[chadnezzrr]

My brother said that in basic even admission wasn't enough to get you out. It pretty much had to be explicit sex... An investigation is required for any of the three. An admission that is obviously just a ploy to void your contract will be punished like any other such lie like faked sleep walking/talking.

[TCjwwhcY]

An investigation is not actually required.

[idobestbuyonlinepp]

No, DADT allows for commander discretion.

[beneitpedro]

Commanders can dismiss it if they believe the person is just saying to get out. Or they can dismiss it if they decide to frame it as the person just saying it to get out.

[dWSOj26H]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I guess because I think DADT is a step in the right direction - it's better than no service, right? You can't expect psycho religious right folks to suddenly go from "eww gays are evil let's stone them" to "Let's give them guns and bathe with them" in one step Hence, DADT was not a bad thing, it was a step that allowed gays to serve, if not openly; then at some (hopefully soon) point, we get over this whole thing and drop DADT.

It just sounds to me when people complain about DADT that they'd rather go back to the pre-DADT times... which seems weird. Bullshit. If someone is a bigot, whether it be against homosexuals, or ethnicity or religion, what have you, the burden should be on THEM to deal with it, not for the rest of the military to accommodate them.

EDIT: Oh, and I don't think I've mentioned what a dumbass show Gray's Anatomy is.

[NEronchik]

Originally posted by Monk


Hey Asher,

Your overall point is fair, but this part just doesn't make any sense. It basically says that no healthy person who is a virgin could also be gay (or heterosexual, for that matter) and surely that's an absurd notion. Well, it's healthy to be a virgin up until a certain point -- I'd say past age 20 and being a virgin is unhealthy. Psychologically.

[Bondjrno]

Yes, this is not healthy.

[CtEkM8Vq]

Can you please describe how those caught in the act were caught. Engineering watches are normally the ones who find people getting it on, whatever the gender makeup of the couples. There is a sounding and security watch 24 hours a day that inspects all the rarely trafficed or hard to reach places to make sure things like flooding and whatnot aren't happening. These also tend to be the places people do things they are not supposed to for ths same reason, whether it be sex or drugs or just catching a nap.

I would routinely catch people in the act (straight) in the helo control tower. Even though they would get a warning over the 1MC that flight quarters had been set, rarely could they get their cloths back on before I got there.

I used to catch them on the open deck sometimes as well. At night with darken ship set we don't let anyone topside because if they fell overboard 1.) we probably wouldn't even know 2.) its pitch black, its just easier to fall overboard and 3.) recoveries are harder at night. In any case, since nobody is supposed to be up there it is an good place to get some, at least it seems that way to Seaman Smuckatelle because he doesn't know the bridge looksouts have NVGs.

Bigots took greater control over the Army and Air Force largely because of Clinton. He reduced the military. This caused harder choices between two candidates for promotion. Especially with the Air Force, the evangelical one won out. I want you to provide even a scrap of evidence for this. Oerdin repeats this without backing it up as well. Specifically, given the anonymous character of all promotion boards (and the simple scale for that matter), I want you to explain how this is even possible.

[sandyphoebetvmaa]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I want you to provide even a scrap of evidence for this. Oerdin repeats this without backing it up as well. Specifically, given the anonymous character of all promotion boards (and the simple scale for that matter), I want you to explain how this is even possible. There is a lot of evidence for it. I kinda simplified it a bit. It also includes factors such as the declining number of Catholic priests (and thus chaplains) so the void was filled with evangelicals. Boards really aren't that anonymous either. The board members frequently contact raters and the unit for various things.

[Tjfyojlg]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's preferential treatment. They have the same regulations against men and women showering together. If they were to allow one and not the other, then that would be preferential treatment. Oh, you're talking about something silly rather than the core issue.

Heterosexual man can and are open about their sexuality in the military. How many military men have skin mags in their lockers? How many have pictures of their girlfriend/wife? How many talk about it while shooting the ****?

Homosexual men cannot do that.

Permitting homosexual men to do that is not preferential treatment, it's equal treatment.

As for the whole showering ****, many other countries -- including Canada and Israel -- have allowed gays to openly serve, including showering, and there's no big deal. You're already showering with gay guys, so nothing is changing here.

Not really the point. What use are you in combat if you can't hear the enemy? How can the others trust you to protect them, if you can't hear much at all. They list a hearing loss up to 50 decibels at the normal frequency range, which excludes me. I'm not sure why they chose that limit, but what that means is a significant hearing loss. 50 decibels is about the range of human speech, so that is why they choose this range over others.

The point being that there are ways that I could successfully serve too. Why does the military enforce standards, even though it means there are some who are qualified to serve who are turned away? That gets back to my earlier point. The military isn't about self-affirmation. As I have already told you, your points are ridiculous. The military isn't about self-affirmation, but no one made that claim. You are debunking thin air again.

The military is about letting physically and mentally capable men and women serve their country. If you can't hear, you can't serve. If you can't see, you can't serve. If you are grossly overweight, you can't serve. If you are mentally retarded, you can't serve.

But why are you including "if you let anyone know you have a boyfriend back home, you can't serve" in this group?

What you and all of your irk are doing is reinforcing bigotry. Why are you any different from the soldiers in WW2 that refused to serve with black people for almost identical reasons? Why are you any different from the soldiers even today that think women should not be able to serve?

[DadaSeeva]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I was on a DDG, at night we set darken ship so that only our navigational lights will be clearly visible.

Carriers are a bit different because of flight opps, and thier great size liberates them in many respects. I was on a DD, I know all about darken ship, navigation lights, stars and the moon are enough to see by at night.

I never had any problem seeing with just those lights.

ACK!

[Qrhzbadu]

Oh, I forgot to mention that you have to move a little slower just so you can find things that may be in your way.

But up on the 04 level, I knew where everything was and could walk it blindfolded.

ACK!

[Uzezqelj]

How haven't you heard about this story that has been in the news all over recently? What, you mean that one instance within an organization of three million of an athiest supposedly getting discriminated against proves a widespread evangilist conspiracy to take over the military!?! Was the commander in question even an evangilist?

Btw, didn't the Major deny this? Why do you automatically believe the word of that kid over that of the Major when he 1.) has no evidence of anything he describes happening and 2.) nobody else coroborates his claim?

All posting that story accomplished was to show your bias in thinking what you do. Like I said, I am Catholic, I have no reason to cover up this vast evalgelist conspiracy, it just doesn't exist.

Also this book has pretty decent evidence Then post it, linking to amazon proves nothing.

I am not saying it has to do with numbers joining. I am just saying it is part of the reason evangelicals gained more control over the military. Exactly what sort of power do you think Chaplains wield?

That is not how it works in my experience. I was trying not to say this, but what is your experiance?

Maybe it is different in the army. Superficially so, MILPERS regs are not branch specific past a certain level.

It should also be noted that there is are no such things as boards for E-6 and below in the enlisted ranks and O-3 and below in the officer ranks. Considering those rankes make up the vast majoirty of the force, your deliberate board bias position almost doesn't matter.

It also has marital status, which is kinda meh since there is a bias towards married people too. It would be nice if you included the form number on that. It does not resemble a PSR or an EVAL.

This is what your board will be looking at...

http://www.per.hqusareur.army.mil/se.../forms/678.dot

...when you are at a rate that gets a board. Up to then it is just a simple math equation.

And marital status isn't an overt bias, it just so happens married people with large families are not eligable for overseas posts (cost), and most deliberalty restict their posts otherwise for family concerns. Thats the breaks when you chose to have a family alongside a military career.

You probably were not thinking about it that way. Being a young and single newly minted grunt you were probably thinking in terms of time off and leave and family benefits in which you PERCIEVE they get some advantageous bias.

[Ijkavylo]

Originally posted by Patroklos


What, you mean that one instance within an organization of three million of an athiest supposedly getting discriminated against proves a widespread evangilist conspiracy to take over the military!?! Was the commander in question even an evangilist?

Btw, didn't the Major deny this? Why do you automatically believe the word of that kid over that of the Major when he 1.) has no evidence of anything he describes happening and 2.) nobody else coroborates his claim? http://www.myspace.com/freddywelborn - his Myspace.

Originally posted by Patroklos All posting that story accomplished was to show your bias in thinking what you do. Like I said, I am Catholic, I have no reason to cover up this vast evalgelist conspiracy, it just doesn't exist. I listed army and air force being effected by this, not the navy so much.


Originally posted by Patroklos Then post it, linking to amazon proves nothing. Or you could head to a bookstore and browse for a bit.


Originally posted by Patroklos Exactly what sort of power do you think Chaplains wield? None, except how you can't really refuse when they decide to sit down next to you and talk.



Originally posted by Patroklos I was trying not to say this, but what is your experiance? Actually being a rater and senior rater for seven people, soon to be 10 people.

Originally posted by Patroklos Superficially so, MILPERS regs are not branch specific past a certain level.

It should also be noted that there is are no such things as boards for E-6 and below in the enlisted ranks and O-3 and below in the officer ranks. Considering those rankes make up the vast majoirty of the force, your deliberate board bias position almost doesn't matter. Except there are actually boards for E-4s in the army. You have to go to the board before you make corporal in the army.



Originally posted by Patroklos It would be nice if you included the form number on that. It does not resemble a PSR or an EVAL.

This is what your board will be looking at...

http://www.per.hqusareur.army.mil/se.../forms/678.dot

...when you are at a rate that gets a board. Up to then it is just a simple math equation. DA 4037

Also I could not open that document.

Originally posted by Patroklos And marital status isn't an overt bias, it just so happens married people with large families are not eligable for overseas posts (cost), and most deliberalty restict their posts otherwise for family concerns. Thats the breaks when you chose to have a family alongside a military career.

You probably were not thinking about it that way. Being a young and single newly minted grunt you were probably thinking in terms of time off and leave and family benefits in which you PERCIEVE they get some advantageous bias. I am talking more about biases based on catering to married Soldiers, such as why on post housing is better than the barracks. Married people just tend to stay in longer because the spouse is the deciding factor.

I am also not a grunt and I am not talking about leave and family benefits.

[alegsghed]

My understanding, from living in an Air Force town and from my brother being in the 101st, is that for officers, being married generally has a negative element to careers of the very upwardly mobile in the middle portion of the ranks, but a positive effect higher up (Lt. Colonel and up, give or take).

In terms of married benefits, I think patroklos is right that you are seeing this from a very specific point of view. Married folks SHOULD get better housing, they have a family to house. Given how hard it is to be in the military with a family, I think that is perfectly reasonable that they get some benefits from it.

[gydrorway]

Well, the army should clearly get to fixing those then I doubt it is bias, though, probably just that the married folks complain more. That's true pretty much anywhere (squeaky wheel gets the grease).