quote:

Originally posted by Hooligan1790:
The numbers are always wrong when they aren't the numbers you may be seeking. Who is to say that the ones voting no voted more than once?

Any poll that allows you to vote more than once is not valid! Also you might note that it does not keep track of the number of votes, so it might not even be a work poll. We have no way of telling.

Every other poll on here locks you out and tells the number of votes, how come this one works differently?

Do you think that the prohibition against sexual conduct by military members on military property be removed? This was not a typo.

quote:

Originally posted by CG_Gunner:
The way you phrased this question I can say in most cases that hetrosexual conduct is prohibited on military property.

You are absolutely correct. With the exception of family housing, sexual conduct is prohibited on military property. That means there is a prohibition of heterosexual conduct as well as the prohibition of homosexual conduct on military property.

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
No, I don't think that the prohibtion of homosexual conduct should be lifted!

So then, do you think that the prohibitions against heterosexual conduct should be lifted at all Mighty?

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
I say yes, it is long past time to repeal DADT and it NEVER should have gone in effect. DADT is a policy that allows people to BELIEVE that as long as they don't get caught violating KNOWN policies and regulations, if they are just sneaky enough about it, then they can serve. The policy and the people sheltering underneath it are indeed dishonorable.

Well Master Chief with that flow of logic: Anyone who lied about their age to serve in the military (many of whom did so during time of war) in your opinion did so dishonorably. The same could be said of those with flat feet that lied to serve their country instead of using it as an excuse to be listed as medically deferred.

quote:

Originally posted by Stat3:
Have you made your vote yet on the Military.com poll? It’s a link within the article at –
http://www.military.com/news/article/obama-may-end-militarys-ban-on-gays.html

The question is - "Should Obama Overturn "Don't Ask Don't Tell?"

The survey answer choices are, as follows:

* Yes: The attitude toward homosexuals has changed since the current policy was enacted. Servicemembers shouldn't be forced out of the military based on their sexual orientation.

* No: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly will undermine unit cohesion and introduce identity politics into service. The stakes are too high to allow social experimentation in our military.

* Maybe: It's time to have a frank debate on gays in the military. Let's hear what today's military leaders have to say and see whether the situation has changed enough to repeal the rule.

As of this post, the results show, as follows:

Yes - 77%
No -- 21%
Maybe- 2%

So, if you feel strongly about it either way, you may want to get your vote in.

Something interesting with the pole today. The new numbers as of now are:

Yes - 77%
No -- 20%
Maybe- 2%
Makes one wonder doesn't it.


Created: Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Should Obama Overturn "Don't Ask Don't Tell?"


Yes: The attitude toward homosexuals has changed since the current policy was enacted. Servicemembers shouldn't be forced out of the military based on their sexual orientation.
77%
No: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly will undermine unit cohesion and introduce identity politics into service. The stakes are too high to allow social experimentation in our military.
20%
Maybe: It's time to have a frank debate on gays in the military. Let's hear what today's military leaders have to say and see whether the situation has changed enough to repeal the rule.
2%


This poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate.

quote:

The same could be said of those with flat feet that lied to serve their country instead of using it as an excuse to be listed as medically deferred.

Okay so you are standing in front of a medical doctor, please explain how you lie about flat feet?

I also heard there was a rash of one armed soldiers who lied about having two arms. During their medical exams they kept moving in a circle so the doctors couldn't get an accurate count of their arms.

Some times things just fly out of my mouth/hands before the brain can stop them!

quote:

Originally posted by EMC_:
Something interesting with the pole today.

What's so interesting, EMC, the 1% reduction in the No votes, or the loss of 1% total? Doesn't seem like much of interest, but maybe I'm missing your point.

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
DADT is a policy that allows people to BELIEVE that as long as they don't get caught violating KNOWN policies and regulations, if they are just sneaky enough about it, then they can serve. The policy and the people sheltering underneath it are indeed dishonorable.

quote:

Originally posted by SuperDuperFlyKat:
Well Master Chief with that flow of logic: Anyone who lied about their age to serve in the military (many of whom did so during time of war) in your opinion did so dishonorably. The same could be said of those with flat feet that lied to serve their country instead of using it as an excuse to be listed as medically deferred.

Interesting that would include the most famous and decorated U.S. war hero of all time, Audie Murphy. Just after turning 16 years young, in 1942, he faked his birth certificate to look like he was 18, and enlisted into the Army. He was said to have looked even much younger than 16, baby-faced and so little, 5’5” and about a buck ten, that he passed out in close order drills. His CC tried to force him into cook school, but somehow Murphy persevered and made it infantry training.

Murphy went into some of the heaviest combat in Europe, and began to put his life on the line for his country and fellow soldiers over and over. His most significant battle awards began with the Distinguished Service Cross (second only to the Medal of Honor), for his extraordinary heroics in battle where 4,500 men in his division were killed.

Only a few weeks later, he received 2 Silver Stars for additional heroism in continued battle. He was seriously wounded in battle many times, but always returned before healed to be with his men. He was field promoted to 2nd LT, then 1st LT, nearly killed over and over, and then was awarded the Medal of Honor – then the Legion of Merit, just after his real 18th birthday, which made him legally allowed to serve (except that he technically enlisted under false pretenses, to begin with).

In all, Audie Murphy was awarded every US medal available at that time, 5 of them were awarded more than once, plus 5 medals from France, and 1 from Belgium.

Would you say that they should be taken back and that he should be dishonored for what you might call his fraudulent service at All Mighty?

quote:

Originally posted by EMC_:

quote:

The same could be said of those with flat feet that lied to serve their country instead of using it as an excuse to be listed as medically deferred.

Okay so you are standing in front of a medical doctor, please explain how you lie about flat feet?

I also heard there was a rash of one armed soldiers who lied about having two arms. During their medical exams they kept moving in a circle so the doctors couldn't get an accurate count of their arms.

Some times things just fly out of my mouth/hands before the brain can stop them!

Alright perhaps the flat feet example was not that great, but the premise stands. Is it dishonorable to lie about a minor medical condition that could get you a deferment in time of war in order to serve in the military?

quote:

Originally posted by SuperDuperFlyKat:

quote:

Originally posted by EMC_:

quote:

The same could be said of those with flat feet that lied to serve their country instead of using it as an excuse to be listed as medically deferred.

Okay so you are standing in front of a medical doctor, please explain how you lie about flat feet?

I also heard there was a rash of one armed soldiers who lied about having two arms. During their medical exams they kept moving in a circle so the doctors couldn't get an accurate count of their arms.

Some times things just fly out of my mouth/hands before the brain can stop them!

Alright perhaps the flat feet example was not that great, but the premise stands. Is it dishonorable to lie about a minor medical condition that could get you a deferment in time of war in order to serve in the military?

Yes, it can be. Especially if the individual is going to persue disability pay for it later on.

quote:

Originally posted by Jen175:

quote:

Originally posted by SuperDuperFlyKat:

quote:

Originally posted by EMC_:

quote:

The same could be said of those with flat feet that lied to serve their country instead of using it as an excuse to be listed as medically deferred.

Okay so you are standing in front of a medical doctor, please explain how you lie about flat feet?

I also heard there was a rash of one armed soldiers who lied about having two arms. During their medical exams they kept moving in a circle so the doctors couldn't get an accurate count of their arms.

Some times things just fly out of my mouth/hands before the brain can stop them!

Alright perhaps the flat feet example was not that great, but the premise stands. Is it dishonorable to lie about a minor medical condition that could get you a deferment in time of war in order to serve in the military?

Yes, it can be. Especially if the individual is going to persue disability pay for it later on.

True, but it that was not the initial intent, then what say you?

I remember my physical in'69 and the doctor saying he might not pass me for the Coast Guard because I had flat feet. I asked if he thought the Army would draft me with flat feet. he said of course. So, I said, how can you disqualify me from one service but let me in another that marches for a living. It worked. me and my flat feet became Coasties.

quote:

Originally posted by Stat3:

quote:

Originally posted by EMC_:
Something interesting with the pole today.

What's so interesting, EMC, the 1% reduction in the No votes, or the loss of 1% total? Doesn't seem like much of interest, but maybe I'm missing your point.

We were already discussing the poll allowing multiple votes by the same user making it invalid. Then you have a poll thats sole means of tabulation is % of the vote, losing 1% in the NO and not gaining it back anywhere else.

So all in all Mighty, I believe we have agreed on the fact that both hetero and homosexual conduct are prohibited on military property (except family housing, of course).

You have said that you want to keep the ban on homosexual conduct.

Would you say that you also want to keep the ban against heterosexual conduct on military property?

Do you think there should also be a ban against heterosexual conduct by military members while NOT on military property, at all Mighty?

.

How about heroic, decorated military members like Audie Murphy, all Mighty. Do you think all his awards should be taken back, because he entered the military under false and dishonorable pretenses?

Stat;
If you want to have an intelligent conversation, drop the 'all Mighty' BS.

Do just a small amount of research about CG Cutters, and look at my profile, and you will understand why the screen name includes the word Mighty.

So, to answer your reasonable questions:

OK, now on to the other ones:
The Awards for Audie Murphy of course should stand.
No, there should not be a ban on all sexual activity by military members, but in the tough economic times, it might be worth thinking about! Think of all of the money that could be saved that we pay out for minor dependants!

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
No, there should not be a ban on all sexual activity by military members

But yet Mighty, you back the ban on homosexual activity, right?

And but yet Mighty all you say satirically about banning heterosexual activity is that it would save money by not creating babies, right?

I'm no expert, but the way I understand homosexual activity is that no babies are ever created by it. Isn't that right Mighty?

So by your economic logic, wouldn't you say that ONLY heterosexual activity needs to be banned. And as you wrote, "in the tough economic times, it might be worth thinking about! Think of all of the money that could be saved that we pay out for minor dependants!"

Yes, it can be. Especially if the individual is going to persue disability pay for it later on.[/QUOTE]

True, but it that was not the initial intent, then what say you?[/QUOTE]

Define initial intent. Good intentions, if that is what you are getting at, is not always honorable, and to start advertizing trying to get a medical condition overlooked in the same manner as the former president did for DADT in the '90s, is not healthy for the service, Especially if going into aviation where not being top of the game during operations means the possibility of serious accidents. Sure the guy with the bad vision may get lucky and land the plane for that heroic night. Are you going to trust him the next flight, especially if you found out he was dishonest on his physical about gettin lasic surgery? Integrity is key here.
But as this relates to the homosexual issue, Mightyz_90 had a good point I didn't think of. The former president's decision to make DADT valid is to directly allow members to break the UCMJ. While I don't think DADT negatively affects the UCMJ that badly, it does poke a hole in the standard.

As of now, I still stand by my position to just leave the issue alone in such a polarizing climate. Gays are allowed to serve with the only condition of not talking about it. The military cannot persue them for it either unless directly caught in the act. In fact, I'm sure commands have plenty to think about lately than worry about who is doing what unless it is absolutely affecting the workforce.

quote:

And but yet Mighty all you say satirically about banning heterosexual activity is that it would save money by not creating babies, right?

wow - you missed the humor there!

Hey you asked my opinion, which I am entitled to and do not need to defend.

If you knew me, you would know I am in no way a religious person, so it is not based on that. I believe that is a persons right to choose to engage in homosexual activites, all other statutes being met of course. As you can tell by the words I choose to use, I also believe it is a choice. I also believe it is an aberant and unnatural behavior and that it should be on the list of prohibited activities. I have the right to believe that. I do not believe it should be a protected class for the military. I am fine with it being a protected class in the civilian world. That is NOT a contradiction. There are MANY things that are indeed protected acticities/classes in the civilian world that are not protected for military. Now, would a decision to the contrary affect my decision to keep serving? Hell no. If it became a protected class for accesion, would I support it? Hell yes. My biggest concern is as stated, get rid of the idiotic DADT provisions. That has always been a weak kneeded, cowardess an inept way of doing bussiness. Contrary to Jen's statement above, gay are not 'allowed to serve' now. OK, maybe an arguement about celebacy could be made, but it is still prohibited. Stand up and make a choice. My vote remains no.

quote:

Originally posted by Jen175:
The military cannot persue them for it either unless directly caught in the act. In fact, I'm sure commands have plenty to think about lately than worry about who is doing what unless it is absolutely affecting the workforce.

It seems that you're trying to be serious Jen, but I could be mistaken, of course. Did you mean your remarks above as satire?

If not, you may want to check the Pers Manual and see that there are far more methods allowed for commands to begin investigations of homosexual conduct, other than, "directly caught in the act."

And the degree of motivation to investigate rumors, gossip, hearsay, etc., certainly varies greatly from one individual commanding officer, to another.

Some leaders within a command may harbor enough prejudice to encourage or even demand what amounts to a Witch hunt, when even the existing regulations tell them they should actually be working to counter the harassment and gossip in the first place.

Check the Pers Man for the various ammo, which can be used in various ways.

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
Hey you asked my opinion, which I am entitled to and do not need to defend. . .

I also believe it is an aberant and unnatural behavior and that it should be on the list of prohibited activities. I have the right to believe that. I do not believe it should be a protected class for the military. . .

If it became a protected class for accesion, would I support it? Hell yes. . .

Stand up and make a choice. My vote remains no.

Mighty thanks for responding.

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:

quote:

And but yet Mighty all you say satirically about banning heterosexual activity is that it would save money by not creating babies, right?

wow - you missed the humor there!

Hey you asked my opinion, which I am entitled to and do not need to defend.

If you knew me, you would know I am in no way a religious person, so it is not based on that. I believe that is a persons right to choose to engage in homosexual activites, all other statutes being met of course. As you can tell by the words I choose to use, I also believe it is a choice. I also believe it is an aberant and unnatural behavior and that it should be on the list of prohibited activities. I have the right to believe that. I do not believe it should be a protected class for the military. I am fine with it being a protected class in the civilian world. That is NOT a contradiction. There are MANY things that are indeed protected acticities/classes in the civilian world that are not protected for military. Now, would a decision to the contrary affect my decision to keep serving? Hell no. If it became a protected class for accesion, would I support it? Hell yes. My biggest concern is as stated, get rid of the idiotic DADT provisions. That has always been a weak kneeded, cowardess an inept way of doing bussiness. Contrary to Jen's statement above, gay are not 'allowed to serve' now. OK, maybe an arguement about celebacy could be made, but it is still prohibited. Stand up and make a choice. My vote remains no.

I see what you are getting at as far as policy and I agree with you. DADT was the "compromise" the Clinton put in to pretend he did something to satisfy the special interest groups trying to change military policy. He just made public with, "don't get caught with what you're doing" basically.
What I mean with able to be gay in the military is that the person cannot be persued by the military based on suspicion unless outright observed acting on it or parading around claiming that they are. Coast Guard harrassment policies enforce the provision.

As far as homosexuality being a choice, is an opinion that I share as well, and when it comes time where the flood gates are opening for homosexuals to come in, I'm going to be pretty ticked off that I might get in trouble for openly stating that opinion. The sensitivity training is coming down the pike, I'm sure.