Attn: El Homo's. El Presidente (aka CIC) says you're now SAT.

[Mumbles]

My Favorites....

 

[Pepe]

I would direct you to your "STFU" post for and example of a 3rd grade response.

+1. Might get me banned for agreeing with you, but hell. I kinda thought him telling you to STFU and calling you a 3rd grader was odd.

 

[MasterBates]

Since it's the quarterly gay thread-

I've had to room with a gay man on the boat (we all knew it, he came out and got out after the deployment). It was uncomfortable as hell. In my case, I was not worried about me getting ass-raped by him, because I had over 100 pounds on him, and nobody tends to fuck with the large dudes prone to anger.

It was still creepy as hell as the guy would STARE at you while you changed, etc.

But what about the opposite situation? Small 5'4" 110 pound SWO-Nuke type, vs a FLAMING militant gay type.. Who has 100 pounds on him and could force his way to shit if he wanted. I would not want to be the small straight guy in that situation.

And before someone goes "well he'd be in violation of UCMJ articles XX YY ZZZ and ABC.." do we have to put our people in a situation like that?

Are 95%+ of the gays NOT going to be a problem? Yep. But this is like putting women in men's berthing. It's just asking for trouble. 80% of the guys in the Navy could live with women and not do anything untoward.. But you are going to have that incident.. And that's why we have separate berthing.

Gays need their own berthing if allowed to serve openly. You should not have to live with the gender that prefers to have sex with your gender. Period.

 

[jtmedli]

And how in your infinite wisdom did you deduct this? National Security policy decisions are not made overnight. How does a speech to the gay public deter from his efforts or priority of work.

Granted, but I guess we're back to that whole multi-tasking thing. Can we please stop singling out topics or issues we don't like that get attention by our government and pretend that issues we do like (I.E. Afghanistan) require 110% of the President's attention? It's stupid and pathetic - seriously.

At any rate, there are a whole lot more people interested in repealing DADT than just the gay community (like the Democratic base), so to the extent that the public is interested in it, it deserves attention from elected officials.

Brett

It's not so much of a single issue so much as the collective of them that he seems to be hell-bent on tackling all at once. Healthcare, A-ghan, Iraq (not really his policies, but his to deal with), DADT to name a few. These are not small problems and they don't have simple solutions by any means.

DADT is not a perfect or even good policy but it has served as the lesser of two evils for quite some time now.
a) allow gay/lesbians into the military and deal with the inevitable 3rd gender shit storm that is going arise as far as showering/bunking and animosity that will arise.
b) ban gay/lesbians completely and openly discriminate.

 

[Pepe]

Since it's the quarterly gay thread-

I've had to room with a gay man on the boat (we all knew it, he came out and got out after the deployment). It was uncomfortable as hell. In my case, I was not worried about me getting ass-raped by him, because I had over 100 pounds on him, and nobody tends to fuck with the large dudes prone to anger.

It was still creepy as hell as the guy would STARE at you while you changed, etc.

But what about the opposite situation? Small 5'4" 110 pound SWO-Nuke type, vs a FLAMING militant gay type.. Who has 100 pounds on him and could force his way to shit if he wanted. I would not want to be the small straight guy in that situation.

And before someone goes "well he'd be in violation of UCMJ articles XX YY ZZZ and ABC.." do we have to put our people in a situation like that?

Are 95%+ of the gays NOT going to be a problem? Yep. But this is like putting women in men's berthing. It's just asking for trouble. 80% of the guys in the Navy could live with women and not do anything untoward.. But you are going to have that incident.. And that's why we have separate berthing.

Gays need their own berthing if allowed to serve openly. You should not have to live with the gender that prefers to have sex with your gender. Period.

Agreed. I just don't have the silver tongue MasterBates has (waiting for the gay jokes).

 

[Bevo16]

Gays need their own berthing if allowed to serve openly. You should not have to live with the gender that prefers to have sex with your gender.

So every homosexual gets a private stateroom?

How would you like to go down to homo-berthing for wake-ups? Pink carpet, disco ball, Village People on the radio. Surely, there won't be any sex going on in homo berthing. Ugh.

 

[Short]

"Gays need their own berthing if allowed to serve openly."

And that berthing, gentlemen, would become fabulous. Seriously, I'm not sure that the average six-man is ready for track lighting, wall sconses and bamboo flooring. Other pluses could include task force uniform coming out with something that actually looks good (though I'll go ahead and veto cut off dungarees).

Give leadership the ability to correct problems with openly serving homosexuals with the backing of higher (i.e. you can still kick out a crappy gay Sailor without Navy Times putting it on the front page and the star in your chain screaming for your scalp) and it might work.

 

[Mos]

So every homosexual gets a private stateroom?

I was gonna say, that actually does seem to open up a can of worms. Do we separate them from straight people only, or do go the further step of separating them from each other? Think, if gay sailors are berthing together, what happens if some solicitation starts taking place. We can't assume that just because a sailor's gay, that he wants to sleep with any other gay he comes across. Some gays are in monogamous relationships. If such a person gets pressure from other gay sailors, then there's just another morale problem. Now instead of a straight guy getting unwanted attention, it's a gay guy.

 

[Flash]

I've had to room with a gay man on the boat.....But what about the opposite situation?......Are 95%+ of the gays NOT going to be a problem? Yep........Gays need their own berthing if allowed to serve openly. You should not have to live with the gender that prefers to have sex with your gender. Period.

And yet all of our closest allies, including those who serve in combat beside us in Afghanistan and Iraq today, have had very few of the issues that you describe even though they don't have separate berthing/quarters for gays. How is it that they can do it and we can't?

Simply put, when DADT repealed, and it almost certainly will be, you ain't going to see separate berthing for gays. Then we will deal with it or we won't, if it is the latter you may not be able to stick around long to complain.

 

[eddie]

There was a rumor in middle school that if you were gay you had to change with the girls for PE.

Somehow, I don't think such arrangements will fly with women (on either end of the specturm)?

 

[m26]

There was a rumor in middle school...

This is the low point in the thread, right?

Hmmm.....

 

[BACONATOR]

There was a rumor in middle school that if you were gay you had to change with the girls for PE.

Somehow, I don't think such arrangements will fly with women (on either end of the specturm)?

I tried that. Didn't work. Judge also said a 23 year old guy in a Jr HS girls' locker room was "improper" regardless of sexual orientation.... go figure. :tongue2_1

 

[FlyBoyd]

I tried that. Didn't work. Judge also said a 23 year old guy in a Jr HS girls' locker room was "improper" regardless of sexual orientation.... go figure. :tongue2_1

I don't care who you are that is funny!!!!

 

[Brett327]

+1. Might get me banned for agreeing with you, but hell. I kinda thought him telling you to STFU and calling you a 3rd grader was odd.

The thought never crossed my mind. The only guy around here who bans people for disagreeing with them is A4s.

Brett

 

[xj220]

I tried that. Didn't work. Judge also said a 23 year old guy in a Jr HS girls' locker room was "improper" regardless of sexual orientation.... go figure. :tongue2_1

Is that like claiming you're gay and then being able to squeeze a hot chick's boobs without repercussion?