Air Force lesbian nurse discharged, 19 years service

[Osborn F Enready]

rcne said: I think the honorable thing to do would be to let her finish her 20 years then retire with an Honorable discharge.

I say:
I agree, but our government, and by direct cause, or military, hasn't had much honor since WWII.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: bugsbunny04 At MEPS you have to read this little scare sheet. It tells you that if they find out any of the following later, you will receive at the least an Other than honorable dischard, and at most a dishonorable discharge and some years in prison: you lied about your identity you lied about your medical history (asthma, heart murmor, etc) you lied about your criminal history (felony convictions, drug use) you lied about your finances you lied about how many dependents you have or child support owed you are a homosexual homosexual You also have to sign more than one form that says you have not lied about any of the stuff that they asked you about, and that even though they have not and will not ask you about your sexual orientation, if they find out you are a homosexual later, you are going to be in a world of shit. She knew from the day she enlisted if they ever found out she was done.

Yes, but notice that it said they would discharge you if they found out you were a homosexual, not that you lied about being one.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: jose If she was doing her job well how does it benefit the Army to lose her because of her preferences for sexual fun, she wasn´t hitting on all her co-workers was she ¨lesbian gets a discharge¨ flagyl will clear that up

Because her sexual "preference" (the word preference indicating choice, and most lesbians will tell you they didn't choose to be lesbians) is only tolerated if the Army doesn't find out about it. While I don't think it's appropriate for having homosexuals serving in the military at all (unless you're going to entirely do away with separate sleeping and showering facilities for men and women: it's unfair to allow homosexuals to bunk with the sex to which they're attracted when you won't allow heterosexuals to do the same), I think the Army should be looking into the source of the anonymous tip. The policy is supposed to be "Don't Ask" (meaning the military doesn't ask), "Don't Tell" (meaning the servicemember is not to say so much as a word about being homosexual), "Don't Pursue" (meaning that the military isn't supposed to be engaging in homosexual witch hunts). Going after this woman based on an anonymous tip seems like pursuing to me.

[underbear1]

The Sacred Band of Thebes were the toughest sons of b*tches on the planet, in their day.It was comprised of pairs of male lovers, who unlike their straight contemporaries, who would run off the battle field, because none of their loved ones or families witnessed their cowardice.The Sacred Band died to the man, they would not bring shame or leave their lover to die alone on the battlefield.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes

Memorial to the Sacred Band of Thebes at Chaeronea, marking the communal grave (πολυανδρειον / polyandreîon) in which they were buried. Philip II of Macedon erected the tribute to commemorate the bravery of the conquered batallion.

The Sacred Band of Thebes (in ancient Greek ἱερὸς λόχος / hieròs lókhos) was an elite Greek troop of 150 pairs of homosexual lovers, according to Plutarch (in the Life of Pelopidas) formed by the Theban commander Gorgidas.The motivation for the use of such an "Army of Lovers" in battle is also stated by Plutarch:

"For men of the same tribe or family little value one another when dangers press; but a band cemented by friendship grounded upon love is never to be broken, and invincible; since the lovers, ashamed to be base in sight of their beloved, and the beloved before their lovers, willingly rush into danger for the relief of one another."
According to Plutarch, Gorgidas initially distributed the Sacred Band of Thebes throughout his battle lines as an elite to strengthen the others' resolve, but later Pelopidas, after the Band had fought successfully at Tegyra, used it as a sort of personal guard. For about 33 years, the Sacred Band of Thebes remained an important part of the Greek infantry.

Its defeat came at the Battle of Chaeronea, the decisive battle in which Philip II of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great ended the independence of the Greek city-states. Philip had been held as a hostage in Thebes, and had learned his military tactics there. The remainder of the Theban army fled when faced with the overwhelming forces of Philip and Alexander, but the Sacred Band, surrounded, held their ground and fell where they stood. Plutarch recounts that upon encountering their corpses heaped together and understanding who they were Philip exclaimed:

"Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly."
Though Plutarch claims that all three hundred died that day, other writers claim that two hundred and fifty four died and all the rest were wounded. That claim was substantiated upon the excavation of their communal grave at Chaeronea, in which two hundred and fifty four skeletons were found, arranged in seven rows.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Matt W Actually, Mr.V, armed forces all across the globe are comfortable with lesbians & gays being 'out' - but not America. Hardly a social experiment anymore. If you haven't tried it, then I would venture to say it's not the lesbians & gays who have the comprehension problem....

Matt W. I really don't give a rats rear what other countries do. Britian and France let thier pilots drink before they fly, and Brit ships, and Aussie ones have beer on hand...

Should we?

You don't get it, I KNOW that Gays and Lesbians as a rule can fight, I KNOW that given the sufficient time needed to let the Military adjust it could. Okay?

The QUESTION is, why? Is it worth the 5-10 years of upheaval, and if you think that wouldn't occur you are nutz. I knew a number of Gay and Lesbian sailors, 2 were discharged... but thne they were caught humpin in a fan room... but I digress...

Is it worth it? Or would it just make some of you feel good?

[Matt W]

Mr. V, same question was asked about blacks & women. Turned out pretty good, wouldn't you say?

[rcne]

I remember reading something along those lines underbear1, and in cases such as your example, I don't think there is any argument that bravery and valor on the field of battle is in question.

This case is a mystery to me, we all know at least someone who is gay and functions quite well in society, including the military.

Which is why I'm wondering whose agenda is being served here. There must be something below the surface which the news media left out. Do you have any other follow-up to this case?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Matt W Mr. V, same question was asked about blacks & women. Turned out pretty good, wouldn't you say?

You assume that A: Homosexuality is a natrual condition, and B: people will accept that.

Whether A is reality or not, B is the big one.

Blacks and Women... in your face, cannot avoid the issue, they were born that way. Gays, it's still a question in many peoples minds. That means it would be HARDER to accept longer.

Again, though, you skip over the important question, is it worth the rukus to the military to make you feel good?

Seriously?

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Matt W. I really don't give a rats rear what other countries do. Britian and France let thier pilots drink before they fly, and Brit ships, and Aussie ones have beer on hand... Should we? You don't get it, I KNOW that Gays and Lesbians as a rule can fight, I KNOW that given the sufficient time needed to let the Military adjust it could. Okay? The QUESTION is, why? Is it worth the 5-10 years of upheaval, and if you think that wouldn't occur you are nutz. I knew a number of Gay and Lesbian sailors, 2 were discharged... but thne they were caught humpin in a fan room... but I digress... Is it worth it? Or would it just make some of you feel good?

I have a cousin in the RAF and I asked him about that, and you are wrong. They are not allowed to drink on duty, period.

[italiangm]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Got a reference on that?

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/36/afi36-3208/afi36-3208.pdf

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: italiangm Quote by: PatrickHenry Got a reference on that? http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/36/afi36-3208/afi36-3208.pdf

That was for enlisted...anything on officers? Sorry, don't mean to be a nag. But I know officers and enlisted are different animals...

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Chris the Chees I have a cousin in the RAF and I asked him about that, and you are wrong. They are not allowed to drink on duty, period.

Really? Well color me shocked, they changed the rules or I am mistaken on the Brits...

I know the French still do.

Reguardless, that's not the point.

[italiangm]

Quote by: PatrickHenry That was for enlisted...anything on officers? Sorry, don't mean to be a nag. But I know officers and enlisted are different animals...

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/36/afi36-3207/afi36-3207.pdf

[Jack]

it's unfair to allow homosexuals to bunk with the sex to which they're attracted when you won't allow heterosexuals to do the same

So you want to reduce this whole discussion to an example of sexual jealousy?

When I was in the service, there was quite a bit of sleeping around going on, among all the "persuasions". Our military is not a celibate organization. I think it's patently unrealistic to expect any average 20-something male or female to not express their sexuality. I was aware of no one in the military who raped another person, gay or straight, nor was I aware of anyone who went without a sexual partner who wanted one. We can't expect our service people to be inhuman. Humans, especially young ones, are sexual beings. Their sexuality should never be allowed to overshadow the quality of their service or performance of their duties. If they abuse someone else sexually, that should be dealt with as it would in civilian life. Otherwise it should have no bearing on their fitness to serve.

[underbear1]

I think it's penis envy on the part of straight service men, gays statisticly are BETTER HUNG!
That would make showering with the bigger boyz awfully embarressing.

btw. As it turns out...........size does matter! http://www.thevarsity.ca/media/stora....thevarsity.ca
"With new techniques in hand, scientists have carried out an abundance of rigorous, serious studies on the nuances of the penis. Research has found, for example, that shoe length has nothing to do with penis size. Gay men will no doubt be pleased to hear that they have larger penises on average, according to some research. "

[Jack]

"With new techniques in hand, scientists have carried out...rigorous...studies on the...penis.

I don't mean to disrail the topic, but I just couldn't resist a small edit to improve my enjoyment of your sentence. I'm dying to hear about those new techniques.
OK, back to your RSP.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio You assume that A: Homosexuality is a natrual condition, and B: people will accept that. Whether A is reality or not, B is the big one. Blacks and Women... in your face, cannot avoid the issue, they were born that way. Gays, it's still a question in many peoples minds. That means it would be HARDER to accept longer. Again, though, you skip over the important question, is it worth the rukus to the military to make you feel good? Seriously?

Is it worth discriminating against people with serious talent to make you feel good? What you are saying is that racism can be got rid of, sexism can be got rid of, but homophobia can't. The fact that gays are openly in the military across the globe suggests not.'A', as you say, is irrelevant, and as for 'B', humans are adaptable - especially soldiers. They'll accept anything, and usually quite quickly. Or are American soldiers/sailors/flyers different from other proffessional forces in that respect?

In my humble opinion, the military requires everyone who wants to do the job and has talent. A volunteer force requires that they can't afford to turn anyone away - hence, I would guess, the original idea behind 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. But, as the case above shows, it isn't working. What's a few years' rukus in comparison to forever putting to bed an issue that will constantly haunt the Chiefs of Staff and every Administration from here on in? Short term vs long term, Mr.V. The army doesn't drop dead after 80 years, like a human being - it'll be there long after you and I, or anyone else on this board are gone.

Ish/underbear1 - enough of the penis envy. Let's try & stay focussed, eh?

[Boetie]

A friend of mine had short hair before she joined the service. After she joined the service she grew her hair long. I asked her why.

So that no one will think she's lesbian, she answered.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio You assume that A: Homosexuality is a natrual condition, and B: people will accept that. Whether A is reality or not, B is the big one. Blacks and Women... in your face, cannot avoid the issue, they were born that way. Gays, it's still a question in many peoples minds. That means it would be HARDER to accept longer. Again, though, you skip over the important question, is it worth the rukus to the military to make you feel good? Seriously?

Well, if you're going to let homosexuals share sleeping and showering facilities with the sex to which they're attracted, you have to let heterosexuals do likewise. Otherwise, you're showing favoritism to one group over another.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Isherwood So you want to reduce this whole discussion to an example of sexual jealousy? When I was in the service, there was quite a bit of sleeping around going on, among all the "persuasions". Our military is not a celibate organization. I think it's patently unrealistic to expect any average 20-something male or female to not express their sexuality. I was aware of no one in the military who raped another person, gay or straight, nor was I aware of anyone who went without a sexual partner who wanted one. We can't expect our service people to be inhuman. Humans, especially young ones, are sexual beings. Their sexuality should never be allowed to overshadow the quality of their service or performance of their duties. If they abuse someone else sexually, that should be dealt with as it would in civilian life. Otherwise it should have no bearing on their fitness to serve.

That's fine but if you're going to let homosexuals share sleeping and showering facilities with the sex to which they're attracted, it's only fair to let heterosexuals do the same. It isn't about jealousy, it's about fairness. Why should homosexuals be allowed to share sleeping and showering facilities with the sex to which they're attracted when we don't let heterosexuals do it?