Transgenders in the military? Brought to you by the socialist revolution.

[Ole Cowboy]

To all heterosexual and LGBT members of our military, Thank you for your service.

As a caeer soldier (Enlisted/Officer) I met the first homo in basic in '67. He just said he wanted to talk to someone and picked me to tell he was gay, why, got no idea...I do not remember him as being a great soldier or a bad soldier, he was just one of us getting ready to go to Vietnam. I have no idea what happened to him after we grad'. Over my 26 years I met a few others in the EM/O ranks. I never met or knew of one that was anything other than a good soldier and I met them from E-1 to 0-6 and everywhere in between. That said there were a few guys that got out due to being gay, I had one. I would bet money he was not gay, he was in my plt for over a year and he had came to me many times telling me he wanted out. He make E-4 ahead of his contemporaries. Then one day he goes to see the Bn CO on open door and tells him he is gay and wants a discharge. He gets it.

Of the others, yea there were some things that made you wonder from time to time, but they did a good job. I also found that after a while they would tell you they were gay, but then you trusted them to do a good job and why say anything at that point in time.

Is the military a place for LGBTQ, well I cannot address all that, but as for the gays they are there and have been there since day one.

BUT it only works under one rule: Don't ask, don't tell, anything else will only lead to command and control issue. There is no room for some guy, gal or anything else to parade his sexual orientation anyone in the military and what has been done by giving them "OPEN" status will only lead to problems, because open means just that and there is no place for it.

As for transgender, no place for it, keep your sex life to the privacy of your own quarters.

Is it a mental disease, I do not think so, but what it is is 'deviant behavior'. Whether you chose to believe they are mis-wired or its a choice it makes no difference, its still deviant behavior...that said a LOT of folks think our 'gun' thing is deviant behavior. If one practices something that only 3-7% of the population do then they clearly are not in the norm.

Sexual orientation was not a problem in the military for all of my career and my fathers career, what was a problem was being a non-performing soldier. Today we have a problem and it might be noted we did not have a problem until they got open status!!!!

Plural marriage, gay marriage, how about being married to your bass boat or the stump in your backyard? Should we, do we care? I certainly do not. In other words we did not have a problem until the Federal Govt began dictating what a marriage was. Like most issues in the US today, get the Feds out and the problem goes away!

Bottom line is if you want to stick your Richard in you Hoover or your blender, none of my business, I don't care and don't make my business or you will get my opinion and you are not gonna like it...

 

[Iamntxhunter]

Well the neutrality and I don't care mentality will only weaken our military as it is allowed to be openly flaunted by those that are indifferent about it.
Those that serve have no real say in the matter so you just do the next right thing and hope it works out.

 

[London]

If someone has the desire and physical ability to honorably serve in the military, it's a real butthole move to tell them, "You can't because I think you're weird." That goes x100 for anyone whose never even been in the military.

 

[London]

If one practices something that only 3-7% of the population do then they clearly are not in the norm.

The problem with this statement is it would snip off both extreme ends of the Bell Curve if implemented. Unless you want to get rid of ditch diggers and surgeons I don't think judging people by how unaverage they are is a very good measure of suitability for the military.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

The problem with this statement is it would snip off both extreme ends of the Bell Curve if implemented. Unless you want to get rid of ditch diggers and surgeons I don't think judging people by how unaverage they are is a very good measure of suitability for the military.

LOL either I don't understand you or you do not understand me...

Allow me to reiterate: The LGBTQ etc crowd are deviants and I say that not as a judgement of their actions but rather what they practice puts them in the range of 3-7% of the population, meaning only that they deviate from the norm, no more no less. This is not judgement call good, bad or indifferent of who they are.

 

[London]

LOL either I don't understand you or you do not understand me...

Allow me to reiterate: The LGBTQ etc crowd are deviants and I say that not as a judgement of their actions but rather what they practice puts them in the range of 3-7% of the population, meaning only that they deviate from the norm, no more no less. This is not judgement call good, bad or indifferent of who they are.

Gotcha.

 

[TheDan]

Alexander the Great was a bisexual as were many of the people under him. Didn't seem to effect his war machine.

If the gov stops subsidizing destructive lifestyles and destructive life choices then people will be less likely to live those lifestyles and make those choices.

Well I can at least agree with you on that. The government subsidizing and regulating all sorts of things prevents us from living as we want to. Whether that be a place of liberty or a place of moral collectivism which you seem to prefer.

 

[Dredens]

I honestly couldn't give two stones about what someone's past is. If some dude in my unit used to be a chick (or vice-versa), and they can pull their own weight and get the job done and have eachothers' backs, it doesn't matter to me as long as the military didn't have to pay for it and they keep their private life private (same way I feel about gays, lesbians, straights, etc.). A soldier is a soldier in my eyes until they prove themselves to be otherwise.

 

[breakingcontact]

Whether that be a place of liberty or a place of moral collectivism which you seem to prefer.

Expand on this criticism if you'd be so kind so I can better form an accurate response.

 

[breakingcontact]

Either we have a UCMJ or we dont. Kind of like the Constitution. You cant keep bending it or it will break.

 

[Dredens]

Either we have a UCMJ or we dont. Kind of like the Constitution. You cant keep bending it or it will break.

Fun Fact of the Day: Article 125 of the UCMJ specifically punishes non-vaginal sex that a service member engages in (even with members of the opposite sex). Article 123a can punish you if you overdraw your account by as much as $0.01. Article 101 punishes the improper usage of a countersign (something that many people I know have done). Arguing with a total stranger or flipping them the bird can get you punished under Article 117. Heck, if they can't find a specific article, there's always good ole Article 134.

My point with all of that is that everyday things that service members do all the time can be punished under UCMJ, but they're not. It goes to the whole difference between the Letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law. You can't sit there and cite the UCMJ for this kind of thing (well, you can, but just because you can, doesn't always mean you should) unless you're willing to go through the entire UCMJ and demand that everyone live their lives via the UCMJ 24/7 without violating any of the Articles. Plus, since in the article's scenario the ban would be lifted, they wouldn't be violating UCMJ to begin with (except the whole Sodomy one, but hey, straight soldiers violate that with their wives/husbands all the time).

 

[breakingcontact]

Fun Fact of the Day: Article 125 of the UCMJ specifically punishes non-vaginal sex that a service member engages in (even with members of the opposite sex). Article 123a can punish you if you overdraw your account by as much as $0.01. Article 101 punishes the improper usage of a countersign (something that many people I know have done). Arguing with a total stranger or flipping them the bird can get you punished under Article 117. Heck, if they can't find a specific article, there's always good ole Article 134.

My point with all of that is that everyday things that service members do all the time can be punished under UCMJ, but they're not. It goes to the whole difference between the Letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law. You can't sit there and cite the UCMJ for this kind of thing (well, you can, but just because you can, doesn't always mean you should) unless you're willing to go through the entire UCMJ and demand that everyone live their lives via the UCMJ 24/7 without violating any of the Articles. Plus, since in the article's scenario the ban would be lifted, they wouldn't be violating UCMJ to begin with (except the whole Sodomy one, but hey, straight soldiers violate that with their wives/husbands all the time).

Always amazes me but shouldnt.

You dont think I know that people aren't always punished under UCMJ? "Fun fact of the day". Wow.

People should be punished more under UCMJ. A lot of dirtbags need to be put out.

Good order and discipline? Honor? Integrity? Selflessness? I believe in the Army values whether the Army believes or enforces them or not.

 

[Younggun]

I think prosecuting blowjobs under UCMJ is anti military.


Support the troops, dammit!

 

[Dredens]

You dont think I know that people aren't always punished under UCMJ? "Fun fact of the day". Wow.

People should be punished more under UCMJ. A lot of dirtbags need to be put out.

Good order and discipline? Honor? Integrity? Selflessness? I believe in the Army values whether the Army believes or enforces them or not.

It goes to the whole difference between the Letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law.

Well looky here at this gem I found burried in that long paragraph.

I think prosecuting blowjobs under UCMJ is anti military.


Support the troops, dammit!

^^^^ You, good sir, have the right idea

 

[breakingcontact]

You can be as condescending as you want. I believe differently than many of you and thats fine. It is a shame that the conservatives and libertarians are at some point probably going to have it out and have to form new alliances. I hope its after we are forced to confront the socialists and liberals at least and at best things can be mended.

It does kind of make me wonder what exactly will unite the libertarians? I know I know you all believe in " Liberté, égalité, fraternité". Study the French Revolution.

That didnt work and it didn't last. Its only natural for humans to want to be God themselves. Each time people attempt to usurp Gods will, look how it turns out. Study most of the mass killings worldwide, usually done by those who have tried to deny and replace God. I know I know...the Crusades and Muslim terrorism...pales in comparison to the 100,000,000 killed by the atheist communists.

Thats really what this, and most of the socialists disruption of our societal pillars is really about. They must brush God aside so they can try at playing God.

Thats the end of my participation in this thread because ive stated what this and most other attacks on faith, family and societal and cultural institutions are really about.

No hard feelings anyone. Hope you all know im not full of hate but recognize we are small and God is eternal and greater.

 

[Younggun]

Well, you have a strong aversion to actually taking the libertarian ideals for what they are, so no point in debating any of that.

Posting crap from the French Revolution? Irrelevant for the most part, but ok. You still have made no effort to understand libertarianism other than parts of it conflict with your religious beliefs.

You make an assumption that people who have no will to control others want to play god....no idea how you connected those dots.


I avoid getting too deep in to this subject with you because we agree in many ways on what is right or wrong, but very differently on how much control over people the government should have. Any true debate would invariably turn to religion as that is the basis for your beliefs and for that reason we could go blue in the face an get nowhere.

My post was not meant to be condescending, just some light hearted humor.


I would much rather see elections where the parties were libertarian vs conservative than democrat vs democrat like we have now.

 

[London]

Everyone take a step back and realize this is yet another distraction from more important things. Go read Ship of Fools by Ted Kaczynski, have a laugh, then reflect.

 

[Sapper740]

Glad to see our resident libertarians have weighed in with their usual "it dont affect me" view. You guys dont live isolated on an island! We are all in this together and our actions and choices and lifestyles DO affect each other.

Exactly!

 

[Sapper740]

Let's see how America has progressed: Gay rights. Gay marriage, school kids in California using whatever restroom they "identify" with, no Nativity scenes or crosses on public property, taking "Christ" out of Christmas, no more prayer in school, can't wear an american flag t-shirt on cinco de Mayo, Federal government refuses to enforce constitutionally passed laws such as DOMA, the "knock-out game", 72% of Black children are born out of wedlock, Putin bitch-slapping Obama at every turn, national debt now exceeds $17,000,000,000,000.00 and now some of you are "Meh!" about trans-genders in the military? What! You think that's fucking progress!?!?! You need to re-think which side of right you want to be on. I sure as **** know which side I'm on, no moral ambivalence here!

 

[Dredens]

I truly apologize if I came off as condescending. It was not my purpose to do so (no, I'm not being sarcastic about that either). My point was that no, what they choose to do behind closed doors does not in fact affect you in any significant way. Your own religion that you feel that we're "attacking" tells you to love your neighbor and treat them no differently than your fellow Christians (not just gays, lesbians, etc., but everyone). It says that it is not your place to pass judgement. It is not your place to restrict them by rule, regulation or legislation. That is God's job to pass judgement for the sins they committed during their lifetime that they didn't repent for. No, I'm not trying to incenuate that you have no idea about your religion. I'm not being sarcastic or condescending about your religion, faith or ideals, nor am I attacking them. I'm merely reminding you what is at the base of all of them.