National Guard: Gay Iraq veteran must leave service

[Parthenon]

If you are getting payed by the military you better as hell be willing to follow the policies that are in place. I don't show up at work and say "I don't like this whole no personal phone calls on company time policy, I am going to ignore it" while still expecting a paycheck. It just doesn't work like that. When you sign the service contract you better as hell be willing to conform to the expectations or not expect to keep the job. It is that simple.

But no personal phone calls isnt infringing on your civil rights, Not being able to see your Spouse or Significant Other or even discuss them in public, is certainly on another level than personal phonecalls...

Seeing your spouse on company time isn't a "civil right".

[Dyakovo]

Thats the point. It's absurd.

But, according to Reality, it is not...

Thats the problem, the Rules dont sync with it...

Agreed.

[Enadail]

If you are getting payed by the military you better as hell be willing to follow the policies that are in place. I don't show up at work and say "I don't like this whole no personal phone calls on company time policy, I am going to ignore it" while still expecting a paycheck. It just doesn't work like that. When you sign the service contract you better as hell be willing to conform to the expectations or not expect to keep the job. It is that simple.

But no personal phone calls isnt infringing on your civil rights, Not being able to see your Spouse or Significant Other or even discuss them in public, is certainly on another level than personal phonecalls...

Seeing your spouse on company time isn't a "civil right".

But if the guy working in the cubicle next to you did get to make personal calls on company time just because he happened to be from the same country as your boss, you'd be fine with it?

[Maurepas]

If you are getting payed by the military you better as hell be willing to follow the policies that are in place. I don't show up at work and say "I don't like this whole no personal phone calls on company time policy, I am going to ignore it" while still expecting a paycheck. It just doesn't work like that. When you sign the service contract you better as hell be willing to conform to the expectations or not expect to keep the job. It is that simple.

But no personal phone calls isnt infringing on your civil rights, Not being able to see your Spouse or Significant Other or even discuss them in public, is certainly on another level than personal phonecalls...

Seeing your spouse on company time isn't a "civil right".

Being able to acknowledge their existence is...

[Trippoli]

What if one of our most Loyal and best generals expressed their Homosexual feelings in the middle of WW3?

Would we just throw him away? No, homosexuality does not effect Physical strength. The only thing different about Gays is they have relations with other men. Other then that, they are just like straight men and women.

[Parthenon]

But no personal phone calls isnt infringing on your civil rights, Not being able to see your Spouse or Significant Other or even discuss them in public, is certainly on another level than personal phonecalls...

Seeing your spouse on company time isn't a "civil right".

But if the guy working in the cubicle next to you did get to make personal calls on company time just because he happened to be from the same country as your boss, you'd be fine with it?

Not seeing where you are going with this...

[Maurepas]

What if one of our most Loyal and best generals expressed their Homosexual feelings in the middle of WW3?

Would we just throw him away? No, homosexuality does not effect Physical strength. The only thing different about Gays is they have relations with other men. Other then that, they are just like straight men and women.

Besides, we've seen them kick some major ass:

[Parthenon]

What if one of our most Loyal and best generals expressed their Homosexual feelings in the middle of WW3?

Would we just throw him away? No, homosexuality does not effect Physical strength. The only thing different about Gays is they have relations with other men. Other then that, they are just like straight men and women.

I would throw him away in a heart beat. If we are in the middle of a damn world war and what's on his mind is coming out of the closet he deserves to be canned.

[The South Islands]

But no personal phone calls isnt infringing on your civil rights, Not being able to see your Spouse or Significant Other or even discuss them in public, is certainly on another level than personal phonecalls...

Seeing your spouse on company time isn't a "civil right".

Being able to acknowledge their existence is...

Soldiers do not have Civil Rights. At least as we would think of them in the civilian world.

[Maurepas]

What if one of our most Loyal and best generals expressed their Homosexual feelings in the middle of WW3?

Would we just throw him away? No, homosexuality does not effect Physical strength. The only thing different about Gays is they have relations with other men. Other then that, they are just like straight men and women.

I would throw him away in a heart beat. If we are in the middle of a damn world war and what's on his mind is coming out of the closet he deserves to be canned.

So, If random soldier, or officer A, acknowledges their Wife or Husband, they should be thrown out, is that what you are saying?

[Trippoli]

What if one of our most Loyal and best generals expressed their Homosexual feelings in the middle of WW3?

Would we just throw him away? No, homosexuality does not effect Physical strength. The only thing different about Gays is they have relations with other men. Other then that, they are just like straight men and women.

I would throw him away in a heart beat. If we are in the middle of a damn world war and what's on his mind is coming out of the closet he deserves to be canned.

What if some guy asked and he told them?

Way to go, you just threw away your most respected general because of your stupid-ass conservative views, possibly your whole country with it.

[Maurepas]

Soldiers do not have Civil Rights. At least as we would think of them in the civilian world.

I would hope that United States should beg to differ, as I believe the Constitution isnt thrown out when you sign that Military Contract...

Much as many would like it to be...

[Parthenon]

What if one of our most Loyal and best generals expressed their Homosexual feelings in the middle of WW3?

Would we just throw him away? No, homosexuality does not effect Physical strength. The only thing different about Gays is they have relations with other men. Other then that, they are just like straight men and women.

I would throw him away in a heart beat. If we are in the middle of a damn world war and what's on his mind is coming out of the closet he deserves to be canned.

So, If random soldier, or officer A, acknowledges their Wife or Husband, they should be thrown out, is that what you are saying?

Are you honestly trying to garner something out of my response to a nonsensical hypothetical situation?

...

[Maurepas]

Are you honestly trying to garner something out of my response to a nonsensical hypothetical situation?

...

Im trying to decide if you have a double standard...

If a Soldier acknowledges the existence of a Wife or Husband should that soldier be thrown out, yes or no?

[The South Islands]

Soldiers do not have Civil Rights. At least as we would think of them in the civilian world.

I would hope that United States should beg to differ, as I believe the Constitution isnt thrown out when you sign that Military Contract...

Much as many would like it to be...

It pretty much is. Soldiers have somewhat of a watered down version of the BoR.

The supreme court has backed the military almost every time an issue has come up.

[Trippoli]

Let me just ask, your willing to risk your whole country just because your general is gay? Is that it?

[Dyakovo]

Soldiers do not have Civil Rights. At least as we would think of them in the civilian world.

I would hope that United States should beg to differ, as I believe the Constitution isnt thrown out when you sign that Military Contract...

Much as many would like it to be...

Actually, in a sense it does...
When you enlist you become property of the U.S. government.

So, If random soldier, or officer A, acknowledges their Wife or Husband, they should be thrown out, is that what you are saying?

To not have a double standard while keeping the current rules, yeah that's what should happen...
Which really does a good job or showing how the current rules are unfair and discriminatory.

[Parthenon]

What if one of our most Loyal and best generals expressed their Homosexual feelings in the middle of WW3?

Would we just throw him away? No, homosexuality does not effect Physical strength. The only thing different about Gays is they have relations with other men. Other then that, they are just like straight men and women.

I would throw him away in a heart beat. If we are in the middle of a damn world war and what's on his mind is coming out of the closet he deserves to be canned.

What if some guy asked and he told them?

Way to go, you just threw away your most respected general because of your stupid-ass conservative views, possibly your whole country with it.

My God, go back to lurking kid. You just made the most nonsensical hypothetical argument and now you are getting pissy in me telling you its an absurd situation.

[Maurepas]

My God, go back to lurking kid. You just made the most nonsensical hypothetical argument and now you are getting pissy in me telling you its an absurd situation.

But, for a more realistic scenario, I reiterate:


If a Soldier acknowledges the existence of a Wife or Husband should that soldier be thrown out, yes or no?

[Trippoli]

My God, go back to lurking kid. You just made the most nonsensical hypothetical argument and now you are getting pissy in me telling you its an absurd situation.

Now you are just flaming,

IT is not ridiculous.

What if that very general you threw away held a most of the United State's defenses. Eventually, he just comes out that he is gay, you throw him out, and the enemy bust up our lines because that general was the only thing holding them back.

[Trippoli]

My God, go back to lurking kid. You just made the most nonsensical hypothetical argument and now you are getting pissy in me telling you its an absurd situation.

But, for a more realistic scenario, I reiterate:


If a Soldier acknowledges the existence of a Wife or Husband should that soldier be thrown out, yes or no?

He is just going to ignore you, all he does on the forums is go off how ridiculous the question is, just your typical Conservative.

[Maurepas]

My God, go back to lurking kid. You just made the most nonsensical hypothetical argument and now you are getting pissy in me telling you its an absurd situation.

But, for a more realistic scenario, I reiterate:


If a Soldier acknowledges the existence of a Wife or Husband should that soldier be thrown out, yes or no?

He is just going to ignore you, all he does on the forums is go off how ridiculous the question is, just your typical Conservative.

Possibly, however, Im going to hound him until I either get a response, or he gets offline or I get off work, which ever comes first...

[Parthenon]

Since I doubt many of you have actually read the policy...

§ 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

(a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.
(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.
(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.
(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.
(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.
(c) Entry Standards and Documents.—
(1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the standards for enlistment and appointment of members of the armed forces reflect the policies set forth in subsection (b).
(2) The documents used to effectuate the enlistment or appointment of a person as a member of the armed forces shall set forth the provisions of subsection (b).
(d) Required Briefings.— The briefings that members of the armed forces receive upon entry into the armed forces and periodically thereafter under section 937 of this title (article 137 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) shall include a detailed explanation of the applicable laws and regulations governing sexual conduct by members of the armed forces, including the policies prescribed under subsection (b).
(e) Rule of Construction.— Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that—
(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and
(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.
(f) Definitions.— In this section:
(1) The term “homosexual” means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms “gay” and “lesbian”.
(2) The term “bisexual” means a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual and heterosexual acts.
(3) The term “homosexual act” means—
(A) any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and
(B) any bodily contact which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph (A).

[Maurepas]

*snip*

But as far as your personal opinion,

If a Soldier acknowledges the existence of a Wife or Husband should that soldier be thrown out, yes or no?

[Parthenon]

My God, go back to lurking kid. You just made the most nonsensical hypothetical argument and now you are getting pissy in me telling you its an absurd situation.

But, for a more realistic scenario, I reiterate:


If a Soldier acknowledges the existence of a Wife or Husband should that soldier be thrown out, yes or no?

In an ideal world, yes. Relationships should not be recognized on company time. However, the policy in place is limited to homosexuality. Please see my prior posting for the details of it.