• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Gays in U.S. military (merged)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nexxyboi
  • Start date Start date
I ditched it and I'm pondering ditching this one.............this falls under the "can anything good come of this?" heading.

If you look for this thread later and it isn't here, then you know my finger twitched.
 
Actually Bruce,

I think the concept is quite interesting and could actually have far-reaching military consequences if it is indeed even possible to manufacture a weapon of this influential nature for use on the large scale.

Not necessarily in the possibility of a weapon to 'influence' ones sexuality, but perhaps even further contexts such as the capability of making them want to sit and eat etc rather than take up their arms.

 
ArmyVern said:
...such as the capability of making them want to sit and eat etc rather than take up their arms.
So, you're suggesting some sort of chemical agent....that could induce ....."munchies" (for lack of a better term).....hmmmm......is such a thing even possible?  ;D
 
Induction of preferences of comportment MAY be possible with hormones,
(really high concentration, we aren't that sensible to olfaction) 
but I don't think that we have the  science for that at the moment.

I don't think : I don't know more then the average Joe (or Jane).
But as a woman, I know that biological reactions can be induce by scents.
I'm refering here to the fact that some women living together for a
long period of time have periods that tend to synchonise.

(I don't know where to find the article I read about it, but I have empirical evidence of that)
 
Yrys said:
I'm refering here to the fact that some women living together for a long period of time have periods that tend to synchonise.

I was actually thinking of weaponizing THC, rather than PMS  ;)
 
CdnArtyWife said:
There have been women in the states who have gotten off, or a lesser charge/sentence for murder on the PMS or more specifically Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD) defence.

So you're thinking of having ennemies females soldiers do murder among themselves ?
Not bad ... just low on that among Talibans, I think ;).
 
I think the usage of chemicals on a nation's own forces to increase combat efficiency has always occurred. The most famous one on my list was when the Germans tried to make their soldiers more fierce in battle by using amphetamines, or back then what was the precursor to amphetamines. It had the complete OPPOSITE effect unfortunately, and all the test subjects either layed down and slept or started huggin each other... very strange indeed...

But to weaponize a hormone could indeed be something that may prove to be useful. However, how do the users counteract that hormonal affect?
 
Sorry to ask this prolly stupid... But is this like droping a bonb and the enemy just drops their guns and does whatever the bomb is pushing them once effect would wear off they are back to normal... What about your own troops, if they are exposed?
 
And the issue of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" comes to the forefront again.

http://www.military.com/news/article/af-boots-decorated-pilot-for-being-gay.html

AF Boots Decorated Pilot for Being Gay
May 20, 2009
Military.com

An 18-year Air Force officer and fighter pilot is being booted under the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays, the officer revealed last night during a prime-time television interview.

Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an F-15E Strike Eagle pilot assigned to Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, where he called an investigation board's finding that his homosexuality harmed unit morale, good order and discipline "absolutely false."


"About 4,000 people are assigned to Mountain Home Air Force Base, and only about 10 people on the entire base even knew of my case up until this very moment," he said. "Those were my immediate chain of command, a couple of attorneys in the legal office, and a couple of officers in the Office of Special Investigations. Not one single person that I'm assigned with in my squadron, or that I fly with in my fighter squadron, knew about this case until this moment."




Fehrenbach said that when the Air Force first made its case against him and moved to have him discharged he just wanted it over with.

"I was devastated, absolutely devastated. The Air Force has been my life. I was  born on an Air Force base. I was faced with the end of my life as I knew it," he said. "I wanted a quick, quiet, fair, honorable discharge."

But he said he decided to fight the discharge because he believes the policy is wrong, and that his fighting it might help other people.

He said he has been disappointed that President Barack Obama has backed off on his promise while a candidate to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

In a statement issued yesterday by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis called the Air Force's move to discharge Fehrenbach "an utter waste of talent."

"The Colonel has a sterling combat record, does a fantastic job for his country every day and has all the medals and job performance evaluations to prove it. He did not disrupt unit cohesion or good order. But the bottom line is he's gay, so he's out," Sarvis said.

Fehrenbach's discharge comes two years before he would have been able to take a 20-year retirement.

Fehrenbach said he has nine Air Medals, including one for valor for assaulting an Iraqi ambush position while under heavy anti-aircraft fire during the first days of the invasion. He told Maddow that he and his wingman spotted a dozen armored personnel carriers laying in wait for advancing U.S. troops on their way to Baghdad.

The wingman's plane suffered a malfunction which made it impossible for him to accurately fire his weapons, Sarvis said, so in addition to unleashing his own he guided the wingman so that he could fire on target, as well, all while under fire.

The two knocked out the ambush, he said.
 
I'm a pretty conservative dude, but this is just a damn shame. I will say that obviously SOMEONE thought he was affecting morale, as they spoke out, but this seems like a lot of leverage that an individual could hold over another, perhaps for purely personal reasons.
 
I personally think they really need to lose some of their archaic regulations.

Maybe the person who ratted him out made a pass at him and got turned down.  ::)
 
The policy is "dont ask dont tell". Very simple. No one will ask you and you arent supposed to tell anyone. Violate the policy and you are done. A number of gay activists have been in this man's shoes and all have lost in court. Just two years short of a retirement too.
 
Then time to change the policy... we're doing quite well with our "don't care doesn't matter" policy...
 
One day ...

Today, it's "Don't ask; don't tell." People who do their jobs in exceeding manner will continue to fight it because one day that fight may just result in the policy being changed (look at the women's vote ...) because it's not actually about "how they perform their job". Perhaps this will be the guy that finally wins that fight.

Perhaps one day, that will no longer be the policy (because we all know - just because something is "policy" doesn't make it right, nor does the fact that it's "policy" imply that common sense was applied in it's implementation).

So glad that we've moved beyond this north of the border, but there was the day when the situation was the same here for pers who were 5 star performers, yet LBGT so routed out. What a waste of talent, time, and money; so not fiscally responsible.
 
A good buddy of mine was tossed out (Canadian army) in the 70s. While he himself was straight, he apparently knew one of his colleagues was a homosexual, and didn't report it, he, the colleague, and several others were given the boot.

 
Something that's always bothered me about the "Don't ask; don't tell" policy is ...

If I were a female soldier holding hands with another female soldier while walking up the street (not in uniform and OFF duty-time) ... and the CO saw us - would we be drummed out for "telling" everyone we were lesbians??

And, likewise with this policy -

If I were a female soldier holding hands with a male soldier while walking up the street (not in uniform and OFF duty-time) ... and the CO saw us - would we be drummed out for "telling" everyone we were straight?

Hmmmm. Is it really a policy that's applied equally and fairly to all as the UCMJ is supposed to be? Somehow, I think the answers to the above would reveal it to be very unequally applied - thus not universal ... that, in my books, makes it "legal discrimination" - nothing more and nothing less. Nice melting pot.
 
As I have pointed out in previous incarnations of this topic this is DoD policy that has its root in the UCMJ which is the law that govern military conduct. Conduct unbecoming and sodomy are crimes. Conduct unbecoming covers any conduct that isnt specifically covered by an Article. Congress has to amend the UCMJ before there can be a real change in the policy IMO.
 
ArmyVern said:
Hmmmm. Is it really a policy that's applied equally and fairly to all? Somehow, I think the answers to the above would reveal it to be very unequally applied - thus not universal ... that, in my books, makes it "legal discrimination" - nothing more and nothing less. Nice melting pot.

Before we go down that road Vern, remember we have "legal discrimination" in Canada upheld by many court challenges. Try being a straight white male putting in for a job that has been deemed a "minority position". So I'd be a bit more careful with that broom...................


While I certainly will not defend "don't ask, don't tell", I do believe we tell people all the time who ask questions about joining "well, that's the policy, if you don't like it, don't join". 

I'm just saying.......
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Before we go down that road Vern, remember we have "legal discrimination" in Canada upheld by many court challenges. Try being a straight white male putting in for a job that has been deemed a "minority position". So I'd be a bit more careful with that broom...................


While I certainly will not defend "don't ask, don't tell", I do believe we tell people all the time who ask questions about joining "well, that's the policy, if you don't like it, don't join". 

I'm just saying.......

I agree that we do it here too.

I don't agree with doing it. Here, there, anywhere.

Jobs should be based on job performance. Period.
 
Back
Top