The hippies in San Fran are at it again [Archive]

FSC Michael McKinley

11-19-2006, 11:00 AM

Being stationed in Petaluma, I saw quite a bit of coverage on this on the local news. This action was not taken for budgetary reasons. The only reason was contempt for the military. In public hearings before the school board, speaker after speaker slammed the military for our don't ask don't tell policy.

Last year the San Francisco City Council passed a non binding resolution banning military recruiters from local schools for the same reason. I guess until we welcome gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered/whatevers with open arms we will continue to not be "liked" by the powers that be in San Fran.

I find it ironic that when it is all said and done, the right of free speech that these people use to bash those of us in uniform was not won by hippies protesting but by our brothers and sisters giving their lives. They seem to forget that. But what can you expect from the spiritual capital of the People's Republic of California?

:eek:

SKC Raymond Kurtz

11-19-2006, 04:53 PM

Ray, did you get permission to post that on this site?

You were kind enough to post the copyright. I hate to say this but this thread/post should be deleted. Rather, just edit or post the link and admin can delete the text in the first post. If not then it could cause some problems for our site.

The safe bet is to post a link to the host site that carries the story.

Good point Ron. Next time I will either just comment on the story or insert the link like you said. Wouldn't want the site to get into trouble.

This is not the first time that San Francisco has gone after the military. Remember when the Navy brought up the idea of mooring one of the battleships as a tourist attraction. Due to the Iraq war and the position of Don't Ask Don't Tell, San Fran said no, we don't want it.

If it wasn't for the fact that so many of our service members use San Francisco International as a gateway to other parts of the world, I would like to see San Fran labled as off limits. Not just certain parts. All of it. Extreme? Yes, but so is telling the military that they are no longer welcome in the schools under any circumstances.

SKC Raymond Kurtz

11-19-2006, 05:16 PM

The battleship in question is the Iowa. Since Stockton does not have a problem with the military, that city is welcoming the Iowa with open arms.

San Fran already has the USS Pampanito, an attack submarine that sank six Japanese ships in six war patrols during World War II. I wonder if the Navy can move the sub to Stockton, thereby depriving San Francisco of 110,000 visitors a year.

One last thing, what about prohibiting the military from doing ANY business with companies within the city limits?

What about pulling recruiters from San Francisco?

BMCS Dave Considine

11-19-2006, 06:30 PM

One last thing, what about prohibiting the military from doing ANY business with companies within the city limits?

What about pulling recruiters from San Francisco?

To me this is falling to their level, and then they win. Let's not play their games! I understand not supporting the city's decision, but boycotting those companies that did not have anything to do with pulling the ROTC programs is not a good idea. My $.02.

SKC Ronald Brumble

11-19-2006, 07:13 PM

SKC Raymond Kurtz

11-19-2006, 07:32 PM

Ray, don't hurt those small businesses just because the political folks don't like the military. I'm sure you're thinking right now that they are the ones that vote to have those elected officials but still....

I would rather see all the military in the area stand up with an "In Your Face" kind of attitude. We are still part of their city. We contribute to their economy and we also contribute to their school system. If there are enough military in a certain school, get those parents to join the PTA and tackle it from that angle.

Seems to me that for the school district that has a bunch of military in their AOR, they in turn get government subsidies based on the amount of kids that ARE military. There was an issue with one school district channeling the money to a school that did not have really have military in their area rather than give it to the one that did. That was for an elementary school, but I would think that it also applies to the Jr High and High School levels also.

This is why we need vouchers to allow people like you and I to have a CHOICE (remember the democrats are always yelling about choice) in where we send our kids. That won't happen because of the hold the National Education Association has on the political process.

Can you imagine having a child in an atmosphere where some or most of the teachers hate the military? It would be scary.

I stand by what I said about taking money away from the businesses of San Fran. Maybe if that happened, enough of these small business owners could band together to force a stop to this climate. Money has a habit of changing things.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-19-2006, 09:29 PM

BMCS Burt Ford

11-19-2006, 10:28 PM

But you can be gay, just not openly or tell ANYONE. Hence the "dont ask dont tell".

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

11-20-2006, 01:46 AM

Everybody might want to read thru Chapter 12 of the Personnel Manual real quick. You can be a homosexual. The Coast Guard does not discriminate based on sexual orientation. It's not being a homosexual that gets you discharged. It's engaging in homosexual activity, which is a violation of the UCMJ, and will end a career.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-20-2006, 05:55 AM

I don't have the manual handy anymore, so please cut-and-paste the appropriate passage.

However, the CG does discriminate against sexual orientation. Simply engaging in heterosexual sex won't get you discharged (under most circumstances), but a homosexual act will.

It's all right to require homosexuals to abstain, but not heterosexuals? How is that not discrimination?

MSTC Shad Hudgins

11-20-2006, 09:45 AM

This was not a budgetary concern. The Fed currently provides well over 50% to fund this program. The elimination of the program will actually hurt the kids. They'll be able to hire the teachers to cover the 1600 students affected but won't be able to fund an alternative program. Considering the monumental success that JROTC actually is, one of the highest graduations rates of any public school program, this is nothing more than politics. It accomplishes nothing but hurting the kids. Rather sad.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

11-20-2006, 11:42 AM

Dennis, I'll cut and paste if I can get to a work station........ but it's black and white policy. The CG does not discriminate against sexual orientation, but does hold people accountable for the acts. Those acts are a violation of the UCMJ. Two different things. And your (in most cases) shows why it isn't discrimination. The CG does prosecute people for heterosexual acts that violate the UCMJ.

ETC Pat Kaschube

11-20-2006, 11:53 AM

I know that the majority of the population of Northern California is anti-military however a silly boycott of bay area companies is ridiculous. I was stationed in Pt Reyes for four years and I made many friends in the area that I remain in contact with. Almost all of them support the military. There are a lot of folks out there that do support the military however they aren't as vocal as the anti-military folks. I noticed during my fours years out there that there was only one other Coastie that ever got involved with the people that lived there and all the Coasties negative opinions came from other Coasties that never got involved themselves. Berkley is whacked no doubt about it. SF is very liberal as well. It also provides a lot of money for the US economy as does the state of California as well. I'm not from California and I'm not going to retire there but be careful with the stereotypes.

SKC Ronald Brumble

11-20-2006, 01:57 PM

I know this won't sit well with the rest of you, but I just have to say...

The military has been excluding the gay population for decades as a matter of military law, even though homosexuality is not a violation of civil law.

Why, now, that the tables have turned, is it a problem?

Everybody might want to read thru Chapter 12 of the Personnel Manual real quick. You can be a homosexual. The Coast Guard does not discriminate based on sexual orientation. It's not being a homosexual that gets you discharged. It's engaging in homosexual activity, which is a violation of the UCMJ, and will end a career.

So, what we need then is an change to the UCMJ. I don't see that happening. Dennis, Why now, well I would say that as times have changed so have the publics views on homosexuality. Not to say that it is widely accepted. But it is at a stage in its public evolution that is similar to when black people were fighting to have the right to fight for their country. There were a lot of prejudice folks back then. Still some now. But this whole gay in the military, well to me it is not unlike those old times.

I don't care one way or another what someones orientation is. If they can serve their country, why can't they live their private lives the way they see fit. ( We all have our secrets ) It does not affect me in the least, and as was said, if they are not violating civil law, the only road bumb, is the UCMJ. If they can pull their own weight, work as hard as the next person, then whats the problem? I know that currently we have gay folks in the military. We all know it. So, the only thing we need to decide is if we as a whole, can just live with it and let them live their lives. I'm not gay, I'm not sure if I even know anyone that is gay. I would like to think that given the chance, I would judge them on their ability to do their job.

SKC Raymond Kurtz

11-20-2006, 03:00 PM

I wonder why we are even having this discussion? After all, this is the 21st century and we should be enlightened as to what is now considered acceptable behavior. Times have changed and the military should change with them. If someone wants to have a homosexual affair, cheat on their wife or husband, who are we to say that this is wrong? We need to get with the New Age program.

Now that I am done with the tongue in cheek deal…………

The problem as I see it goes back to the early days of the Clinton years. Remember when him and his cronies tried to tinker with the social aspect of the military. We came very close to being able to have practicing homosexuals serving in the military, not Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but Do What You Want, We Won’t Do Anything About It.

It didn’t work, mainly because the US is still somewhat conservative.

There is something in the United States Armed Forces that’s called Good Order and Discipline. This means that you and I are prohibited from doing anything that would hurt the cohesiveness of the unit. Why do you think Kelly Flynn, a B-52 pilot, was kicked out for having an affair with an enlisted man?

BMCS Jim Madsen

11-20-2006, 03:25 PM

Dennis, Google USCG Directives and you can look at all you want.

There are state laws against sodomy. Mostly not enforced because of "privacy" issues.

There are UCMJ regulations regarding Sodomy and Adultry. Take your pick. They are still violations.

I lived in the Bay area 2 years and had 3 kids in school. I was as active as I could be in looking at their homework and "social studies" assignments because I found several issues that I disagreed with. Beginning with how the white man has screwed the native americans from the time we took their land... That place in simply out of control.

MKC Art Bailly (ret)

11-20-2006, 03:38 PM

I agree with what Ron said. We (as a country) need to quit prying into personal lives. As long as were not doing anything illegal and getting our job done then But Out. I would be up for a ban on California only because they openly do not support the military. The people of California let their politicians act the way they do. If their opposed it, their no voicing it. If they don’t want our help or support and we stop giving it to them then maybe (I doubt it) they will change their tune.

BMCS T. D. Ellis

11-20-2006, 04:07 PM

The problem as I see it goes back to the early days of the Clinton years. Remember when him and his cronies tried to tinker with the social aspect of the military. We came very close to being able to have practicing homosexuals serving in the military, not Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but Do What You Want, We Won’t Do Anything About It.

Ray,

The military is always used as a testing ground for tinkering with social mores. When Truman integrated the military back the 40's, the same arguments were made about integration. When Ford (I think) signed off on women joining the military, same thing.

I have a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't CARE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO KNOW" policy. Please, I don't really want to hear ANYTHING about ANYBODY's sex life.

I used to bad mouth the "President and his cronies" both DEMs and REPs. Now I don't because of what I learned on this site. I still have the right, I just choose not to. I signed the papers and took the oath so as long as they don't give me illegal orders, I will carry them out to the best of my ability, no matter what I think about it morally. And especially as a CHIEF Petty Officer, I will until the day I retire.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-20-2006, 04:44 PM

OK, first you do not have to engage in a homosexual act to be discharged. Simply admitting to being a homosexual will warrant discharge. It will also bar entry into the CG.

Second, it doesn't matter with whom you engage in homosexual conduct. It is all considered a violation of policy. Not so with heterosexual conduct. As long as you do not violate fratenization policy or adultry, you are good to go.
Also, as per policy, a gay marriage is defined as homosexual conduct. So, in that situation, you cannot even have relations with your spouse.

Stuart- homosexuality acts are a violation of the UCMJ. I agree. That doesn't make it non-discriminatory. It simply makes the policy discriminatory.

Ronald- "(We all have our secrets.)" Why does it need to be a secret?

Jim- there are state laws against sodomy. That is as much a heterosexual as homosexual activity. Not every state carries those laws, nor does the federal government, except, of course, in the UCMJ. Regardless, sodomy laws should be repealed.

Chief Ellis- I agree with you. You should carry out your orders. However, we have discussed policy in other threads, openly disagreed, and lived to tell about it. What makes this different?

I kind of highjacked this thread, and for that I apologize. But, some of you posted as if it never occured to you that anyone would disagree with your point-of-view. If you want to keep talking about the "hippies" in San Fran, I'll quit the debate. But, homosexuality in the country/service is a hot button issue that should be discussed.

SKC Raymond Kurtz

11-20-2006, 05:05 PM

But, homosexuality in the country/service is a hot button issue that should be discussed.

Okay, here goes.

I actually support homosexual marriage under the following condition.

When Mary and Sue or Bob and Stan are married by a certified member that is licensed to perform the ceremony. Consumate the relationship and create a child with no outside assistance from any sources. For example, artificial insemination.

The main purpose of a marriage between a husband (male) and a wife (female) is procreation, that is to further the human race. Can't do that when two women or two men get married.

BMCS Burt Ford

11-20-2006, 06:35 PM

All good points Dennis but sodomy is against the UCMJ, weather you do it same sex or oppisite sex so that part is not discriminitory. I would tend to argue it is not a military issue, but it is societies. If gay marrige was not against the majority of state laws, then it would be. It is the same with drugs, it is legal in Alaska but I still cant light one up. Is that discrimination? Now if that was legal federally and in all 50 states and still against the UCMJ......ok you all get my point.

And to get back on track, to ban a program that is working, makes the children suffer. It takes away from kids who need a lifestlye with structure in a structureless city. What about those 1200+ kids? Lets take away gym beacuse I happen to dislike sports and the role models it thinks it produces.

BMCS T. D. Ellis

11-20-2006, 06:35 PM

Dennis,

I enjoy the discussions and look forward to checking this site often. I was just stating that I don't diss administrations anymore because it raises my blood pressure and I don't want to see posts like I used to see on the "other site". I was probably over-reacting just a little.

I used to post "there" and I used to roll in the mud. Eventually I realized I just liked rolling the mud. Here I can have discussions (read: talk with my peers and occasionally argue for no apparent reason) and not become a pig rolling in the mud.

Here I can enjoy the discussions, learn, broaden my understandings and, maybe, change a few minds. Unless, I am arguing with Stu in which case we all know he will never, never, never, never, never, EVER change his mind. :D

BMCM Deane Smith

11-20-2006, 09:02 PM

Consumate the relationship and create a child with no outside assistance from any sources. For example, artificial insemination.

The main purpose of a marriage between a husband (male) and a wife (female) is procreation, that is to further the human race. Can't do that when two women or two men get married.

Isn't artificial insemination getting assistance from outside sources?

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

11-20-2006, 09:53 PM

Dennis, its only discriminating because you want it to be. Take out the homosexual article and sodomy articles still apply. Gay marriages aren't recognized by everyone so why bring it up ?

Raymond, by your definition, me and my wife of nine years aren't married. And no man or woman who has fertility issues would ever be allowed to marry in the future. What about people who choose to live their lives together but don't want kids ? And not to point out the obvious, but there are benefits to sexual intercourse that don't always produce off spring. And what about all those people who aren't married ......... are they still having kids ?

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-20-2006, 09:55 PM

"I actually support homosexual marriage..."

No you don't, Ray.

Instead of trying to be cute, just say you don't. It makes the discussion a little clearer and on point.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-20-2006, 10:04 PM

Stuart-

"Dennis, its only discriminating because you want it to be."
I don't understand what that means.

"Take out the homosexual article and sodomy articles still apply."
I agree. They both need to go.

"Gay marriages aren't recognized by everyone so why bring it up ?"
Race and gender equality, and cultural and religious tolerance aren't recognized by everyone either. I bring it up because it is a problem that should be discussed.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

11-20-2006, 10:20 PM

You want to label it as discriminating but it's not. It's the law. It's military law, but it's the law all the same.

Race and gender equality, and cultural and religious tolerance aren't recognized by everyone either. I bring it up because it is a problem that should be discussed.

Now whereas these things aren't recognized by everyone, they are enforced by military standards.
If you want to discuss it, I'll discuss it with you. I'm opposed to Gay Marriages. I don't have a problem with Civil Unions. If you think that I'm splitting hairs over the wording and should just get over it,........ I'll counter with, "Why don't you get over it, and accept Civil Unions ?" Marriage is actually a word and has a definition. I don't think we need to change the meanings of words to fit someone else's wants/whims. And I don't think that we need to change the UCMJ to fit society's standards. I still get the biggest kick out of the fact the people want the military to accept someone else's sexual practices, but I still can't grow a pony tail or have a beard because that's a military standard........... Where are the masses crying about the violations of my Constitutional Rights ?

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-21-2006, 06:11 AM

You can't have a discriminatory law? Separate but Equal was law, too. It was a bad one, and eventually went away.

Military standards change all of the time. Even during my tenure.
-When I first enlisted, I could wear a beard.
-The CG came to recognize and provides support children born out-of-wedlock to military members.
-Uniform requirements are different.
-The list goes on and on...

Of course we need to change the UCMJ to fit society's standards. Where do you think those laws come from?

You seem to think that because an idea or practiced is codified in law that it cannot rightfully be challenged. Challenging existing law started this country

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

11-21-2006, 10:00 AM

The facial hair standards become more restrictive and do not reflect the standard set by the American society. Uniforms have changed, but uniform regulations remain the same. People are held accountable for the children they create ...... again held to a higher standard than society.

The military requires a certain test score before allowing entry. They establish weight standards, ethical standards, clothing standards, restrict tatooing and body piercing, and the list goes on ...... that you need to adhere to in order to remain a member of this military society.

There is no room allowed in the military workplace for expressing your sexual practices. No one is allowed to enter the workplace and express their sexual conquests from the weekend. Your sexual activities should remain yours. Our military society doesn't need to become the proofing ground for all things. The military society has always been able to enforce certain legal discriminating standards.

Let's allow people without normal color vision to serve where they want to and then expand our tolerance from that point........

PACS Steve Carleton

11-21-2006, 11:19 AM

Why not just fail to provide ships and aircraft for things like Fleet Week, those events seem to darw lots of civic attention and money.

BMCM Deane Smith

11-21-2006, 11:21 AM

We lawfully discriminate against people all the time...we're allowed to do that. It's when we unlawfully discriminate that we run into problems.

I hate this topic. I hate that some feel that we should alter our values because of society. I don't care what society is doing. I care about good order and discipline. I care about the core values.

For those of you with the belief that "Times are a changing & we should change along with them"...where does it end? Can you marry your sister? Why not? What's wrong with that?

BMCS Jim Madsen

11-21-2006, 04:55 PM

I am right there with you Deane. Who decides what "society's" values are anyway? San Fransisco? Hollyweird? I bet if we could resurrect some of our country's founding fathers, they would wonder what the hell we did to the country that they tried to create. Freedom comes with a price. It also comes with responsibility. There are many who would abdicate that responsibility in the name of freedom to choose whatever, whenever and with whomever... I think it is high time that we draw a moral line in "society's" sand and say this is what we don't cross. Society's lack of any moral standard is going to rip this country apart. If we don't stand for something, we stand for nothing. If we stand for nothing, we won't stand for very long.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-21-2006, 05:10 PM

Stuart-
Except for the last line, I agree with everything that you wrote in your last post. However, I don't see how any of that contradicts my arguments. Also, if SN Smith brags about a heterosexual conquest, he/she may get reprimanded, but won't likely be discharged.

Deane-
You're not the only one that hates this topic. The gay rights discussion generates some pretty strong opinions.
I don't see that homosexuality violates good order and discipline or the CG Core Values any more than heterosexuality.

But, the debate is really more basic, isn't it. It's not about whether we want to accept homosexuals into the military. It's about whether we want to accept homosexuals.

This may not be the proper forum to discuss these issues. If its not, then have your admin people pull the plug on the thread and I won't pursue it anymore. However, I hope the Chief's Corps is open to the discussion, even if it's not open to the change.

BMCM Deane Smith

11-21-2006, 06:28 PM

I hope the Chief's Corps is open to the discussion, even if it's not open to the change.

Dennis...where should the line be drawn? Should there be a line? Are you saying that we should be open to all change? Again...who sets the line and who gets to cross it? I kind of thought that the line had already been drawn?

SKC Raymond Kurtz

11-21-2006, 06:51 PM

Back to the original topic........

Think about what ROTC stands for. ROTC teaches discipline, positive attitudes, pride and self control, attitudes that are lacking in the government school system. These attributes can be taught in the home, but it would be nice to have them reinforced in the school as well. Why any school system would want to do a way with it is beyond me.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

11-21-2006, 08:44 PM

Dennis, that SN might be discharged, depending on who they brag to. And we have people serving along side of us today, that have bragged about their homosexual conquests, and no one has done anything about it, not even reprimanded them.........

All of these things depend on who you tell, and what they're willing to do about it.

The color vision comment is just to show perspective. Why should we change the acceptance of sexual practices before we change other things. The Coast Guard is about performing missions, your sexual activities should not be factored in. No one should be asking about them. You shouldn't be telling anyone about them. The subject shouldn't be pursued.

And as much as you think that it doesn't affect the good order and discipline of the unit as much as "normal" sexuality, I'll disagree. If you had someone who came to work, and told you that on Wednsday nights he dresses up like an infant and his wife spanks him and changes his dirty diaper.......... you'd never look at him the same way on Thursday mornings again. Keep what ever sexual decisions you make out of the workplace. No one has the right to force others to accept their declarations. Sexual talk is contrary to the good order and discipline of a unit. But the more perverse it becomes, the worse it gets. Eliminate all of it.

MSTC Michael Schmidtke

11-21-2006, 09:25 PM

I've stayed out of this for a while, to see how things progressed, but I have to agree with Stu on this one. One can be gay as they want, but the Coast Guard and myself, could care less.....just like I could care less about how many girls/guys one taged the weekend before....it's not my business nor anyone else's.....

Anything sexual shouldn't be discussed at the office, period...thats not the right place to talk about it....

BMCS Jim Madsen

11-21-2006, 10:15 PM

What kills me about the ROTC thing is that these are the very people that preach "tolerance" and "respect for everyone" and "diversity", yet they are kicking out the ROTC because it does not fit their narrow agenda. If that is not ridiculous, I don't know what is. It does not take a brain surgeon with exeptional vision to see this does it?

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

11-22-2006, 01:43 AM

Jim, consider the source again........... they preach tolerance and acceptance of everyone......... complain about restrictive laws in other states....... but vote almost unanimously on anything that about restricting immigration.

CWO Tony Marinelli (QMCS)

11-23-2006, 12:34 PM

I'm surprised this hasn't already been mentioned here...Although you'll never hear our political and military leaders say so out loud, the don't ask, don't tell policy is probably intended primarily for the protection of known homosexuals from heavily armed homophobes who wouldn't think twice about sending a gay man (not so much a gay woman) to Jesus, in the name of God. Then they'd have to deal with that, possibly against their own morals and values. The Boy Scouts have policies that condone similar attitudes to those in the military and ROTC, as do most Christian churches. I'll never understand why patriotism has to be conditional, but it sure seems to be. I guess it's just easier to disenfranchise a small, weak group than to stand up to the (moral?) majority, who vote.

Happy Thanksgiving, y'all.

Discuss

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

11-23-2006, 02:41 PM

Tony, I don't think anyone is protecting anyone from anyone............ The Military is a place of business, not a center for expressing personal values. The Military is not the forum to express your sexual prowess. The military is very big into, do what you want, only do it over there.

Our society has lots of people under the age of twenty one bragging about how much they drink. Drinking has been wide recognized as one of the cornerstones of college life. People is the military can't walk around bragging about their drinking capacity if they are underage. People still get questionable tatoos and body piercing. Once these things, or other violates of the UCMJ or CG Policy are brought to light, those people have to answer for them.

We have rules to live by.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-23-2006, 02:56 PM

Stuart-
Again, I agree with everything in your last post, but none of that addresses the central issue.

An individual should not be discharged or banned from enlistment because he/she makes the statement "I am gay." That rule needs to be changed.

Tony-
Although I agree with the gist of your post, I don't believe the potential for physcial violence was the trigger for instituting the "don't ask, don't tell" polcy. I think that is was simply a compromise and necessary first step.

Michael-
The Coast Guard does care if you are gay. That's why there is a policy on homosexuality.

Jim-
I don't believe that removing JROTC from their schools was a good idea, either. But, it did generate some discussion of the gay rights issue.

Deane-
I don't know. I just know that the existing line feels wrong.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

11-23-2006, 04:17 PM

Dennis, I need to get you a copy of Chapter 12. The Coast Guard does not discriminate against homosexuals. (.) (period) We discharge people who engage in homosexual acts because that is a violation of the UCMJ.
We do not dicharge people who declare they are gay.
We process people who declare they are homosexuals because, in accordance with Chapter 12, we make the arguably presumption, that their declaration implied that they engage in homosexual acts,........ which are violations of the UCMJ.
Everyone who is processed for discharge for homosexuality is entitled to a Seperation Board, regardless of the amount of time that they have served.
That is different than other dischargeable offenses where only people who have served longer than eight years are entitled to the Seperation Board.
At that board they can make their case that, even though they are homosexuals, they do not engage in homosexual acts. They can also, according in Chapter 12, state that even though they have engaged in a homosexual act(s) in the past, they will not engage in another as long as the serve in the Coast Guard.

Now if you want to argue whether or not that happens, I'll tell you I don't know, I don't know anyone who went through it......... I'm only telling what we our written policy states. And I'm telling you that we, the Coast Guard, do not discriminate against homosexuals, or anyone else, based on your sexual practices or preferrences, for their entry into, or continued service in,.....the Coast Guard. However, while you serve, you will be subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

And we're not asking people if they're gay, they don't need to declare anything. If you had anyone who came into work and started telling people, I got laid last night, I got laid last night,........ you need to tell the person, that this is a place a business, that type of conversation is neither warranted, nor welcomed.

I'm not missing your central issue............. you're not accepting mine.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-23-2006, 04:40 PM

Stuart-

"We do not discharge people who declare they are gay."

From CG Personnel Manual:

"An applicant shall be rejected entry into the Coast Guard if he or she states that he or she is a homosexual, or words to that effect..." (12.E.2.B)

"A service member shall be separated if he or she states that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect..." (12.E.3.2)

I have access to a copy now.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

11-23-2006, 04:51 PM

If you want to cut and past, cut and paste, but paste the whole passage.

It's funny that you read past where the Coast Guard does not dicriminate against people based on their sexual preference,.......... and stop the quotes before they make referrence to enforcing violations of the UCMJ.

The center point being, .......... the Coast Guard does not discrimiate against homosexuals, and your conduct in the Coast Guard is bound by the UCMJ.

If you have access to it ....read it. We don't have to change anything. We are bound by the laws set forth by Congress. Don't blame the Military for the laws that were sent down to us and we are duty bound to up hold.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-23-2006, 05:25 PM

It won't let me cut and paste, and I don't have the patience to type out everything. I believe that I used the pertinent passages.

Homosexual conduct and the UCMJ are only linked by the sodomy article, is that not correct? It states

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Why isn't there a passage in chapter 12 that speaks to heterosexuality and its link to the sodomy article? The UCMJ refers to "same or opposite sex" so it makes no distinction between hetero and homosexuals. Yet, as a matter of policy, the CG has specifically spoken to the issue of homosexuality.

And, what is "unnatural carnal copulation?" Why is homosexual conduct considered "unnatural carnal copulation?"

The UCMJ needs to be changed. A lot of state laws need to be changed, as well.

And, you're right that you don't have to change anything. No one ever does.

CWO Tony Marinelli (QMCS)

11-23-2006, 05:55 PM

Don't blame the Military for the laws that were sent down to us and we are duty bound to up hold.

I hate to say this Master Chief, because I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but that's what the soldiers in Nazi Germany said as they committed their atrocities, as well as the state and local police in most southern states with respect to the segregation laws on the books at the time.

The military expects its senior members to question the policies and demand changes, provided the proper channels and methods are used. Ours would be that E-10 in Washington.

Back to the original issue for a sec - don't forget what those hippies did to help end the Vietnam War, including dying for it (Kent State). Ain't that America?

BMCS Jim Madsen

11-23-2006, 07:57 PM

Is the argument now going to be what is "natural" vice "un-natural"? Seems it was not that long ago that a commander in chief was debating what "sex" was. The only people that win an argument like that are the lawyers. I say pull your head out of the sand and look at things for the way they are. 2+2=4. It always was and always will be. No matter what kind of spin our politically correct society trys to put on it. If we keep this type of debate up, we are going to go the way of "great" societies before us. Look what happened to ancient Egypt when the became too degenerate. Look what happened to the Romans... Look what is happening to OUR society.

BMC John Phillips III

11-23-2006, 08:02 PM

There are UCMJ regulations regarding Sodomy and Adultry. Take your pick. They are still violations.

There is one for using profanity too, again it goes back to people being willing to enforce the rules. The expression mouth like a sailor didn't come from old days, it comes from new. Do some research and you will find that the British Navy strongly enforced not using foul language. Sounds like a simple thing but our navy which was modeled after Britains navy has that rule for good reasons. I would say that it was the navy's (in our case CG's) falling into the same moral decline as society that lead to the expression, "mouth like a sailor."

If anyone doesn't see the parallel there I will be glad to elaborate (society accepts homosexual acts, we don't, we start accepting it, etc..)

Beginning with how the white man has screwed the native americans from the time we took their land... That place in simply out of control.

Not to get too far off topic, but we didn't???

Now I will try to get back on topic, even though I must admit I dismissed this thread after the first few posts but I am surprised to see it has heated up.

I think the solution is simple. They don't want ROTC in their schools fine. You have a kid that wants to be in ROTC, move someplace that has it.

If you reverse that, like Jim stated above, they were teaching something in school he didn't like. Apparently the majority was ok with it, but he wasn't, he took his kids out of that school.

In a democratic society majority rules. Get over this idea that special interest groups or your agenda is more important than mine. If your agenda is truly more important you will have the masses behind you. In this case the majority or at least the voting majority decided to do away with ROTC, one more time, GET OVER IT. Just like homosexuals need to get over the fact that not everyone in America supports their right to gay marraige. I will side with BMCM here and say that can have any kind of union they want, but there is no reason that they should be entitled to benefits of being married that are designed to grow the work force/economy, etc.. And to all those homosexuals that would complain about their tax dollars being spent sending my kids to school I say have your parents pay back the dollars that were spent on you going because they failed in raising a productive member of society (more specifically "re-productive" ) That's about as politically incorrect as you will see me get.

Finally, BMCS E, you asked, "Why is homosexual conduct considered "unnatural carnal copulation?" I can point you in the right direction; it has to do with misuse of reproductive and digestive systems.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

11-23-2006, 10:13 PM

Dennis, what's funny is that you typed what was pertinent to your arguement and ignored the parts that weren't.

If you don't want to type it all out, just admit that Chapter 12 clearly states that the Coast Guard does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Tony, .......... very bad analogies. If you want to liken the people that beat someone to within an inch of their life and leave them out in a field to die, solely based on the persons sexual orientation ....... to the Nazi's way of dealing with people, I'll give you a little leeway.
But to suggest that by taking away someone's job or even their career........
That's a leap Evil Keviel couldn't make.
And I don't think that I'm ready to credit the events of Kent State with ending the war.
If you find enforcing a standard, order, or rule to be immoral or against your core beliefs, I'll be the first one to tell you not to enforce it. I will never enforce one that I find to go against mine. I think the Coast Guard would back your play on that one. But you're going to have to convince me that something in the UCMJ is immoral first.

Those Nazi's and the racists that you referred to weren't following a written standard. They were taking matters into their own hands, doing what they wanted, and claiming innocence after the facts.
The Coast Guard wants you to hold people accountable to the written standard, in all things. The Coast Guard teaches you to follow their core values, in all things. The Coast Guard constantly tells you, to adhere to a moral standard, in all things. The Coast Guard constantly tells you to tell someone else, if something happens that falls outside the limits of thoses values.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-24-2006, 12:52 AM

John-
"Finally, BMCS E, you asked, "Why is homosexual conduct considered "unnatural carnal copulation?" I can point you in the right direction; it has to do with misuse of reproductive and digestive systems."

I am reluctant to get graphic in this forum, so I can't address that comment as well as I'd like. Could you give me some other examples of "unnatural carnal copulation," or is your definition limited to your all too cute example?

"In a democratic society majority rules."

That's not entirely true. There is a legal term (that escapes me at the moment) that refers to society's obligation to protect the minority under certain circumstances. The civil rights laws were based on this principle.

And finally, I don't consider accepting homosexuality as a moral decline.

Jim-
I'm not being politically correct (first time that term has ever been used for one of my opinions), nor have I become "degenerate." I just don't like the stance that the military has taken in regards to homosexuals. Besides, it is not "politically correct" to advocate homosexual acceptance in the CG, especially on a Chief's Discussion Board. As Stuart continually points out, it is a violation of policy, and as your response indicates, it is not a popular stance to take.

Stuart-
We just keep going round-and-round. Evidently, neither one of us is listening to the other. Just because the Personnel Manual states that it doesn't discriminate, doesn't make it true. And, you didn't answer any of my questions in my last post.

BMCM Deane Smith

11-24-2006, 04:47 PM

Here's a link to a website that discusses this issue (kind of). I'm not endorsing this website or it's content. It might answer a few of these questions...or not.

http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?section=5&record=2115

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-24-2006, 05:38 PM

That was a great link, Deane. Thanks.

It does speak to the mindset of the opposing camps. The noteworthy line for me was

"The military sodomy law is still part of all discharges for homosexual conduct. Although it applies to heterosexuals as well, it is rarely used to prosecute them."

BMCS Burt Ford

11-24-2006, 06:00 PM

Dennis, I have to ask a few questions. What would your position be on this say 2 years ago? Would you have been successful in having openly gay members of your cutter? How would you convince your crew? I understand the "i said so" argument but how do you tell a 13 man crew that part of his shipmates like naked men and use the same Head? We do not do that with heteros.

JP3, the majority may rule for this issue in San Fran, but didnt we have a president win an election and did not have the majority votes? No I dont think it was the current one but there was one long ago. And I know you can win now with key states via the electoral college.

BMCM Deane Smith

11-24-2006, 08:11 PM

Here's another article about gays in the military. In particular, it discusses the potential changes with the democrats in control of congress.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15790419/site/newsweek/

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-24-2006, 08:55 PM

More to the point, Burt, why didn't I debate this while I was still in uniform?
I'll be as honest with you as I can. I didn't want to jeopardize my career, and I didn't want to have my own sexuality questioned. Those aren't noble reasons, but they are truthful.

I'm somewhat surprised that there are active duty members that question the policy on this forum. Makes me ashamed that I didn't talk about it earlier.

I don't know the answers to your other questions. It could be that it won't be the issue with a crew, that you envision. As far as the logistics of head facilities and berthing areas...I have no idea. Dean's second article attachment speaks about gay British troops serving alongside American troops. Maybe that won't be the issue that we envision, either.

Deane-
Another great article.

BMC John Phillips III

11-24-2006, 09:09 PM

I am reluctant to get graphic in this forum, so I can't address that comment as well as I'd like. Could you give me some other examples of "unnatural carnal copulation," or is your definition limited to your all too cute example?

And finally, I don't consider accepting homosexuality as a moral decline.

I didn't think I was getting graphic, scientific maybe, but graphic, no. I can't imagine any kind of graphic retort, but I am glad that you were able to refrain. Oh and thanks for calling my definition cute, I guess it was sort of...

I think it's good that you don't find it as a moral decline; perhaps you are right, perhaps you are wrong. I suppose it's all a matter of perspective and how it applies to the things that are important to you. I would imagine that in today's day and age that everyone knows at least one gay person, they may even be related to them. A lot of times when you generalize about a group of people you have the tendency to make acceptions based on individuals that you know, that fall in that group. And of course I would never discriminate or treat a gay person* any different than any other person I come into contact with. My biggest reservation about homosexuality is that it's not "natural" and no one is ever going to convince me, no matter how hard they try, that you are born that way.

* that's only partially true, I do get very upset when a gay person makes advances toward me, ok sometimes it's flattering :p but I swear I don't like it!

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

11-25-2006, 01:14 AM

Dennis, I didn't answer your questions because I don't have the answers. When I get back in my office and have a copy of the Courts Martial Manual I'll get you an answer.

And we wouldn't see eye to eye because you don't want to. The Coast Guard doesn't discriminate based on sexual preferrence because the Coast Guard never asks the question. We don't care what people are doing, but once we find out that someone is violating the UCMJ, we are duty bound to hold them accountable. That goes for everyone, again not based on sexual preferrence. As you quoted, some of those things rarely happen. But I could say the same thing based on alcohol incidents, fraud, and adultery.

If we discharged someone based on their being overweight would you want the Coast Guard to change its stance on weight ? I'll guarantee you the Coast Guard discharged more people over that past two years for weight, than for their sexual practices. Do you think the Coast Guard discriminates against weight, and if so why not fight that one ?

The Coast Guard prosecutes people for adultery. Are you willing to say that the Coast Guard discriminates against married hetorosexuals ? I'll go out on a limb and say that married heterosexuals are the only people to be charged will adultery in the history of our Service.

And you keep going back to "the Military's stance". That has always been the military's stance. And it probably always will be. The rules could change, but there will always be people who serve in silence. The militay's stance over the past decade no longer requires people to lie about their sexual activities.
No one's asking, .....why do people feel compelled to tell anyone anything ?

I'm not naive enough to think that there aren't people of all sexual persuassions serving in the service as I type this. Don't be naive enough to think that even if there were no laws every person would be open with matters of their personal life.
And it is their personal life that we're talking about.

BMCS Burt Ford

11-25-2006, 04:29 PM

Thanks Dennis. And I do envision issues with the crews, history dictates that. Every major change in history is resistant to change. Women's rights and Civil Rights are the two this issue is close too.

We are not as open a society as the Brits. Look at tier Page 3 girls, imagine that in a U.S. paper. Thier society is more tolerant over everything. I have never been there just going off what my small brain remembers.

BMC John Phillips III

11-26-2006, 12:34 AM

I'll go out on a limb and say that married heterosexuals are the only people to be charged will adultery in the history of our Service.

What if you are single and you commit adultery with someone else's spouse? (honest question)

And I do envision issues with the crews, history dictates that. Every major change in history is resistant to change. Women's rights and Civil Rights are the two this issue is close too.

If you are comparing letting women is the armed forces I will bite. Special considerations are made for assignments for women in the Coast Guard: seperate berthing, staterooms, heads, etc..

Going by what (I think) you're saying, would we be able to accommodate openly homosexual people in the same fashion? Could we let the gay men sleep and shower in female berthing? Could we let gay women sleep and shower with the men? Where would we berth the bisexuals?

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-26-2006, 11:09 AM

Stuart-

"Do you think the Coast Guard discriminates against weight, and if so why not fight that one ?"
No. I agree with that policy.

"Are you willing to say that the Coast Guard discriminates against married hetorosexuals ?"
No. Although, I do wonder why we bother ourselves with adultry.

"No one's asking, .....why do people feel compelled to tell anyone anything ?"

"Don't ask/Don't Tell" reminds me of "Separate but Equal." It doesn't really address the primary issue.

As far as being open with your private lives, there is a big difference between bragging about last nights conquest, and simply stating "I am a homosexual."

JP3-
Those were some decent questions. Not a sarcastic comment in the entire post.

At what point do shipboard accomodations become sexually provacative? Shared head facilities would be anything but provacative. Berthing area racks are surrounded by curtains. Shower stalls are curtained, and robe can be hung within an arms reach. Disrobing and re-robing can occur in the stall.
The only awkward time that I can see, is getting dressed/undressed. But, I'll bet some common courtesy can alleviate that problem. As such, I'd keep male and female berthing, just that.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

11-26-2006, 01:53 PM

Dennis, you've lost me. You don't have problems with other violations of the UCMJ where the Coast Guard is holding people to a set standard, but you want to pick and choose what causes to champion. You want to paint the Coast Guard as being insensitive to certain people, but agree that they need to be insensitive to the needs of others. And why choose homosexuality to champion when you could have addressed the adultrey issue first. You might have gotten more people to come on board with that one. I wouldn't have been one of them, but others might have joined you, and you could have worked from there.

I'm not worried about the berthing or the bathing issues. Again, I think that people are already serving that have sexual appetites that their co-workers are completely unaware of. I'm worried about the personnel issues, period. It's a bell that you can't unring. Not everyone is going to agree with your lifestyle choices, so why even introduce them.

John, ....two people have sex, the only one who commited adultery is the one that was married. Not my definition..... blame Webster..... but you have to be married to commit adultery.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-27-2006, 08:55 PM

In answer to your first three sentences....yes.

In regards to the rest, I choose to champion those issues that I feel are most important.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

11-27-2006, 10:19 PM

Then I want to re-state that you've lost me. Why do you think it's important for someone to express their sexuality in the workplace ? What is the benefit of allowing that to happen ?

SKC Raymond Kurtz

11-28-2006, 09:36 AM

Just wondering how we got from banning the ROTC from schools to a huge debate on sexual orientation.

Now I know. It's all your fault Senior Chief :D

I know this won't sit well with the rest of you, but I just have to say...

The military has been excluding the gay population for decades as a matter of military law, even though homosexuality is not a violation of civil law.

Why, now, that the tables have turned, is it a problem?

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-28-2006, 09:18 PM

Why should one individual be able to say that he/she is a heterosexual and face zero consequences, while another individual can say that he/she is a homosexual and find themselves looking for a new job? Answer: Because policy will not allow you to be a homosexual and serve in the CG.

There is a bias against homosexuality. If, as a nation and as a service, we view homosexuality as deviant behavior that violates good order and discipline and is contrary to the core values, then let's just say so. Let's not dance around the issue with links to the sodomy article in the UCMJ. Let's not institute a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and then pretend we don't care about an individual's sexual orientation. Of course, we care. We are just too chicken (or too savy) to admit it.

Ray-
I did apologize earlier for hijacking the thread. But, until someone closes me down, or I get the last word, I'm going to keep posting on this topic. And, since this forum doesn't seem to be about shutting people down, and Stuart is physically incapable of letting me have the last word, I guess this will become the neverending thread.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

11-28-2006, 09:56 PM

People can't declare they violate any article of the UCMJ and not expect to be held accountable for it. It has nothing to do with us being chicken. You are just choosing to view it that way.

I can't let you have the last word if your last word is contrary to the Coast Guard's written word. Agree with the policy and I'll drop it. Saying that I'm afraid to admit biases that I don't possess isn't going to quiet me down.
Continuing to claim that the Coast Guard discriminates against people when you possess the written policy where it says that we don't not, isn't going to get you the last word.
Continuing to claim that people who declare their sexuality is going to automatically result in their discharge, even though you possess the written policy where it tells you they may not,....isn't going to get you the last word.

Ray, I got into this at the point where people started defining the Coast Guard policy in a way different, than I read it. I go where the thread takes me.

BMC John Phillips III

11-28-2006, 11:47 PM

I joined the thread late too, for the same reasons. I didn't find the original topic that interesting, but the thread has developed into something more than was intended. I stand by my opinion that only the originator should be offended. Considering the number of posts and views, I don't think anyone should mind.

Anyway, I came back tonight after reading this article on yahoo, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061129/ap_on_re_us/fire_chief_harassment which lead me to think about another issue.

What if someone is an OIC or CO and they are openly homosexual? All of the sudden those same gender pats on the back or hands on training might be considered something more? I am not saying it's justifiable, just saying that it's a likely scenario. Could you imagine the RFC's or temporary RFC's while false or misinterpretted claims of harrassment are dealt with? Again it's just not right. But is being a homosexual and being in the military, right?

SKC Raymond Kurtz

11-29-2006, 09:20 AM

Ray-
I did apologize earlier for hijacking the thread. But, until someone closes me down, or I get the last word, I'm going to keep posting on this topic. And, since this forum doesn't seem to be about shutting people down, and Stuart is physically incapable of letting me have the last word, I guess this will become the neverending thread.

No apology necessary, I just wanted to see how ROTC got sidetracked into a homosexual debate, besides I like to see a healthy debate. I apologize for identifying the person that started it. :)

BMCS Jim Madsen

11-29-2006, 12:05 PM

OK Dennis, I'll say it: Homosexuality as deviant behavior that violates good order and discipline and is contrary to the core values. Satisfied? Probably not, because my star is to small, and there is not enough of them. Well, I don't know that you are going to hear that from anyone that you want to hear it from, because this is not an argument that they will take the time to debate. At least until the new congress has conviened.

SKC Ronald Brumble

11-29-2006, 01:44 PM

Good lord, that was a long read to catch up. Go away for a week and things get crazy. This is a great topic, good read.

Ok Way back at the begining

Ronald- "(We all have our secrets.)" Why does it need to be a secret?

Because society as a whole is not ready to accecpt, someone/everyone/person/people, whatever, reguardless of their bad habits/dirty little secrets. Be it picking your nose, double dipping in the buffet, adultry, sexual orientation, stealing, pirating software/music/movies, chewing your finger nails. Why does it need to be a secret, how about, "Don't ask don't tell" uh, that would be a secret, right. :D :p

As I read all this. One thing kept coming back to me. Why should we change our standards? That was one question someone brought up. Why sould the military "Adjust to the times"? Well, someone thought we should when it was decided that black folks should be able to fight for their country years ago. Guess what, the military had to change with the times then. Then, when black people wanted to get into special programs, flight schools and dive schools comes to mind, once again the military had to change with the times. How long do you think it will be before the military goes though another change. Will I see it in my career, will you, will any of us? How many generations will it take? Change is inevetable. The US Military is the ONLY oginazation that is allowed to discriminate. They changed once. Who's to say they won't again?

As for the whole ROTC thing, those schools and school officials are only hurting their students by not offering it. We see that, I'm sure that many families in that area see that. But they wont, they dont want to for what ever reason.

Well, someone intrupted me and now I'm not "On a Roll". :(

SKC Ronald Brumble

11-29-2006, 06:40 PM

lol, ok, I'm home now and I realized what I forgot to add.

First, I don't feel our military society is ready to allow openly Gay folks in the military. I know I'm not ready for that. Key word here is OPENLY gay.

Now, with that said, might there be a time when it will be accepted, sure. Just like at some point in our future there just might be coed bathrooms and berthing areas. We probably won’t see it in our lifetimes but that does not mean it won’t happen.

Prejudices, discriminations, they have been around for years. What was society against 50 years ago? What is society against now? What will society be against 50 years from now?

That is a very broad statement and I just put that there to ponder on. Not to reply to. I could Google the answers to the first two but that is not the point.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-29-2006, 06:43 PM

Stuart-

You said:

"Continuing to claim that people who declare their sexuality is going to automatically result in their discharge, even though you possess the written policy where it tells you they may not,....isn't going to get you the last word."

The manual says:

"An applicant shall be rejected entry into the Coast Guard if he or she states that he or she is a homosexual, or words to that effect..." (12.E.2.B)

"A service member shall be separated if he or she states that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect..." (12.E.3.2)

If you're going to keep throwing the manual at me, at least read it.

"People can't declare they violate any article of the UCMJ and not expect to be held accountable for it."

I agree. That's why we need to make some changes.

Jim-
Thanks for your honesty.

JP3-
In regards to the article, she may have been all the things of which she was accused. Being gay may not have had anything to do with it.

In regards to the last part of your post, do you pat your female crew on the back? If so, what is the difference? If not (and your patting your male crew on the back), why not?

SKC Raymond Kurtz

11-29-2006, 07:20 PM

On a lighter note.............

Does anybody remember when Ollie North got into trouble for saying that the Marine Corps is going to add a new stanza to the Marine Corps Hymn? Ollie said it would go like this "Don we now our gay apparel"

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

11-29-2006, 08:04 PM

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/415197802/m/9450068990001

BMC John Phillips III

11-29-2006, 10:20 PM

Here you go, no more questioning the manual.

shall[/I] be separated if he or she states that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect...unless thereis a further approved finding 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." (12.E.3.2)

If you're going to keep throwing the manual at me, at least read it.

And if you are going to quote the manual, quote all of it, not just the part that supports your argument.

That was the only one I finished but if you check the word document I posted the rest is there.

DCCS Todd Holcomb

11-30-2006, 08:40 PM

Now, with that said, might there be a time when it will be accepted, sure. Just like at some point in our future there just might be coed bathrooms and berthing areas. We probably won’t see it in our lifetimes but that does not mean it won’t happen.

Ron,
When I was at TACLET and did a trip on a Dutch Frigate and visited some of our allied countries ships some of the things I see on this thread were accepted.

How about bars on our ships, we are one of the only few countries who don't allow drinking onboard except in rare circumstances???????? I was amazed to see when a tub of beer was delivered to combat by the CO for a great job mooring the ship, and then the CO joined us, we (coasties) didn't do anything except smell the beer and go down to combat and celebrate with them, I think my shipmate Ed Briganti who is a new member here was there for that trip...

Back to the topic, times are a-changin', we may not like the changes but they are happening.

Todd

BMC John Phillips III

11-30-2006, 10:04 PM

How about bars on our ships, we are one of the only few countries who don't allow drinking onboard except in rare circumstances???????? I was amazed to see when a tub of beer was delivered to combat by the CO for a great job mooring the ship, and then the CO joined us, we (coasties) didn't do anything except smell the beer and go down to combat and celebrate with them

I agree, times are a changing, but hell, if you are going to champion a cause, why not put the having beer on ships ahead of the having homosexuals on ship :p

Seriously, I am not a big drinker at all and while that sounds cool, it will never happen in the US.

BMC Ken Gouge

11-30-2006, 10:19 PM

Ron,
I was amazed to see when a tub of beer was delivered to combat by the CO for a great job mooring the ship, and then the CO joined us,

Todd

I may be missing something, but how do you moor a ship from COMBAT??? Perhaps the CO needed a beer, and he knew that combat was a "low traffic" area :rolleyes:

DCCS Todd Holcomb

12-02-2006, 10:15 AM

Ken, That is where the mooring party was held, I'm sorry for not spelling it out but here it is:

CO on bridge along with others I assume
Ship moors
CO holds brief on bridge
members of crew gather in Combat
CO brings in tub of beer
We (TACLET) join them
1 hour later beer is gone so are we.

Hope this helped you out, you are correct the guys in combat did what guys in combat always do, that was just the gathering place for drinking. That was my point, a ships crew consuming alcohol in combat!!!!

BMC Ken Gouge

12-02-2006, 11:24 AM

Oooooh, now I get it. I had a picture of an FT getting an attaboy...

BMCS Jim Madsen

12-02-2006, 01:57 PM

I picture the FT getting Heinekin. (sp?)

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

12-02-2006, 06:10 PM

JP3-
If you want me to post the entire manual, everytime I quote from it, I can. I just don't see the logic.

To address your addition to my quote, of course those things are going to happen. By defining oneself as homo/heterosexual, you define what those "propensities" are going to be.

It would be like defining myself as a catholic and then you assuming that I've never done anything as a catholic. Come on, now!

Also, if I say that I am a catholic, how do I prove to you later that I have not, nor will not go to a catholic church?

BMC John Phillips III

12-02-2006, 09:09 PM

BMCS E,

Of course I don't want you to quote the entire manual and I apologize if I came off as a little belligerant, but you can't say that the part you left out supports your argument so it's only natural to assume you left it out on purpose.

Either way, I just can't work with the religious analogy, it's bad enough we are talking about people's sexual preference, I am just not willing to take it any further than that.

But to answer the question about "propensities," I think it's self explanatory. Here's one possible example:

I am homosexual, I have committed a homosexual act prior to joining the CG but have not since. I am practicing abstenance, my career in the Coast Guard is more important to me than my sex life.

Keep in mind that's just one example.

A propensity to engage in homosexual acts would be something like this,

I am a homosexual, I have engaged in homosexual acts prior to joining the Coast Guard, I have not engaged in any since, but put a few beers in me and I am all yours. I go out drinking once a weekend in San Fransisco. Sometimes I drink more than I should.

Just to clarify, I am not declaring anything here, I am strictly using examples.

BMCS Jim Madsen

12-02-2006, 09:43 PM

How many co-ed ships have problems with 8-H violations? That is with separate berthing areas, head facilities... And what does that do to the units morale? Those are just the ones that are "known". Imagine what would happen if there were co-ed berthing areas and head facilities. How would that be any different? I am not saying that we need to get the women off the ships. What I am saying is that we have a hard enough time keeping things "proper" under circumstances where people work closely together for extended periods of time and are away from family and friends back home. There is a propensity for people to become close. Adding an additional element runs the risk of even more eroding of morale as well as adding to the potential of degenerate activities taking place. Of course that will only hurt the units. What price are we willing to pay to be "PC"? As was stated in another thread... This is NOT a business. This is the military.

SKC Ronald Brumble

12-03-2006, 10:18 AM

Jim you're right on the money. But, that would be fitting for our time. This time in our lives and in our military careers. But, who is to say what will happen later. Right now we as a whole just could not deal with co-ed stuff. That also included having a known Homosexual in a berthing area full of the same sex, male or female. Lets not loose sight of the female side of this either.
Things will change. When they change, well who can say but certainly will not be in our time.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

12-03-2006, 10:03 PM

JP3-
Why don't we have the same policy for heterosexuals? We could then all abstain from sex until end-of-enlistment or retirement. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Jim-
Would you have argued against women being on ships prior to the policy change?

Ron-
That last post was a cop-out. We can deal with anything put in front of us. Sometimes, we just choose not to.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-03-2006, 10:49 PM

Dennis, deal with the issue in front of you then. I don't have to re-read Chapter 12, I understood it the first time. I'm not the one misquoting it. You just don't want to get it. Change the UCMJ. Until then you'll just have to accept that it isn't about sex. It's about violating the UCMJ. Most Heterosexual acts don't violate that. If someone was caught doing one that did, and told the person doing the investigation, that they weren't going to stop violating the UCMJ, I'm sure they would be discharged as well.

There are people that are discharged for having heterosexual sex, if that sexual act violates the UCMJ. People are discharged for all kinds of things. I read the good order and discipline all the time. I can't remember seeing someone discharged for homosexuality.

As far as what we opt to deal with, why should we start with someone's sexual practices ? As much as you think we should all just get along, it isn't going to happen. Shedding light on what you do in the privacy of your own home, alters people's perceptions of you.
Your links to religion are weak. Practicing any religion isn't a violation of .... what's that thing again..... the UCMJ. But rest assured, if someone said that they couldn't follow orders from certain genders or certain races based on their religious beliefs,..... believe you me, they'd be on the street.
And if someone was forcing others to listen to their religious preaching, the Coast Guard would set them straight on that as well.

Dennis, we don't let people drive on the base with a political bumper sticker...... and you want us to accept all other declarations...........

BMC John Phillips III

12-03-2006, 11:49 PM

we don't let people drive on the base with a political bumper sticker...... and you want us to accept all other declarations...........

Not to get too far off topic, but have you seen those doggy ball thingies that people hang from thier tow hitch? (something I find totally disgusting and ridiculous), well at my sector they told people to remove them and from what I was told, at least to cover them. So some moron is riding around with a what I think is a crown royale bag over them. :rolleyes:

I wonder if anything would be said about a square of rainbow triangle? I have also seen a thin straight line one- but not on base- not yet...

SKC Ronald Brumble

12-04-2006, 07:39 AM

Dennis, it is not a cop out. It is a statment of fact. Right now, how many in the current military would be willing to vote yes to change the UCMJ? I would guess it would be roughly 10%. It might be more it might be less but it would not pass.

I'm not copping out, I said in one earlier post, that changing the UCMJ was the only way to "Allow" this kind of lifestyle. As Stu points out, if it violates the UCMJ then it is not allowed.

I tried to look up the last time the UCMJ was amended or changed. I couldn't find anything. Who knows when the last time the UCMJ was changed or had some art' removed?

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-04-2006, 07:56 AM

Dennis, I'll tell you what....... as I have recently recieved some conflict resolution training, let's end this...... I'll join in your fight. I just need one small thing before I jump on board. I need every homosexual in America to make that declaration to their family first. Let them be open and honest with the people closest to them, then you and I can help them become accepted by total strangers. But if they're not willing to tell people in their own homes, why should I have to hear about it in my office ?

SKC Raymond Kurtz

12-04-2006, 09:38 AM

Dennis, we don't let people drive on the base with a political bumper sticker

Master Chief, according to the Hatch act, I can drive on base with a political bumper sticker on my truck. But, I cannot put a political bumper sticker on a government vehicle.

I can even show up at political rallys, just as long as I am not in my uniform.

www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-04-2006, 12:42 PM

BMCS Jim Madsen

12-04-2006, 12:46 PM

Dennis, to answer you question... NO
I would have looked at it simply from a logistical standpoint. Seperate berthing and head facilities for genders.

Now Dennis, I will ask you this question: Why did we do that?

SKC Raymond Kurtz

12-04-2006, 02:18 PM

Ray, that depends on how you want to read that. If I have a bumper sticker on my vehicle, in my parking spot, while I'm on duty.......... couldn't that be viewed as me campaigning or wearing that button ?

It's called freedom of speech, even though a bumper sticker would appear to be an endorsement of a certain candidate it isn't.

I went to an Ollie North rally back in 1994(?), I was in civvies, I got my picture taken with Ollie and got his autograph. I couldn't have voted for him anyways since I was and still am a NY resident. However, at the rally there were two Navy guys standing outside, in uniform, holding an Ollie North campaign sign. Definitely a no no.

BMCS Burt Ford

12-04-2006, 02:42 PM

This fight will be the same as Civil Rights and Women's rights, as I have said. Until, and only until, the US Supreme Court Recognizes Gay Marriges, we will not ever see a change in the UCMJ. When that happens, then we would be better off turning our attention to our crews morale. Whether or not we agree, there will be some major resistance onboard CG units. Unavoidable!

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-04-2006, 05:25 PM

It's called freedom of speech, even though a bumper sticker would appear to be an endorsement of a certain candidate it isn't.

Ray, if it would appear to be one.....it is one. Stick with the bumper stickers.... I don't allow those rebel flag bumper stickers either. No freedom of speech if that speech could appear to offend the viewer. That's the world that we created. No Snap on calendars, because some people may be offended by them. You have freedom of speech outside the fence, not inside it.

Burt, I don't think that it's anything like Civil Rights or Women's Rights. Those two groups fought for their right to be treated the same as everyone else. They weren't asking for special considerations, they wanted to be treated the same. And we're still enlightening some people to the fact that we're all the same. We still face challenges from people who refuse to accept that. If people are allowed to openly express their sexuality in the workplace........ stand by for heavy rolls, as the ship comes about.......

BMCS Burt Ford

12-05-2006, 02:08 PM

Stu, you shocked me there. Not the same? I believe it is. Aren't gay's fighting for rights to be treated the same? Dont they want to be treated as equals? I am pretty sure they are or they would not being trying to legalize thier marriges, get medical benefits for their " partner" and be treated as equals when campared to hetrosexual relationships. Women wanted equal rights as did minorities as do gays.

BMCS Jim Madsen

12-05-2006, 02:17 PM

MKC Art Bailly (ret)

12-05-2006, 02:31 PM

Ray, if it would appear to be one.....it is one. Stick with the bumper stickers.... I don't allow those rebel flag bumper stickers either. No freedom of speech if that speech could appear to offend the viewer. That's the world that we created. No Snap on calendars, because some people may be offended by them. You have freedom of speech outside the fence, not inside it.

You might want to read the deck plate posts. Perfect example of PCC's(politically correct Chiefs) and society as a hole.

SKC Raymond Kurtz

12-05-2006, 06:39 PM

[COLOR=DarkRed]Ray, if it would appear to be one.....it is one. Stick with the bumper stickers.... I don't allow those rebel flag bumper stickers either. No freedom of speech if that speech could appear to offend the viewer. That's the world that we created. No Snap on calendars, because some people may be offended by them. You have freedom of speech outside the fence, not inside it.

I take it that you do not have any bumper stickers on any of your vee-hicles :)

I got to thinking about this on the way home. Nobody in my family has any bumper stickers on their vehicles. The only other person close to me was a friend that had a couple on his car. What we have in common is that we are opinionated (I more than him.) So I guess it could be said that the number of stickers relates to how opinionated you are.

Like I said, the Hatch Act says that I can display a candidates bumper sticker on my truck with no repercussions from my command. If you do not like it, too bad, the law says I can do it and will because it is my right.

You mentioned the Confederate flag thing, I support the CF only because its a part of our history. Yes it could be said that it is a racist symbol because it was used by a nation that wanted to continue the practice of slavery. However, I will not fly one or put one on my truck, I am from the North even though I have lived in the South for almost half my life, it is not something I am comfortable with. Even though I am opinionated, I do not want to go out of my way to offend someone.

The KKK uses the Cross to intimidate minorities, does that mean that we should get rid of every Cross? Of course not.

I wish I could get someone to make this sticker, although I am afraid someone would be offended by it, (probably a good old boy from the South.)

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

12-05-2006, 07:33 PM

So many posts, so little time.

Stuart- You overstate and overdramatize the situation. I would be happy if a homosexual in the CG could simply identify him/herself as such, if he or she so chooses.
And, I'll get onboard with you if you can get every heterosexual in the country to tell his/her parents that they are heterosexual. Pretty silly, huh.

Jim-
I would assume that we gave them separate head and berthing facilities because women make men uneasy and sexually stimulated. But, that was about us-- not about the women.

Burt-
Good points.

Ray-
You hijacked the thread that I hijacked. A double hijacking...hmmm...this could be a first.

SKC Raymond Kurtz

12-05-2006, 08:02 PM

Ray-
You hijacked the thread that I hijacked. A double hijacking...hmmm...this could be a first.

And we ain't even terrorists :)

SKC Raymond Kurtz

12-05-2006, 08:05 PM

I'm surprised no one has commented on this yet.

Navy Moves Warship Commissioning From SF to SD

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/10458506/detail.html

These idiots in SF are finally getting what they deserve. Maybe when it starts hitting their pocket books they will change their minds.

Nah, hippiness is too ingrained in them folks.

BMCM Deane Smith

12-05-2006, 08:38 PM

Here's a clip from the article that I think sums up the situation...

Myatt (Retired USMC Major General) said the Navy has mistaken the views of some city leaders for the views of the majority of Bay Area citizens.

MSTC Michael Schmidtke

12-05-2006, 08:46 PM

Comparing Homosexuals to women or minorities are like apples and oranges. A persons sex or race is something totally different then their "lifestyle". Why can't I have more then one wife? Wouldn't that be a "lifestyle" choice? Shouldn't that be legal?

Well this can get sticky....There's no law saying that you WILL go to jail for having sex with someone of the same sex. But you WILL go to jail if you are married to more than one person at the same time!! So to call it a 'lifestyle' is not an accurate description!!

I'm sorry, but I'm not a fan of the gay marriage thing, but I do know folks that are in this situation (they are not military), and for their situation, I agree. (Even though I don't agree with them being gay, but I believe they don't have that choice!) Why can't they get the same benefits as someone that is Hetro?

But until this is resolved at the society level, it shouldn't be an issue for the Military or the UCMJ. And it won't be an issue until they say it is for them(those gay members serving)! Why does one have to declare themselves either way? We don't serve our country based on our sexual preference! We serve based on our patriotism!

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-05-2006, 11:42 PM

Go with Mike's last few lines.
Burt, I'm not talking about what homosexual are fighting for in society, I'm talking about what they want in the Service. They want the right to express their sexuality. I still say that this isn't the place for it. They sexual choices should have no impact on the professional lives. If they express them, they will be viewed differently by many. They want to be able to ring that bell, and have others deal with the fallout.

Dennis, once again you are missing the point. Why do you think that someone needs to declare their sexuality with the people that they work with, when a large number of them still keep their private life private from even their closest family members? That's not a silly question. Your response kinda is. Do you personally know anyone who is ashamed to admit that they are heterosexual ? Do you know anyone whose family has "disowned" them once they found out that they were heterosexual ? And heterosexuals aren't demanding their rights to express their sexuality in the workplace. Direct questions to you Dennis........... Do you think that if someone on active duty were allowed to express their sexual preferrence, that the people they work with would view them differently? Do you think that there would be no lost of good order and discipline at the unit ? Are you willing to open that door, where everyone is allowed to discuss their sexual practices in the office ?

And Dennis, who's overstating and overdramatizing the situation? You should be happy already. According to Chapter 12 of the Personel Manual a person can express the fact that they are a homosexual if the choose to do so. They just need to show that they are not going to engage in homosexual conduct, as it is a violation of the UCMJ. I probably should have mentioned that earlier. It's part of the stuff you didn't want to paste because it goes against what you're saying. Another direct question to you Dennis, as some of the people reading this don't have access to Chapter 12.......... does it mention that someone who has commited homosexual act(s) in the past may be retained as long as the refrain from engaging in them as long as they remain on active duty ? And I'll ask again, Does Chapter 12 say that ?

BMCS Jim Madsen

12-06-2006, 11:56 AM

There's no law saying that you WILL go to jail for having sex with someone of the same sex. But you WILL go to jail if you are married to more than one person at the same time!!
You are right Mike. Maybe this law should be changed along with allowing Gay Marriage.
My concern is what is going to happen to the morale, and good order and discipline of the unit if this is allowed. How many folks are going to be comfortable with an openly gay person in their berthing area? Is there serious potential here for creating a hostile or intimidating environment? What is the purpose for this inclusion in the UCMJ to begin with? We have to operate differently than "society" if we are going to be effective. That is just how it is.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

12-06-2006, 07:04 PM

Stuart-
So many questions.

I'm not looking to allow anyone to discuss their "sexual practices" in the workplace. Identifying yourself as a homosexual is no more a sexual practice than identifying yourself as a heterosexual.

Yes, people will be viewed and treated differently that identify themselves as homosexuals. Yes, that is going to effect good order and discipline. And, yes, I am willing to open that door.

Women are viewed and treated differently. Mixed gender crews effect good order and discipline and we opened that door a long time ago.

We try to be gender neutral and color blind, and some days we actually achieve our goal. But, even on those days that we don't, we are still trying.

In regards to that last paragraph, I've quoted the manual, addressed other passages that you brought into discussion (including your last question) and still you refuse to consider my responses. You can keep asking the same question over and over, but that will not make you right. You're just like the guy that tries to shout me down in a verbal argument. Being loud doesn't make you right, it only makes you loud.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-06-2006, 07:21 PM

Dennis I kept asking the question, because you still haven't answered it.

You are right, stating that you're a homosexual doesn't discuss your sexual practices. And the Coast Guard does address that. I don't know about the other services, I only know Coast Guard policy.

All of that being said, I don't see how anything is going to change in the foreseeable future. I would venture to say that even if the UCMJ were changed. Even if all sexual based offenses were removed. Even if we had a written policy that just said, all people are allowed to openly state their sexual orientation............. Little if anything would change.

I still think that most people would opt to say nothing. Most people realize the world we live in. Most people would choose to keep their private lives private. Most people wouldn't want the people at work to know what they do at night. The people that we have serving in silence today, would still be silent tomorrow. And I don't care how open minded we paint ourselves to be, we still judge everyone. The more you find out about a person, the more you have to hold against them......... when the time comes.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

12-06-2006, 07:38 PM

I do agree with you that many uniformed homosexuals would continue to hide their sexual preference.

But, at the moment, they have to do that. I know that you read it differently, but the policy states that they will be discharged by simply stating that they are homosexual.

They shouldn't have to hide. They've done nothing wrong.

BMCM Deane Smith

12-06-2006, 08:03 PM

They shouldn't have to hide. They've done nothing wrong.

Dennis...that's not entirely true. They joined a service that has a policy on homosexuals. It doesn't matter if they like the policy, they joined. Now they have to abide by that policy or face the consequences. A homosexual who joins the military knows going in that they must keep their private life private. Someone could view their joining under those circumstances as wrong.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

12-06-2006, 08:09 PM

I'm not arguing that homosexuality is a violation of policy. I'm arguing that the policy needs to be changed.

Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus when the policy specifically forbade it.

When I say that they have done nothing wrong, I was speaking in a much larger sense.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-06-2006, 08:22 PM

Dennis, you're still not reading it the right way. They will be proccessed for discharge. Not discharged. They are entitled to a seperation board where they can argue that they either don't engage in prohibited acts or will not engage in them in the future.

Let me give you an example of what I mean by serving in silence. One of the most intelligent people I have ever met in my life, became an ADM in the Coast Guard, and headed up our health program for a couple of years. His conversations were sometimes hard to follow, they would have been better if they were aimed at a room full of college professors, not a know-it-all BM2. He retired a couple of years ago. He came out, after he got out. He waited until after he retired from the military to tell his own family. I found out watching a news report on TV late one night. He'd tell you, as would the other Flag Officers in the discussion group, they were not alone. There are people that would willing throw everything that he accomplished away, if they knew he was gay. They would just write it off. He served in silence. People are serving in silence right now. People will always serve in silence. People who don't, will never have the careers of people who do, even if the UCMJ changes.
And Dennis, not to open another can of worms, but mixed gender crews don't effect the good order and discipline of the crew. People violating the Coast Guard's interpersonal relationships policy effect the good order and discipline of the crew. Go with the it takes two to tango.....
That wouldn't be the same thing as putting openly gay people on board ships, in my opinion. The biggest issue that I would have with openly gay people and good order and discipline is this......
Right now we have people in supervisor roles that are unwilling to reprimand some women and certain minorities because they're afraid that they'll be called a sexist or a racist. These people are weak, and should not be in those positions in the first place,...... but these people do exist. Following that same line, it only goes to reason that eventually you would get an openly gay supervisor that would have to be concerned with reprimanding anyone. Answer this honestly Dennis...... someone that is allowed to serve, and is openly gay, is reprimanding some dirtbag, and said dirtbag runs out of the office and says the supervisor just tried to hit on him......... who is the service more likely to believe ?

BMC John Phillips III

12-06-2006, 10:22 PM

1. I take it that you do not have any bumper stickers on any of your vee-hicles :)

2. What we have in common is that we are opinionated (I more than him.) So I guess it could be said that the number of stickers relates to how opinionated you are.

3. You mentioned the Confederate flag thing, .... Even though I am opinionated, I do not want to go out of my way to offend someone.

The KKK uses the Cross to intimidate minorities, does that mean that we should get rid of every Cross? Of course not.

4. I wish I could get someone to make this sticker, although I am afraid someone would be offended by it, (probably a good old boy from the South.)

I am gonna reverse double whammy hijack your double hijacked thread -

Numbered to minimize typing,

1. The pronunciation of vehicle, are you making fun of people with a Southern drawl?

2. I bet your friend thinks he is more opiniated than you.

3. The KKK's use of the cross is sort of a bad analogy because you left out the part where when they use it, it's burning. I don't know too many people willing to walk around with a burning cross on their neck, but I will keep an eye out.

4. I find that sticker to be offensive and divisive. I would counter that remark (not pledging and allegiance to the North or South) with, both sides won. As we are the United States of America and slavery was abolished.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

12-07-2006, 01:26 PM

Stuart-

I guess I can't imagine a case where a man/woman would pronounce themselves as gay, and then state that they are not and will not engage in homosexual acts.

And, again, they shouldn't have to. Let's apply the same standards to homosexuals that we do to heterosexuals.

Openly gay people would be no more inclined to violate the interpersonal relationship policy than would heteros.

I think that I agree with the last part of your post (it was a little convoluted). But, so what??? False accusations are going to be made regardless of the gender/sexual persuasion/race mix.

In regards to that last question, I honestly believe it will be the individual with the most credibility. I'll bet you worry about false allegations of racisim or sexual harrassment. I know that I did. But, that didn't stop me from doing my job, and I bet it doesn't slow you down one bit, either.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-07-2006, 01:58 PM

I don't worry about it one bit. I know why I do everything I do. I stand by my decisions and stand up for myself. And you don't have to believe me, but getting accused of being a racist or sexist never enters my mind.
But I know alot of other people that are practically crippled by that fear. I've sat in rooms where people were getting ready to circle the wagons. People lose sight of the facts.

Since 1993 more than 10,000 people have been put out of the service with don't ask, don't tell. They now have lobbyist groups working to lift the "ban". 2007 might be their year. I still don't think that it will be. If and when that "ban" gets lifted,....... I still say that you won't see any major changes for many more years. Many people will continue to serve in silence.

You want to believe the person with the most credibility ? I'm asking who gets to start out with the most credibility. In 1999, two military members beat a gay military member to death outside an Army(?) installation. That 1999 isn't a typo. That was seven years ago. How many people on that base probably didn't even bat an eye after that happened ? How many people made jokes about it ? How many of you ever even heard about it ?
You can't erase that mindset by simply saying everyone can serve, and let's all get along. Too many people are going to want to side with the dirtbag......

ETC John D Zidek

12-07-2006, 02:14 PM

I just cant get my brain wrapped around the logistics of gays in the military.
Mainly berthing assignments. Whats the difference between having co-ed berthing and having gay men in with straight men and gay women in with straight women? There is NO DIFFERENCE.

So now we either have to go completly co-ed or have 4 different berthing arrangments, oh wait you cant put all the gay men together or all the gay women together. so I guess its independant staterooms for everyone or co-ed for everyone. Whats it gunna be??

Just my little rant, sorry, I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

ETC "Z"

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-07-2006, 04:22 PM

John, there's a huge difference. With Co-ed berthing you place people who enjoy similar sexual practices in a room with a bunch of beds. The "real" reality is that you still only need two berthing areas. One for men and one for women. You don't really have to worry too much about any kind of contact between homosexuals and heterosexuals. You only have to worry about contact from consenting adults. Most berthing areas are already holding fewer and fewer people. Also, even if the sodomy laws changed, I doubt the interpersonal relationship rules would. So everyone should still sleep safe at night..... at least as safe as you're sleeping right now, unless you think that we don't have homosexuals serving on ships right now.

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

12-08-2006, 07:54 AM

Stuart-
I agree with your last 2 posts.

So, let's agree that allowing our gay uniformed members to identify themselves is going to cause some havoc.

We should expect it, prepare for it, and deal with it. Just like every other social change that the military has been forced to adopt.

I guess we are going to disagree that gay military members should be permitted to identify themselves as such. Is that correct?

ETC John D Zidek

12-08-2006, 09:17 AM

BMCS Dennis Endicott ret

12-08-2006, 04:35 PM

It is as simple as when women were brought aboard ship.

If we agree that there are gay members in the CG already, why aren't they already running amuck (according to your logic)?

People can control their sexual urges. Most current military members do it all the time. Those that don't, are violating interpersonal relationship policies. None of that will change.

MSTC SJ Natale

12-08-2006, 05:01 PM

Master Chief I was not and am not concerned with homosexuals living with heterosexuals. If you think that male and female sailors arent sleeping together on ships and inports you have your eyes closed. The same thing will be happening with the homosexual community of sailors. The difference is we dont let men and women live in the same berthing areas. So how do you stop the midnight visits to other consenting adults racks if you have like minded people living in the same 10 - 30 person berthing areas? Please dont say, "They are Military members and will follow the rules and orders given to them." We both know that inapproiate relationships happen at every command and people dont always follow those rules.
I just think that this is a huge can of worms just waiting to run a muck.
It isnt as simple as when women were brought onboard ships.
oh I forgot to throw this in there IMHO
ETC "Z"

I dont want to be the bearer of potentially bad news, but I would think the phrase "will be" could be changed. I DO NOT have first hand knowledge of anything but if one were to conclude that there are homosexuals (note plural) already serving in the USCG then that may lead us further along and we could surmise that innapropriate relations have already occured.

Just because no one has been caught and reported does not mean it has never happened.

So in short allowing someone to serve in the USCG and not have to hide or conceal thier sexual identity/preferance would do what exactly? I ask this in general, not to any one individual.

ETC John D Zidek

12-08-2006, 05:03 PM

People can control their sexual urges. Most current military members do it all the time. Those that don't, are violating interpersonal relationship policies. None of that will change.

I agree Most people can control themselves.

Do you agree that by allowing open homosexuality in the military that their numbers will increase?

So now, if allowed, instead of having 1 to (being generous) 5 closet homosexuals on the ship you will now have 1 to 5 that are openly homosexual in each berthing area.
Do you think that having that increase is going to cause an increase in violations of the interpersonal relationship policies?

IMHO Its more difficult for heterosexual people to get together underway because they dont live in the same berthing areas. If you have a few homosexual men or women living in the same berthing areas, yes most will control those natural urges, BUT.........Some wont and it will be alot easier for those few to do it living in one berthing area. No different then the trouble we would have if we went to co-ed berthing.

I have intentionally exaggerated this post to make a point. No I am not saying that homosexuals cant control their urges nor am I condoning any violations of Comdt Policies. Just trying to shed some light on areas that some people dont consider.

"Z"

ETC John D Zidek

12-08-2006, 05:08 PM

So in short allowing someone to serve in the USCG and not have to hide or conceal thier sexual identity/preferance would do what exactly? I ask this in general, not to any one individual.

I was just trying to figure out shipboard berthing issues and pointing out my concerns on possible directions this could go.
"Z"

BMCS Burt Ford

12-08-2006, 05:16 PM

I will hijack this again for a sec. Some years ago Navy Times(I think) ran an article about co-ed squad bays(i could not find it) in the Army. They took two squads, one living in the same squad bay, using seprate heads and one seperate squad bays and heads, and conducted training and then evaluations or drills. The same squad bay unit out performed the other in every category. The folks believed it was because they shared more by merely bunking together. Maybe one of our PAs can find it.

Would this happen to us if we shared berthing with everyone regardless of sexual preference? Did anyone else ever see this?

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh

12-09-2006, 09:03 PM

Dennis, we'll probably never agree on anything. I'll give you this and refute some of what John is saying at the same time. I'll give you that there are more homosexuals proudly serving today then anyone is willing to seriously consider. I'll give you that we should seriously consider looking at revising some articles of the UCMJ. I'll give you that homosexuals that have hidden their sexual orientation in order to serve, are not going to start violating other standards and practices if they're allowed to declare their sexuality without fear of reprisals.
You've got to give me, that even without being discharged, declaring your sexual orientation is going to have a