we go on the open market and try to attract gay men, I doubt we see anything different from what we already have. I think, if any change is seen at all, that more lesbians will be attracted to service than anything else.

Anyway, the Navy will "right-size" itself (whatever that means) and life will go on. And who knows, maybe half-way nights will get more interesting again?

Jim C.
Retired ANAV

12/21/2010 9:53 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Part 1

You may wonder what this has to do with DADT; however I inviting you attention back a few months. Please remember, if you will that the Secretary of Defense and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made statements to the effect that nearly 2/3rds of the military budget was going towards “support functions” instead of War Fighting functions. Support functions such as, base housing; exchanges – commissaries; base police responding to the whole spectrum of crimes and “domestic disturbances;” dependent’s benefits and medical, just to name a few of the many items taking away from the War Fighting and R&D Budgets. Remember, they were “complaining” about the short fall in the military budget. Now, they’re patting each other on the back for their “progressive” views and their approval of the repeal of DADT.

If you’ll follow that thought for a moment, please consider one example regarding other than War Fighting Funding cited by a command sergeant major of an Army support unit on another BLOG site regarding dependents. The sergeant major had previously been with several combat units and was presently assigned to a support unit which had a requirement for a “Monthly Muster.” That support command required everyone in that command to fall in with “Full-Battle-Rattle” for the “most demanding” Monthly Muster. The command sergeant major commented that he noted one female member in less than “Full-Battle-Rattle” wandering across the field and into the formation dragging her M-16 by its sling behind her and there was no bayonet in the sheath on her utility belt. The command sergeant major approached her to find out what her major malfunction was and asked her the whereabouts of her bayonet, for starters. She asked, “…the what?” “Where’s your bayonet,” as he was pointing to her empty sheath. “Oh, you mean that pointie-stickie-thingie,” she said. The command sergeant major went on to say that this female had multiple holes in her nostrils and lips, several holes in various parts of her ears and eyebrows for what he believed were for piercings. At least she wasn’t wearing her numerous piercings to muster, he said. Additionally, he stated she lived in base housing with 5 children from 5 different men and of course not married and had great difficulties in getting baby sitters. This meant she didn’t show up for her duties on a regular basis. The command sergeant major also noted his retirement papers had been submitted just prior to his BLOG posting as “his Army” had “lost its way.”

So steering the thought process towards funding drains, this one example is submitted to evoke thought. I’m reasonably sure that the readers can come up with dozens more examples from their experiences and may be able to see possible detrimental effects of “poor” political decisions regarding the repeal of DADT.


12/21/2010 10:17 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Part 2

Now compounding all of this with what I believe to be possibly the “radical homosexual agenda” which may most probably open up a whole other Pandora’s Box of War Fighting Budget draining situations and requirements. For example, does this mean your significant other can now get its sex change operation at the base hospital at the tax payer’s expense?

Additionally, the “radical homosexual agenda” has absolutely nothing to do with War Fighting capabilities but may very well be using the military to not only open up other avenues, but to tear down the military in general.

If you will, let you mind go down those “ugly” streets and you may also see a further funding drain as a significant consequence of the repeal of DADT, let alone having a “flamboyant personality” in your watch section.

With all of this there seems to be a concerted effort to tear this great Country and Military down from as many directions as “they” can attack and overwhelm “Our” System.

A parting thought: How many times in your life have you been in people’s faces telling them you’re a heterosexual? Then, please explain to me why it’s necessary for “those others” to be in other people’s faces, nearly every second of every day announcing at the top of their lungs their personal preferences.

Like Tommy Lee Jones told Harrison Ford in the movie Fugitive, “…I don’t care!...”


12/21/2010 10:20 AM

Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Jesus there's a lot of weird shit posted here...

12/21/2010 10:24 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


No kiddin'. I told you - we're getting freeped. Some loser felt outnumbered by those of us with common sense and posted a nice little link on a conservative message board with a "come hither" message - and the nutbags poured on in.

I think Joel's earlier posting about the Tea Party nonsense was probably what brought them here originally.

12/21/2010 11:17 AM

Blogger Rudder Amidships said...

@Rubber Ducky,

I agree there is a lot of wierd shit here. I just read through all these comments and I feel a little more dumb after reading some of them. Some are right on target.

@the topic at hand:

Predictions: There will be a tough transition that will be hidden form the public eye. Any incidents will get swept under the rug like we've been doing on the boats the last few decades anyway. On my last boat we had two guys get caught in the rack. We were briefed to STFU and not say anything.

That being said, I think cases like that are rare and submariners are professionals who will get the fuck over it.

We care about you not being a dinq nub and getting in the watch rotation. Do your job and play how you want at home. I've worked with some guys who were gay, and I've worked with some who were severely homophobic. If you are in anyone's face about one side or the other, get over your self. I don't want to hear people proclaim they are or aren't for it. Just hang the tagout and open the WAF.

From the others in the force I've talked to, this seems to be a common consensus.


12/21/2010 11:58 AM

Blogger MT1(SS)WidgetHead said...

That's true RD...and I don't have much room to talk after my drunken rant from last night either.

We've all seen this coming. Most of the guys I serve with don't have a problem with DADT being disolved. What I think is funny is some of the posters here who think the whole world is going to hell because DADT is going away.

Rudder Amidships said...
"submariners are professionals who will get the fuck over it."

That thought right there sums up this whole endeavor in a nutshell.
Pretty simple is it not?

12/21/2010 12:31 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This new learning amazes me! Explain to me again how acceptance of homosexuality does not risk the advance of pedophilia?

And while you're at it, how sheep's bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes?

12/21/2010 1:45 PM

Anonymous News Reader said...

I disagree with the notion that if Israel's military does X then X must be a good thing for American armed forces, I do not buy that.

I also am not buying the common truism that the Israeli Defense Forces is as good as any in the world. Who have they fought? Lately? The last time they stepped out of country was four years ago and they got their asses kicked in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a lightly armed paramilitary group. That is the most recent time the IDF fought ... and they lost. Yes it was ballsy of them to bomb that Iraqi nuclear powerplant ... 30 years ago ... back in 1981.

12/21/2010 2:32 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

No good comes from homosexuality. None. Forty years of propaganda be damned. It brings disease, suffering, anguish and death wherever it is found.

Why do you think so-called "gays" are so adamant to have "straights" affirm and accept their deviancy? Because they fully understand it but cannot accept the awful truth so, a la Leon Festinger's original Cognitive Dissonance thesis, they are compelled to seek affirmation and bring fresh converts to salve their guilt- and trauma-ridden consciences.

I don't care if you are or are not a believing Christian, pal. To embrace homosexuality is to bring doom upon the individual and destruction to the society that harbors it.

Darwinists neo and paleo must admit homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. Psychologists and philosophers must admit that it is the ultimate form of narcissism in its utter rejection of the opposite sex, foregoing even children except under Frankenstein-like circumstances that belie the truth of their mental affliction at odds with biological reality.

Now tell me, what is "hate" and what is "love"? Death - or life?

You choose for yourself, but I'll be damned if I'll let you choose for me and my family or, by extension, my people.

12/21/2010 2:45 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Homosexuality and child abuse are facets of Islamic culture that exists in every Muslim country.

As a young traveler in the Middle East a few decades ago I was hit on by middle aged men everywhere I went. Where do you think they get youths enraged and disturbed enough to commit suicide for some political purpose? Child abuse creates rage and the urge to purify oneself with a 'noble' act. Women arent the only victims of the severe patriarchal tenets of Islam. Now WE are the victims as the abused and suicidal youngsters grow up and strap on the explosives, attacking our 'immoral' society. We should withdraw our troops from Afghanistan and leave them to their fate.

12/21/2010 2:54 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gays make up 1 to 3% of the population, yet, make up 30% of sexual crimes with children. Significant issues like this are being ignored by the ignorant.

12/21/2010 2:56 PM

Blogger Rudder Amidships said...

Looks like we are way off topic again. Wasn't the original intent of this post to discuss the effect of the repeal process on the military, and the submarine force specifically? Discussing the evils and merits of homosexuality have nothing to do with this AND the argument is moot considering that the senate has already voted and Obama has already indicated he will sign.

As one poster earlier commented, I think we have spillover from non-submarine bloggers who are angry.


12/21/2010 3:05 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


1. 1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,
1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 6 (Whole Chapter)

2. Jude 1:7
What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us of the punishment of eternal fire. The people of these cities suffered the same fate that God’s people and the angels did, because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities.
Jude 1:6-8 (in Context) Jude 1 (Whole Chapter)

3. Leviticus 18:22
“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
Leviticus 18:21-23 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)

4. Leviticus 20:13
“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
Leviticus 20:12-14 (in Context) Leviticus 20 (Whole Chapter)

5. 1 Timothy 1:10
for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
1 Timothy 1:9-11 (in Context) 1 Timothy 1 (Whole Chapter)

Also, from Joel's earlier link regarding the Mormon Church:

"In the Bible Paul preached to the Romans that homosexual behavior was sinful (see Romans 1:24-32)."

The Duck is...yet once again...proven to be a liar and an idiot who apparently doesn't know about such basic things as "the Google." No wonder someone as ignorant of the Bible speaks of such things as "Invisible Friend."

12/21/2010 3:09 PM

Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Sore losers, I'd say. Certainly losers.

12/21/2010 3:09 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sadly, decisions such as open homosexuality in the military is how a society - and, in our case, a civilization - dies. It is too late to salvage it - we must look to rebuilding when the dust settles.

12/21/2010 3:13 PM

Blogger Rudder Amidships said...

Not hating here, but Anon @3:09:

How many submariners do you think are Christians. Probably not as many as you think. I'm not saying you are wrong to believe in the scripture, by all means believe away, but assuming that we all should fall in line with your beliefs is rather foolish. I mean no disrespect to the faith.

If the scripture were THAT important to submariners, I would not have witnessed some of the things I have seen in liberty ports.

Get off your high horse.


12/21/2010 3:14 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

News: "WikiLeaks: American Troops Horrified by Afghan Forces Rampant Homosexuality and Pedophilia"

12/21/2010 3:25 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This has been going on since time immemorial thoughout the Muslim world; the purpose of it is not difficult to discern; it is to uphold the patrarchial system by not only using women as child bearers and sex providers, but where no legal access to sex with females is available, children are used. Of course, to deflect any negative consequences for the notion of the virtuous Muslim male, it is the children themselves that are blamed and punished if these are caught.

I know of a case in Morocco where a boy of 9 was raped by a gang of adult males, and it was the boy that ended up in prison. You can guess what happened to him in there.

The way they justify this and avoid being condemned as homosexual themselves, the Muslim idea is that only the 'recipient' or passive partrner is homosexual, not the active participant; a concept usually reversed in the Christian thinking.

12/21/2010 3:28 PM

Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

12/21/2010 3:09 PM:

By the way, tell us again which boat you qualified on.

12/21/2010 3:29 PM

Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

12/21/2010 3:09 PM:

My burning bush can beat up your burning bush any day...

And again, the name of the boat you qualified in. Thanks.

12/21/2010 3:48 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

No such boat. Good try though.

12/21/2010 3:50 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now WTF??

Joel secure this ridiculous thread already. By how many degrees are we off course here anyway?

12/21/2010 4:34 PM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

Deleted a comment that was too personal. Closing comments.

12/21/2010 5:43 PM


<< Home