So frustrated with the Army...

[alpha62]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I never said I wasn't waving my own freak flag in a heterosexual manner.

That's why the army used to be fun. You could get the kinks out overseas where nobody could see you. Then, you come back, take your 9-5 job and pay taxes and sleep with the same woman the rest of your life.

Everybody used to know what the deal was. It was work hard, play hard. Now it's just work hard, while the ass clowns running the show now are just pimping us all out trying to pull one over on the public

 

[Heeed!]

Yes, I knew I was probably gay when I signed my very first military contract at the age of 19, but I grew up an army brat and thought that many people didn't care. There were a couple of soldiers that I worked with as a "summer hire" during high school, who were completely honest about themselves, so I didn't think it would be a big deal.

That was reinforced during my years of service in the reserves and as an ROTC cadet, when no one seemed to mind that I was gay. In fact, I was gay and was still selected as the battalion commander for my school. Not only that, but the air force and marine corps ROTC also both had homosexuals as the head cadets at the time. Did I scream at the top of my lungs, "I'm gay!?" No, but my commandant and BC saw me on the cover of our university newspaper with a gay pride symbol, and joked around about it with me, so it wasn't a secret. In my reserve unit, most of us saw each other around town in our civilian lives, and no one raised an eyebrow when they saw me holding hands with boys or walking to the only big gay bar in town.

This illustrates where you were wrong in the first place. You knew what the rule was before you joined but for whatever reason, you thought it wouldn't be enforced. You call it "unenlightened." That's fine if you want to view it that way. Call it whatever you want. But it's the rule. If you have a problem with the rules, talk to those that make them. You and West Side continue to defend your behavior, which is impossible. You knew the rule...you knew you'd be breaking it...you chose not to obey the rule. And trying to justify it all by describing this homosexual utopia ROTC brigade is nauseating. Just because they were gay and didn't enforce the law doesn't mean everyone will treat your violation with the same ambivalence. Personally, I don't care if you're gay. Just as Coastie said, you violated a rule you knew you wouldn't be able to keep. You made a bad choice and are here trying to give us your rational for doing so. It doesn't matter the reasons why you did it. The policy is what it is, so you'll have to deal with the ramifications of your own behavior.

And to West Side and every other civilian reading this, quit talking about how outdated DADT is, and how if you're homophobic you need to join everyone in the latest century. YOU'RE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE!!! We're in the military.... THE MILITARY IS LED BY AND OBEYS CIVILIANS. We are the instruments of the policy YOU DECIDE. If you don't like the rules and laws we have to obey, THEN CHANGE THEM. Otherwise, don't get upset at those military members who merely follow the policies that you create.

 

[Coastie]

Heeed! is on target once again.

This illustrates where you were wrong in the first place. You knew what the rule was before you joined but for whatever reason, you thought it wouldn't be enforced. You call it "unenlightened." That's fine if you want to view it that way. Call it whatever you want. But it's the rule. If you have a problem with the rules, talk to those that make them. You and West Side continue to defend your behavior, which is impossible. You knew the rule...you knew you'd be breaking it...you chose not to obey the rule. And trying to justify it all by describing this homosexual utopia ROTC brigade is nauseating. Just because they were gay and didn't enforce the law doesn't mean everyone will treat your violation with the same ambivalence. Personally, I don't care if you're gay. Just as Coastie said, you violated a rule you knew you wouldn't be able to keep. You made a bad choice and are here trying to give us your rational for doing so. It doesn't matter the reasons why you did it. The policy is what it is, so you'll have to deal with the ramifications of your own behavior.

And to West Side and every other civilian reading this, quit talking about how outdated DADT is, and how if you're homophobic you need to join everyone in the latest century. YOU'RE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE!!! We're in the military.... THE MILITARY IS LED BY AND OBEYS CIVILIANS. We are the instruments of the policy YOU DECIDE. If you don't like the rules and laws we have to obey, THEN CHANGE THEM. Otherwise, don't get upset at those military members who merely follow the policies that you create.

 

[alpha62]

Now if we could just get all the heteros in boots to stick to the missionary position, all will be well.

You try and get some R and R in the Q with the female officer across the hall, you change positions long enough to take a pull of a "fowty" and boom, they got you for sodomy.

We're getting our ass taken to the cleaners in Iraq, and these REMFs actually have the time to burn chasing this crap down.

 

[Coastie]

We are NOT getting our ass taken to the cleaners in Iraq.

Once again, you open your mouth, and it's full of bitterness, painting the entire military as a bunch of dishonorable freaks, and losers in Iraq.

Who are you, Nancy Pelosi? Chuck Schumer? I only spot-respond to your posts because getting into a long discussion just ain't worth it, but this kind of crap can't go completely unanswered.

Now if we could just get all the heteros in boots to stick to the missionary position, all will be well.

You try and get some R and R in the Q with the female officer across the hall, you change positions long enough to take a pull of a "fowty" and boom, they got you for sodomy.

We're getting our ass taken to the cleaners in Iraq, and these REMFs actually have the time to burn chasing this crap down.

 

[MonkeyRalph]

I've realized that after all the nasty PMs I've gotten and reading the posts on this forum, the main reason why people are so up in arms about this is because they are envious of the position I'm in. If you wanted to get out and couldn't, don't take it out on me. It's not some master plan I had to get out of the army to rub it in your faces. Geez. Simmer down people!
Maybe I should just take what happened as a blessing and be glad to be away from douchebags like yourselves.

As for Heeed's anal retentive "stick to the rules" bu!!$h!x. When trained as an officer, part of what we learned is that if an order or law is unconstitutional, you should defend the constitution and ignore the unlawful order. Yes, I understand that I signed away some of my own constitutional rights when I joined the army, and that the constitutionality of DADT has not been successfully challenged in a court of law. However, I did what I thought was right at the time. I was honest and upheld every army value to the utmost of my abilities while still maintaining my sanity. If it turns out I was wrong, oh well. Everyone makes mistakes. I learned from mine and will be a better person because of it.

I understand the point of view that the laws and policies should be upheld no matter what. However, it's that kind of black-and-white thinking that leads to robots taking over the world. Why should we have people making decisions when robots are infallible? I don't wanna be a cyborg.

 

[alpha62]

We are NOT getting our ass taken to the cleaners in Iraq.

Once again, you open your mouth, and it's full of bitterness, painting the entire military as a bunch of dishonorable freaks, and losers in Iraq.

Who are you, Nancy Pelosi? Chuck Schumer? I only spot-respond to your posts because getting into a long discussion just ain't worth it, but this kind of crap can't go completely unanswered.

Not the whole military, but it's growing... http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/army_caseyredline_070917p/

I don't know what your duty is, but it sounds pretty soft... and insulated.
Try reading the MP blotter sometime.

Difference between me and you. I was a citizen soldier, you appear to be bureacrat in the making.

 

[MeganRose]

The reason is that many of the front line soldiers/marines/airmen/whatever in the military come from conservative backgrounds and would not be comfortable serving in the trenches (and showering with) openly gay service members. This would hurt morale, recruiting and ultimately combat effectiveness. In addition, enemy states would integrate this into their propaganda and psychological operations. While I support gay rights (including marriage), from a practical point of view abandoning DADT could damage national security. I think the military should waive DADT for certain high-value positions such as Arabic/Korean translators, health professionals and other non front-line combat positions though.

This simply isn't true and spoken like someone who hasn't been there. I know that in the Army it gets to the point where the people you spend so much time with are like family and their orientation is very much secondary to their ability to lead and protect their platoon, whether or not you would trust this person to make decisions that can literally be life or death. I've known two people that were gay and in the Army and as long as they weren't flaming, it simply was not an issue.

 

[alpha62]

This simply isn't true and spoken like someone who hasn't been there. I know that in the Army it gets to the point where the people you spend so much time with are like family and their orientation is very much secondary to their ability to lead and protect their platoon, whether or not you would trust this person to make decisions that can literally be life or death. I've known two people that were gay and in the Army and as long as they weren't flaming, it simply was not an issue.

Anybody that wants to waste 18-24 months of his life in this Iraq goat rope is welcome to it. I don't care what they do when the generator goes out at night.

Better them, than me. This is an issue that only a REMF cares about, talking from the comfort and safety of their locked in non-deployable Residency program, safely tucked away, riding out the war and the draw-down.

We don't have the luxury of turning people away. If we had plenty of bodies to go around, their wouldn't be any talk of of pulling out of Iraq.


You're gay and you want to fill a slot (no pun intended) in Iraq, go for it. Better you than me, because it's a waste of time anyway and my straight ass has better things to do with my life anyway.

 

[West Side]

This illustrates where you were wrong in the first place. You knew what the rule was before you joined but for whatever reason, you thought it wouldn't be enforced. You call it "unenlightened." That's fine if you want to view it that way. Call it whatever you want. But it's the rule. If you have a problem with the rules, talk to those that make them. You and West Side continue to defend your behavior, which is impossible. You knew the rule...you knew you'd be breaking it...you chose not to obey the rule. And trying to justify it all by describing this homosexual utopia ROTC brigade is nauseating. Just because they were gay and didn't enforce the law doesn't mean everyone will treat your violation with the same ambivalence. Personally, I don't care if you're gay. Just as Coastie said, you violated a rule you knew you wouldn't be able to keep. You made a bad choice and are here trying to give us your rational for doing so. It doesn't matter the reasons why you did it. The policy is what it is, so you'll have to deal with the ramifications of your own behavior.

And to West Side and every other civilian reading this, quit talking about how outdated DADT is, and how if you're homophobic you need to join everyone in the latest century. YOU'RE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE!!! We're in the military.... THE MILITARY IS LED BY AND OBEYS CIVILIANS. We are the instruments of the policy YOU DECIDE. If you don't like the rules and laws we have to obey, THEN CHANGE THEM. Otherwise, don't get upset at those military members who merely follow the policies that you create.

If you want to continue to live under the fantasy that life is a matter of binary situations (yes/no, wrong/right), then you're probably right that defending this is "impossible".

If we take your world view, then I have to get that donkey out of the bathtub, and while I'm at it, I better cop to farting after 6pm in Pensacola a few spring breaks ago. They're ALL laws still on the books, and as such must be enforced, right Heeed!? Off to the salt mine for me, folks!

http://crazytopics.blogspot.com/2007/01/craziest-laws-in-america.html

 

[Heeed!]

As for Heeed's anal retentive "stick to the rules" bu!!$h!x. When trained as an officer, part of what we learned is that if an order or law is unconstitutional, you should defend the constitution and ignore the unlawful order. Yes, I understand that I signed away some of my own constitutional rights when I joined the army, and that the constitutionality of DADT has not been successfully challenged in a court of law. However, I did what I thought was right at the time. I was honest and upheld every army value to the utmost of my abilities while still maintaining my sanity. If it turns out I was wrong, oh well. Everyone makes mistakes. I learned from mine and will be a better person because of it.

So let me get this straight (sts): you're comparing DADT to an illegal order that you're morally and constitutionally obligated to disobey? Just because you did what you thought was right doesn't, in fact, actually make it right. We're not playing moral relativism here...this is the military, which is very much "black and white" when it comes to the rules. In many ways we are like robots, as you've said. But we're taught to be honorable and use our brains when a questionable order is given to kill innocent civilians, for example. I think you're on shaky ground if you're going to try and compare DADT to Mei Lei. But you'll be more comfortable in the civilian world with West Side et al and away from all us “douchebags.” You made a mistake, so suck it up and deal with it. Learn from it and when the Army is done with you, press on with your life. Make sure you continue wearing your orientation on your sleeve and go into politics so in all your civilian glory, you can effect policy change for the military. Because as we all know, what we really need is more sex scandals coming out (sts) of Washington.

 

[Heeed!]

If you want to continue to live under the fantasy that life is a matter of binary situations (yes/no, wrong/right), then you're probably right that defending this is "impossible".

You are right...defending this is impossible. Life is not all black and white but the military does its best to make it that way so there aren't any excuses when you get in trouble. The rules are clear. Obey them. You're not in the military so you're not going to understand anyway. But while good soldiers are obeying the order to "go take that hill," you'd be back picking your nose and saying "I don't want to."

By the way, you sound a little nuts.

 

[Galo]

Unfortunately the mentallity of black/white, on/off, does not apply well to medicine and a lot of situations in which soldiers find themselves in. Another unfortunate side effect is you get people who interpret the rules that way, act like robots, and harm people including the one's they are supposed to be defending.

Critical thinking is something that the military discourages, often in fields that rely upon that ability for success.

The issue of gays in the military is outdated, stupid, and *****ic. Much like many of the biggots who run the military often use the UCMJ to their advantage and self service.

I'm sorry Monkey Ralph is going through this crap with the Army. They should just kick him out according to the rules, not screw with him needlessly at the expense of the system and his well being. Unfortunately, when it comes to applying the rules, its often at the discretion of the ***** who is in charge and his biases.

Yet another reason medicine in the military is screwed!!

 

[MonkeyRalph]

So let me get this straight (sts): you're comparing DADT to an illegal order that you're morally and constitutionally obligated to disobey? Just because you did what you thought was right doesn't, in fact, actually make it right. We're not playing moral relativism here...this is the military, which is very much "black and white" when it comes to the rules. In many ways we are like robots, as you've said. But we're taught to be honorable and use our brains when a questionable order is given to kill innocent civilians, for example. I think you're on shaky ground if you're going to try and compare DADT to Mei Lei. But you'll be more comfortable in the civilian world with West Side et al and away from all us “douchebags.” You made a mistake, so suck it up and deal with it. Learn from it and when the Army is done with you, press on with your life. Make sure you continue wearing your orientation on your sleeve and go into politics so in all your civilian glory, you can effect policy change for the military. Because as we all know, what we really need is more sex scandals coming out (sts) of Washington.

Thanks for the advice. I'm not sure you meant to restate what I said in the post you were replying to and claim it as your own suggestion, but yes, I said I made a mistake and learned from it and will be a better person because of it. I did not say that I now believe that DADT is anywhere near comparable to unlawful orders. I said that, AT THE TIME that this happened, that was my frame of reference. I thought I was doing what was honest and right. Though, now I understand I was mistaken. People are naive at times and people grow. I'm still growing up and learning.

 

[MonkeyRalph]

For anyone who is curious. I called the office in charge of my separation yesterday and was told that I am definitely out of the army, but my case is being reviewed by the recoupment office. It's been in their office for almost 4 months now because they aren't sure whether to require recoupment or not because this was an involuntary separation.

Personally, I don't care whether they want my money or not. I probably owe them less than $45,000 for the two years of med school and stipend that they gave me. I owe them nothing from ROTC as far as cash goes because I was a non-scholarship cadet. I would gladly pay now and get on with my life, but I have to wait for them to fight it out. Personally, I would feel terrible if they decided not to charge me, because I really would like to pay back my debt. I guess I'll just have to wait and see. If they forgive my debt, I'm definitely going to make a sizable donation to the CFC after I finish residency.

 

[pgg]

Stop trying to bring race into this to support your argument. Your opinion is so naive that it is not even worth responding to.

Right, because there are absolutely no parallels, nada, none, between the arguments used to denigrate and keep blacks out, and those used to keep gays out.

I spent 3 years with Marine infantry. You can't tell me that many of the southern white boys who got along fine with black Marines didn't come from families that had KKK members a couple generations back. And I have zero doubt that a couple generations down the road, we'll be looking back at DADT with the same sense of national embarrassment we now have toward the concept of segregated schools.

All that said, MonkeyRalph knew the rules when he signed up, so I'm not exactly overflowing with sympathy for his particular situation. I'm more disgusted with the policy and those who defend it than I am supportive of individuals who cash years of scholarship checks before running afoul of old, well known rules. However bigoted those rules may be.

By the way, [West Side sounds] a little nuts.

West Side has no connection to or experience with medicine or the military beyond being engaged to an HPSP recipient who cried about her military match results. He was willing to "play dirty" and do anything - they even considered the tactic of pretending to be gay - in order to help her scam her way out of her commitment. I think "nuts" is a polite term to describe his pathology.

But even though he's dishonest and narcissistic, he's right to criticize the military's policy on gays.

 

[alpha62]

get out, finish training, come back as a contractor and sit right next to the same hypocrites that are busting your chops right now.... only earning 2-3 x what they're making.

This system is so whacked, they'll probably go for it. They've hired trannies to work as contract docs in MTFs, why not you.

 

[BCLee]

Not the whole military, but it's growing... http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/army_caseyredline_070917p/

I don't know what your duty is, but it sounds pretty soft... and insulated.
Try reading the MP blotter sometime.

Difference between me and you. I was a citizen soldier, you appear to be bureacrat in the making.

What is/was your MOS or mission overseas?

I did a FST tour and a line medic tour w/ mech infantry, so I'm pretty sure my non-bureaucrat credentials are solid. But I'm with Coastie on at least one point: you're not making any arguments--you're just trying to make clever little attacks on the military. And it's kinda weak.

This simply isn't true and spoken like someone who hasn't been there. I know that in the Army it gets to the point where the people you spend so much time with are like family and their orientation is very much secondary to their ability to lead and protect their platoon, whether or not you would trust this person to make decisions that can literally be life or death. I've known two people that were gay and in the Army and as long as they weren't flaming, it simply was not an issue.

Respectfully, I'd disagree with you. Based on your UN, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you're a female, and therefore, not combat arms, where the kind of solider who's most likely to have a problem with homosexual is often found.

It's been my experience that, flaming or not, homosexuality is an issue for many infantry types, and I've seen it cause problems. Unfortunately, it's also the part of the Army where issues with unit performance are most critical.

 

[MonkeyRalph]

It's been my experience that, flaming or not, homosexuality is an issue for many infantry types, and I've seen it cause problems. Unfortunately, it's also the part of the Army where issues with unit performance are most critical.

That's one thing I agree with you on. Many infantry joes have never even known a homosexual before they joined the military. In that situation, I do agree that the utmost care should be exercised as far as homosexuality is concerned. I spent a month with 2ID in Korea after NALC as a CTLT. One night, the other platoon leaders and my PSG tried to buy me a russian hooker. (I'm totally not joking). Needless to say, that didn't go over well. I hoped that going MSC or medical corps would distance me from that sort of behavior.

However, when the policy does change in the next few years, those people will just have to learn to deal with it and join the rest of the modern world. The UK, Israel, and Australia, as well as many other countries, have militaries which allow openly homosexual soldiers to serve, and studies have shown that the change in policy had absolutely no impact on their military readiness or esprit de corps.

 

[Flopotomist]

While I support gay rights (including marriage), from a practical point of view abandoning DADT could damage national security. I think the military should waive DADT for certain high-value positions such as Arabic/Korean translators, health professionals and other non front-line combat positions though.

Wow. I could not disagree with you more strongly. The 18-24 year olds of today don't care nearly as much about this as the 60-80 year olds who set policy.

Interesting that you should mention national security as a reason to keep DADT, I would argue that national security is harmed MORE when amazing future physicians like MonkeyRalph are not allowed to go serve. People like me (former active duty Arabic translator) can't serve while there is clearly a HUGE need for my skills. Your "waiver" idea is simply an insulting solution.

In 1948, the same argument was used by Gen Eisenhower as opposition to the integration of Blacks in the military (a threat to national security, morale, blah blah blah). That worked out just fine, and integrating gays will eventually work out just fine as well.

 

[MeganRose]

What is/was your MOS or mission overseas?

I did a FST tour and a line medic tour w/ mech infantry, so I'm pretty sure my non-bureaucrat credentials are solid. But I'm with Coastie on at least one point: you're not making any arguments--you're just trying to make clever little attacks on the military. And it's kinda weak.Respectfully, I'd disagree with you. Based on your UN, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you're a female, and therefore, not combat arms, where the kind of solider who's most likely to have a problem with homosexual is often found.

It's been my experience that, flaming or not, homosexuality is an issue for many infantry types, and I've seen it cause problems. Unfortunately, it's also the part of the Army where issues with unit performance are most critical.

Sooo. I talked about this with my fiance who was an Engineer, and he said that people in his unit wouldn't be as open minded as me. I was combat support (MP) so admittedly my view is a bit skewed. I still feel for the predominance of the military that the exclusion of homosexulas is unecessary.

 

[alpha62]

What is/was your MOS or mission overseas?

I did a FST tour and a line medic tour w/ mech infantry, so I'm pretty sure my non-bureaucrat credentials are solid. But I'm with Coastie on at least one point: you're not making any arguments--you're just trying to make clever little attacks on the military. And it's kinda weak.Respectfully, I'd disagree with you. Based on your UN, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you're a female, and therefore, not combat arms, where the kind of solider who's most likely to have a problem with homosexual is often found.

It's been my experience that, flaming or not, homosexuality is an issue for many infantry types, and I've seen it cause problems. Unfortunately, it's also the part of the Army where issues with unit performance are most critical.

65D 21D
6DM2 Aviation
91B ADA Germany 1982, you were probably still in diapers then.

I think the military is great, it's dinguses in the military, especially MEDCOM that make it suck for everybody else. Which one are you ?

You careerist have done a great job of running this military right into the ground. You're so worried about your retirement, your OER , you lacked the guts to speak up and it goes all the way up to the next retired general running his mouth now, when he should have ran it last year.

BTW, we had a few gay guys in Division in Korea. They let it fly. But then again, A mouth is a mouth when no females are around.

the army has always been a pretty sleezy lifestyle, the more you true believers try to shine it on, the worse it gets seem like.

maybe everybody ought to just quit livin the lie.

 

[Mirror Form]

I've realized that after all the nasty PMs I've gotten and reading the posts on this forum, the main reason why people are so up in arms about this is because they are envious of the position I'm in. If you wanted to get out and couldn't, don't take it out on me.

Oh yeah, I'm sure it's a coincidence that you just happened to not bother making your orientation official while the military was paying for med school. But then when payback came around, all of a sudden it became so convenient to turn a new moral leaf where you couldn't hide your orientation any longer.

The unbelievable part is that you're actually complaining about how the military isn't making it easy for you!

 

[Mirror Form]

The OP joined with the intent of never telling anyone. That follows the spirit of the law, if not the letter.

So your argument is that if someone signs up with that intent, then it's okay to break it later? Because they signed up in good faith?

What's the point of legal documents or contracts then? I mean honestly, we can just say that we signed them in good faith, but changed our minds in good faith later. You must be an awesome lawyer!

 

[Mirror Form]

and integrating gays will eventually work out just fine as well.

It in all liklihood it probably will, although sharing a shower knozzle with a gay dude will be kind of weird.

Regardless, that's besides the point. If homosexuals want to be open about their sexual orientation then they shouldn't sign a contract that relinquishes that right. And if they do sign such a contract, then don't whine about getting in trouble for breaking it.

 

[Flopotomist]

It in all liklihood it probably will, although sharing a shower knozzle with a gay dude will be kind of weird.

I am so tired of this ridiculous argument. First, Walmart sells shower curtains that work quite well. Seems to be no problem with heterosexual men and women finding a way to shower, so I imagine that with a little ingenuity a solution can be found for this one too.

As an aside, I always found it interesting that the proponents of this argument tend to be fat, hairy-backed, little-dicked monstrosities who should be honored at the extremely unlikely occurance that anybody of any sexual orientation was looking at them.

 

[MonkeyRalph]

Oh yeah, I'm sure it's a coincidence that you just happened to not bother making your orientation official while the military was paying for med school. But then when payback came around, all of a sudden it became so convenient to turn a new moral leaf where you couldn't hide your orientation any longer.

The unbelievable part is that you're actually complaining about how the military isn't making it easy for you!

You really don't know how to read posts before you respond to them do you? This is like the sixth time you've done that. The military had only paid for 1 year of med school when the whole ordeal started. So, I wouldn't really say that I "conveniently" came out of the closet 3 years before payback to avoid having to pay it back. That first year of tuition at my school was less than $14,000. I had at least two times that in my savings at the time. It's ridiculous to think I would take a scholarship and then try to take 14K and run.

 

[alpha62]

You wanna lecture somebody about honoring a contract.....

Why don't you tell that to a stop-lossed soldier sometime.

The outfit we're talking about has a long history of changing the rules when ever they feel like it.

It ain't the army like it's some disenbodied machine. Most of the time when things go wrong or somebody gets screwed it's got a name and a face attached to it

 

[West Side]

So your argument is that if someone signs up with that intent, then it's okay to break it later? Because they signed up in good faith?

What's the point of legal documents or contracts then? I mean honestly, we can just say that we signed them in good faith, but changed our minds in good faith later. You must be an awesome lawyer!

I simply noted that being gay, inandof itself is not really what's prohibited. As I've said, there are plenty of gays already in the military.

What I AM saying is that it is the act of being reported to/telling someone that IS against the private club code by which the military governs itself. If you're gay, and a) do not engage in homosexual acts, b) don't tell anyone and c) no-one asks, then I believe everything would be fine. Signing a contract with a good faith intent to uphold all three would appear to me to be all square.

Please read more carefully before hitting the reply button.

 

[Mirror Form]

I am so tired of this ridiculous argument. First, Walmart sells shower curtains that work quite well. Seems to be no problem with heterosexual men and women finding a way to shower, so I imagine that with a little ingenuity a solution can be found for this one too.

Have you ever been through any military training camps? Hetero women and men have different barracks, bathrooms, showers, etc. Whereas, in the male barracks, the room w/ showers is so crowded that there are two people to each shower nozzle. Hence, curtains would really just make things a lot more sketchy.

Most guys in most units would still probably be cool with it. But, it would still be kind of weird to know the guy who's inches away from you is gay (not really sure why you're so offended by me stating the obvious).

As an aside, I always found it interesting that the proponents of this argument tend to be fat, hairy-backed, little-dicked monstrosities who should be honored at the extremely unlikely occurance that anybody of any sexual orientation was looking at them.

Based on your non-sensical response to my above comment (go buy shower curtains? Great, now me and my battle buddy can be alone together while showering inches apart), I'm not surprised that you have something this stupid to say. Although, since I'm not frequently checking out how hot guys are, and checking out their dick size (like you apparently are), then maybe I've just overlooked this pattern. BTW, you make a great argument for men wanting to shower next to you!

 

[Mirror Form]

You wanna lecture somebody about honoring a contract.....

Why don't you tell that to a stop-lossed soldier sometime.

The outfit we're talking about has a long history of changing the rules when ever they feel like it.

It ain't the army like it's some disenbodied machine. Most of the time when things go wrong or somebody gets screwed it's got a name and a face attached to it

Well, I do agree with you that when it comes to contracts, the military has a history of screwing people over. That's pretty much the best justification I've heard so far for the OP's 180.

 

[MonkeyRalph]

Have you ever been through any military training camps? Hetero women and men have different barracks, bathrooms, showers, etc. Whereas, in the male barracks, the room w/ showers is so crowded that there are two people to each shower nozzle.

OMG! Where do two people have to share a shower nozzle? I don't know where you when to training, but that just seems weird to me. At Ft. Knox and Ft. Lewis during my training, we never had to share the same nozzle at the same time. At Ft. Sam Houston, we showered in our own billet room.

I guess it's not that unusual. Nothing to me is weirder than twelve toilets in a row with no dividers. I have never been more uncomfortable than having to wipe my ass after $h!tt!ng at the same time as ten other people. I think pooping should be private.

 

[West Side]

Have you ever been through any military training camps? Hetero women and men have different barracks, bathrooms, showers, etc. Whereas, in the male barracks, the room w/ showers is so crowded that there are two people to each shower nozzle. Hence, curtains would really just make things a lot more sketchy.

Most guys in most units would still probably be cool with it. But, it would still be kind of weird to know the guy who's inches away from you is gay (not really sure why you're so offended by me stating the obvious).

I can't believe this amount of electronic ink has been wasted on how comfortable someone feels in a shower...

Do you really think the military is for lack of space of money for showerheads? No, of course not. Showering together in close quarters is used as part of a greater arsenal to remove the sense of individuality, the same reason for identical haircuts, uniforms, drilling, and equipment. The point is to repress differing aspects of personality and background, and focus the group's attention on shared experiences/pain. Black, white, rich, poor, short, tall...gay, straight. Far from the shower being the problem, it's the whole point.

Move on already.

 

[Flopotomist]

Have you ever been through any military training camps? Hetero women and men have different barracks, bathrooms, showers, etc. Whereas, in the male barracks, the room w/ showers is so crowded that there are two people to each shower nozzle. Hence, curtains would really just make things a lot more sketchy.

Most guys in most units would still probably be cool with it. But, it would still be kind of weird to know the guy who's inches away from you is gay (not really sure why you're so offended by me stating the obvious).

Actually, yes. I have been through many military training camps in my 7+ years of active duty service in the Army. I never had to share a nozzle during any of that time.

Also, as to your second post, I would rather that the guy next to me in battle was competent, educated, physically and mentally strong. I find it sad that the mission of national security is being compromised by discharging thousands of gay men and women at a time when we can not afford to lose these qualified people.

If you were injured in battle, would you care what the sexual orientation of the surgeon working on you is? I never once turned in a report translating Iraqi intel and had my commander say "this report is great information about locations of possible weapons caches.. but uhm, after gathering this info - did you look at my ass?"

Now I am gone, and there is a critical shortage of people with my skills, and there is the possibility that soldiers are in direct danger from untranslated intel. Oh, but they are safe from the danger from the imaginary two-to-a-shower-nozzle delusions.

 

[tulane06]

I can't believe this amount of electronic ink has been wasted on how comfortable someone feels in a shower...

Do you really think the military is for lack of space of money for showerheads? No, of course not. Showering together in close quarters is used as part of a greater arsenal to remove the sense of individuality, the same reason for identical haircuts, uniforms, drilling, and equipment. The point is to repress differing aspects of personality and background, and focus the group's attention on shared experiences/pain. Black, white, rich, poor, short, tall...gay, straight. Far from the shower being the problem, it's the whole point.

Move on already.

The main purpose of the military is to win wars, not to be a proving ground for Utopian social experimentation.

 

[Mirror Form]

I can't believe this amount of electronic ink has been wasted on how comfortable someone feels in a shower...

No crap, which is why I said "it would be weird" and planned to leave it at that.

 

[Mirror Form]

OMG! Where do two people have to share a shower nozzle? I don't know where you when to training, but that just seems weird to me. At Ft. Knox and Ft. Lewis during my training, we never had to share the same nozzle at the same time.

Pretty much every other night at Ft. Lewis when I was at advanced camp. Nobody seemed to care, but I'm just saying it would be a bit weird if the dude next me might be checking me out. Not that I think that's a huge deal, just something I meant to mention in passing.

 

[Mirror Form]

Actually, yes. I have been through many military training camps in my 7+ years of active duty service in the Army. I never had to share a nozzle during any of that time.

I take it you were an officer for most of that time? Or at the very least not in a combat arms MOS? I was never enlisted, but most of my friends who are say that doubling up is pretty common at training camps where you have to hurry and wait continuously.

Also, as to your second post, I would rather that the guy next to me in battle was competent, educated, physically and mentally strong. I find it sad that the mission of national security is being compromised by discharging thousands of gay men and women at a time when we can not afford to lose these qualified people.

If you were injured in battle, would you care what the sexual orientation of the surgeon working on you is? I never once turned in a report translating Iraqi intel and had my commander say "this report is great information about locations of possible weapons caches.. but uhm, after gathering this info - did you look at my ass?"

Now I am gone, and there is a critical shortage of people with my skills, and there is the possibility that soldiers are in direct danger from untranslated intel. Oh, but they are safe from the danger from the imaginary two-to-a-shower-nozzle delusions.

That's called a complete strawman argument right there. When did I say that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed in the military? When did I say that they wouldn't make good soldiers? My only point has been that if you choose not to abide by a contract you signed with the Army, then don't go around complaining when the Army screws you for not abiding by it. And yes, if you read my posts, you'd have seen that I said most people would be cool w/ sharing the showers. You just went straight for the strawman.

 

[Flopotomist]

I take it you were an officer for most of that time? Or at the very least not in a combat arms MOS? I was never enlisted, but most of my friends who are say that doubling up is pretty common at training camps where you have to hurry and wait continuously.
.

Enlisted... served in 3rd ID and 24 ID. Was not a combat arms MOS, but was attached to combat arms units regularly when they deployed (somebody has to translate for them when they are on patrol). Agreed that the shower thing presents a challenge, but it is not insurmountable.

 

[MonkeyRalph]

3 years later... the army finally got around to kicking my gay ass out.

got my discharge papers over Christmas.

at least they did it before they withdrew me from the civilian match. Thank God I did those ten civilian interviews, so I have places to rank.

it's such a bittersweet thing to get discharged from the army... I worked so hard for my commission, and was so proud to be a soldier, but after they've been dragging me around and leaving me in the dark for so long, it's a relief to finally know.

Happy New Year, all!

 

[Buspar]

I can honestly see both sides here.

Look, the Army has a right to be pissed. Sure, gays can serve in the military, and many do better jobs than enlisted soldiers or officers. Being gay in and of itself does not have any particular bearing on one's capability as a miltiary officer, at least in my admittedly very limited military experience.

But that's not the issue here. The military has a policy against homosexuality. Whether the policy is right or wrong or fits with one's own personal beliefs is not the issue. When you commit to an organization such as the military you have to make a commitment to their policies as well, however much you disagree with them. This is a volunteer organization: no one put a gun to your head to make you sign up. Maybe you were misinformed. Yeah, that sucks, I can relate. But you were still a consenting adult. And hey, things can change. To the OP, if you found out you were gay during your HPSP time and were honest with the Army about the whole thing and then this difficulty happened, yeah, you'd have a beef.

But if you willingly signed up knowing you were gay and that this was against the policy you were agreeing to then I say the Army has every right to drag things out as long as they see fit, if for nothing more than to make an example out of your case. Screw it if it's an outdated policy not in sync with the times of 2007, it's still a policy and it's still on the books, and the OP knew that when he signed onto the HPSP. That's just plain old dishonesty right there, and it renders all the other arguments about whether gays can serve in the military moot. The real issue then becomes well, you lied to the military to get in when it was convenient and then you lied when it might be convenient to get out...gee, what if one day it became convenient to lie to me, and that lie might endanger my life or well-being? How much could I trust you then not to lie to me even though it might be convenient to you? Hmm. Sorry, I gotta take Heeeed!'s side here.

Sometimes you have to lie when laws are not right...he cannot change his genotype, nor could blacks or women.

I sure discrimination based on sexual preference will eventually change, as did with racial and sexual orientation.

 

[Buspar]

If you want to continue to live under the fantasy that life is a matter of binary situations (yes/no, wrong/right), then you're probably right that defending this is "impossible".

If we take your world view, then I have to get that donkey out of the bathtub, and while I'm at it, I better cop to farting after 6pm in Pensacola a few spring breaks ago. They're ALL laws still on the books, and as such must be enforced, right Heeed!? Off to the salt mine for me, folks!

http://crazytopics.blogspot.com/2007/01/craziest-laws-in-america.html

👍

 

[Buspar]

I never once turned in a report translating Iraqi intel and had my commander say "this report is great information about locations of possible weapons caches.. but uhm, after gathering this info - did you look at my ass?"

 

[IgD]

So you got a free education on my tax dollars ...

It's probably not free. The HPSP contract says if you can't complete the program for any reason you have to reimburse the government. I've heard of people being shocked with 6 figure bills for this sort of issue.

I am really sorry to hear about the whole thing and hope it works out for everyone involved.

 

[MonkeyRalph]

I have heard second and third-hand stories both ways.

One would presume though, given the level of complaining that the OP began with, and the now "relieved" tone of entering the civilian match (with their low salaries), that he is not sitting on a 6-figure bill from the Army.

Actually, the army only paid for my first year and a half of med school tuition, which was about $24000 total. And yes, I am expecting to pay it back plus the ridiculously high interest that the army charges. It would have actually been cheaper to take out a federal loan in the first place. It was not some master scheme of mine to get med school paid for and then jump ship. But thanks for jumping to conclusions. So no, not six figures of debt, but that's only cause I went to a cheap med school. And even if I had a half million in debt, I'd be relieved to be done with the army jerking me around.

 

[The White Coat Investor]

Sometimes you have to lie when laws are not right...he cannot change his genotype, nor could blacks or women.

I sure discrimination based on sexual preference will eventually change, as did with racial and sexual orientation.

No one has a choice to be a woman, nor a choice to be black. But people do have a choice as to whether or not to engage in homosexual sex. I hardly think it fair to lump the three together. Just because someone feels attracted to someone of the same gender doesn't make engaging in sexual activity with them right or moral. Imagine advocating the same thing for pedophiles, polygamists, drug users, adulterers, thieves etc etc etc.

Nearly all major religions on this planet have rules/laws/commandments condemning homosexual behavior. In fact, homosexual behavior goes against the laws of natural selection (evolution clearly doesn't select for a behavior which decreases the chances of passing genes on to the next generation.) I find it hard to believe the arguments many put forth that "being homosexual" is either God-given or evolved. Surely 10% of our society didn't have a new mutation in the "gay gene."

I don't mean to be preachy here, but there are an awful lot of people out there (with a higher percentage in the military) who actually believe homosexual behavior is bad for the individuals who engage in it and bad for society in general.

It ain't P.C. but it is true. I ain't homophobic. I have lots of gay friends and I take care of lots of gay patients. I also have friends who are alcoholics and take care of lots of alcoholic patients. In both cases I like the people but dislike the behavior.

Now, that said, I'm not sure whether homosexual behavior is something that shouldn't be permitted in the military. What will we outlaw next, gambling? One could make the exact same argument that gamblers should only be allowed in on a don't ask don't tell basis.

 

[alpha62]

No one has a choice to be a woman, nor a choice to be black. But people do have a choice as to whether or not to engage in homosexual sex. I hardly think it fair to lump the three together. Just because someone feels attracted to someone of the same gender doesn't make engaging in sexual activity with them right or moral. Imagine advocating the same thing for pedophiles, polygamists, drug users, adulterers, thieves etc etc etc.

Nearly all major religions on this planet have rules/laws/commandments condemning homosexual behavior. In fact, homosexual behavior goes against the laws of natural selection (evolution clearly doesn't select for a behavior which decreases the chances of passing genes on to the next generation.) I find it hard to believe the arguments many put forth that "being homosexual" is either God-given or evolved. Surely 10% of our society didn't have a new mutation in the "gay gene."

I don't mean to be preachy here, but there are an awful lot of people out there (with a higher percentage in the military) who actually believe homosexual behavior is bad for the individuals who engage in it and bad for society in general.

It ain't P.C. but it is true. I ain't homophobic. I have lots of gay friends and I take care of lots of gay patients. I also have friends who are alcoholics and take care of lots of alcoholic patients. In both cases I like the people but dislike the behavior.

Now, that said, I'm not sure whether homosexual behavior is something that shouldn't be permitted in the military. What will we outlaw next, gambling? One could make the exact same argument that gamblers should only be allowed in on a don't ask don't tell basis.

I'll buy the born gay thing with the males, but the lesbians.... well, there are some born I think, they are hard corps, well indoctrinated, true believers...

Then... there are lipstick lesbians and I think they're made, not born. I think they are recruited in much the same manner as a Suicide Bomber gets pulled into the game. Pissed off, screwed over by the system, alienated, disenfranchised by the sexual olympics, and along comes a Cell leader with mullet and a pant suit and they really listen ! They understand their problems and agree, all men are pigs.

Turning an attractive woman on to the lesbian scene must be a real feather in their cap. Now I know how the CIA must have felt with they turned a KBG agent to our side.