Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Sailors quit Navy over social issues


OverSword

Recommended Posts

Here's a question for 2014: If someone wants to be able to express themselves as a sexual person in their own personal lives, should they avoid joining the military?

Nope. As long as they follow the rules and regs of their service while in uniform and do not break laws out of uniform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my understanding when I was in the military was that I was supposed to act in a way that represented my country with dignity and honor, not my own personal beliefs or ideals. It seems nowadays, people put on a uniform just to further their own political or social agendas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Political correctness and the military do not go together, nor does individuality. Just look what a mess it caused in Fort Hood all in effort not to offend anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had one AME in my division who, after work, would go to the Rec center decked out in a neo-Goth leather jacket/cape, bracelets with metal studs, light white foundation (I learned that heavy white make-up was actually against some regulation), chrome skull belt, and other attire that made him look like he had been abandoned as a baby in a Hot Topic store and grew up among the merchandise.

The argument that I used when questioned by my CO was that he didn't really cause any trouble, wasn't disruptive at the Rec Center, and the few times he went off-base, few people who saw him associated him with the military. As long as his life...style? Choice? Preference? Well, as long as he showed himself to be a professional at his duties and didn't get into trouble out of work, there wasn't all that much that needed to be done about him.

Edited by aquatus1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Political correctness and the military do not go together, nor does individuality. Just look what a mess it caused in Fort Hood all in effort not to offend anybody.

I think the political correctness in the military is obedience and patriotism among other things. But yeah, individuality and the military are like oil and water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my understanding when I was in the military was that I was supposed to act in a way that represented my country with dignity and honor, not my own personal beliefs or ideals. It seems nowadays, people put on a uniform just to further their own political or social agendas.

All sorts of question there; does invading someone else's country represent one's country with dignity & honor? Is the purpose of the Military to defend one's country from aggressors, or to further the political interests of the administration that's currently in office? Should one's individual political beliefs and principles, if one has any, be put aside? But that's probably a question for a different topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All sorts of question there; does invading someone else's country represent one's country with dignity & honor? Is the purpose of the Military to defend one's country from aggressors, or to further the political interests of the administration that's currently in office? Should one's individual political beliefs and principles, if one has any, be put aside? But that's probably a question for a different topic.

Pretty much yes to all those questions. Unfortunately, dignity and honor is not something the populace seems to seek in their politicians/leaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the political correctness in the military is obedience and patriotism among other things. But yeah, individuality and the military are like oil and water.

Where do you come up with this stuff? I am not one of the old Vietnam military guys on here...I have gotten out of the Army very recently (around two years ago). I served with people from all walks of life, and I also served with openly gay men. At work, of course you are not an individual...but then again, you can't really be an individual at most civilian jobs. When you are on your own time, the military does not frown upon a person being an individual at all. When we had company barbecues where you show up in civilian clothes, there were people in trenchcoats and combat boots, some in skinny jeans and fedoras, some in baggy jeans and backwards hats, some in cowboy boots and a button up plaid shirt. Individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically, it is the people who believe that something as superficial as clothing is a measure of individuality, that tend to not understand how a member of the military, having been stripped of all superficial forms of expression, must rely on his own personal character to grow strong and assert itself in its own individual way.

I've seen more individuals marching in perfect unison than loitering behind the workplace on a smoke break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's rather the kind of thinking that gives rise to the conspiracy theorists' belief that the Military are all purely brainwashed robots who'd have no qualms about massacring civilians if they're ordered to in order to impose the New World Order.

And we know the military would never fire on civilians right? (kent state)
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as we know people wouldn't exaggerate or misrepresent things to fit their agendas. (kent state)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you come up with this stuff? I am not one of the old Vietnam military guys on here...I have gotten out of the Army very recently (around two years ago). I served with people from all walks of life, and I also served with openly gay men. At work, of course you are not an individual...but then again, you can't really be an individual at most civilian jobs. When you are on your own time, the military does not frown upon a person being an individual at all. When we had company barbecues where you show up in civilian clothes, there were people in trenchcoats and combat boots, some in skinny jeans and fedoras, some in baggy jeans and backwards hats, some in cowboy boots and a button up plaid shirt. Individuals.

Where do I come up with this stuff? At work if I don't stand out as an individual beyond the pale I won't be recognized for promotion instead of the other guy, so I don't see it that way at all. I won't deny your perspective like you're denying mine, I just don't share it. Corporate Amerikana has lost much of its formal dress requirements, like grey business skirts and white stockings or pant suits for women, shirts and ties for men so prevalent in the '90s. When I worked for an ISP in 2000, we wore pajamas to work if we wanted to. One fellow wore slippers and a shower cap to work one day. Individuality? As compared to the military? Hell yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised it wasn't about putting Navy personell in radioactive situations. It isn't about whether the Navy actually takes care of it's own regarding health issues. It is about social issues. How senseless.

Edited by regeneratia
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we know the military would never fire on civilians right? (kent state)

To repress the thing they vowed to protect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

There are no exclusions here dependent on any specific task or job description or quality of the order given. If you're given an order, you obey it whether you personally disagree with it as an individual or not. By contrast if I'm told to do something by my boss that I find morally or socially repugnant, or hazardous to my health, I have plenty of freedom not to do it. Let's not blur the distinction between force and choice completely here.. They should know up front what they're signing up for. They don't throw civilians in the brig because you walked on the wrong grass or whatever other conceivable way they can get you if you violate the UCMJ.

And this isn't even limited to still being in the military. Reservists and the honorably discharged receiving benefits still have to adhere to regulations in the UCMJ. You can't wear your uniform and participate in a lesbian/gay event. So in that, preacherman didn't go too far with his two visual aids in the OP, they were appropriate to the topic.

“Members of the Navy and Marine Corps, including retired members and members of reserve components are prohibited from wearing uniforms of the naval service while attending or participating in a demonstration, assembly or activity knowing that a purpose of the demonstration, assembly or activity supports personal or partisan views on political, social, economic or religious issues.”

So this never goes away. And yes, it's not just about clothing either. You can do other things that mimic the military without wearing the uniform. Adam Kokesh's veterans march for Ron Paul on the White House comes to mind. Standing outside the White House shouting into a megaphone about CiC Obama's illegal wars, presenting the flag, marching appropriately to instructors orders, et al. What should happen to them? Some of those guys were in uniform. If we're going to excuse the rules again, then it doesn't matter? Arbitrary bureaucratic decision on a case-by-case basis. Some people obviously get away with it. Some people don't. It's not consistently enforced, and that doesn't help anyone know what to expect either even years after they return to civilian life and I would argue especially in those cases. If you disobey an order willfully or not, and they can't get ya on Article 90, they'll get you on 91. If that doesn't apply either, they'll get you on 92. If they want to come get you, the regulations are so comprehensive, they'll find a way.

While I totally agree with Fess and perhaps others that the military's goal should focus on creating warriors, take me down that slope as to why the social(ist) engineering is necessary here exactly? What would happen without the social conditioning? Show me how bad it can get; don't just tease me with alleged anecdotal evidence of "Well, I once knew a guy..." It's up to society to determine society, not government. If the hidden implication here is that gay people somehow don't make good soldiers (how?) then don't complain when you can't keep your recruitment numbers up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think sexual tension can interfere with a fighting unit's effectiveness, but so can a lot of things. Therefore the rule about enlisted and officers not fraternizing is probably a good one, and I would think it best that gays keep it under their hat as much as possible, or at a minimum not make open proposals. The situation however also pertains when men and women mix in the military, and here is where there have been some serious problems of abuse of authority and so on, so I would say the problem does not need to be blown out of proportion.

The Vietnamese military is so different. A good deal of same-sex bonding happens and is generally ignored, and ends when enlistment is over. It is indeed a different culture, although now we see signs of Western prejudices being introduced by missionaries.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think sexual tension can interfere with a fighting unit's effectiveness, but so can a lot of things. Therefore the rule about enlisted and officers not fraternizing is probably a good one, and I would think it best that gays...

Sexual tension in the military only applies to gays? That is a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

There are no exclusions here dependent on any specific task or job description or quality of the order given. If you're given an order, you obey it whether you personally disagree with it as an individual or not. By contrast if I'm told to do something by my boss that I find morally or socially repugnant, or hazardous to my health, I have plenty of freedom not to do it. Let's not blur the distinction between force and choice completely here.. They should know up front what they're signing up for. They don't throw civilians in the brig because you walked on the wrong grass or whatever other conceivable way they can get you if you violate the UCMJ.

And this isn't even limited to still being in the military. Reservists and the honorably discharged receiving benefits still have to adhere to regulations in the UCMJ. You can't wear your uniform and participate in a lesbian/gay event. So in that, preacherman didn't go too far with his two visual aids in the OP, they were appropriate to the topic.

“Members of the Navy and Marine Corps, including retired members and members of reserve components are prohibited from wearing uniforms of the naval service while attending or participating in a demonstration, assembly or activity knowing that a purpose of the demonstration, assembly or activity supports personal or partisan views on political, social, economic or religious issues.”

So this never goes away. And yes, it's not just about clothing either. You can do other things that mimic the military without wearing the uniform. Adam Kokesh's veterans march for Ron Paul on the White House comes to mind. Standing outside the White House shouting into a megaphone about CiC Obama's illegal wars, presenting the flag, marching appropriately to instructors orders, et al. What should happen to them? Some of those guys were in uniform. If we're going to excuse the rules again, then it doesn't matter? Arbitrary bureaucratic decision on a case-by-case basis. Some people obviously get away with it. Some people don't. It's not consistently enforced, and that doesn't help anyone know what to expect either even years after they return to civilian life and I would argue especially in those cases. If you disobey an order willfully or not, and they can't get ya on Article 90, they'll get you on 91. If that doesn't apply either, they'll get you on 92. If they want to come get you, the regulations are so comprehensive, they'll find a way.

While I totally agree with Fess and perhaps others that the military's goal should focus on creating warriors, take me down that slope as to why the social(ist) engineering is necessary here exactly? What would happen without the social conditioning? Show me how bad it can get; don't just tease me with alleged anecdotal evidence of "Well, I once knew a guy..." It's up to society to determine society, not government. If the hidden implication here is that gay people somehow don't make good soldiers (how?) then don't complain when you can't keep your recruitment numbers up.

It is also against UCMJ to obey an unlawful order. If an order is lawful, yes, you must follow it, or face the consequences. You are still a man, a man that can make your own choices, as long as you are willing to face the consequences. Every Soldier disobeys orders every once in awhile. I was supposed to be on CQ one night..but I had Denver Nuggets tickets. Can you guess where I was?

Your second part concerning the uniform at demonstrations? Well, it is against UCMJ to where the uniform when not on duty, or attending a military event. It is not limited to gay/lesbian or political demonstrations. Great job cherry picking though.

The fact is, you can read something and quote it here, and talk about gays in the military and the lack of individualism...but you will never really know. This is one of those things where there are plenty of members on this forum that have lived this life for years, and know when you are full of ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

There are no exclusions here dependent on any specific task or job description or quality of the order given. If you're given an order, you obey it whether you personally disagree with it as an individual or not.

As long as it is a lawful order, certainly. It's part of the job requirements, obeying the boss.

By contrast if I'm told to do something by my boss that I find morally or socially repugnant, or hazardous to my health, I have plenty of freedom not to do it.

Of course. You'll just get fired, which is probably preferable to working for someone who you find to be morally or socially repugnant.

Let's not blur the distinction between force and choice completely here.. They should know up front what they're signing up for. They don't throw civilians in the brig because you walked on the wrong grass or whatever other conceivable way they can get you if you violate the UCMJ.

They don't throw military in the brig for that sort of nonsense either. And there is an entire series of non-judicial punishments available prior to getting JAG involved in a disciplinary affair. Getting Legal into it is pretty much the final option.

And this isn't even limited to still being in the military. Reservists and the honorably discharged receiving benefits still have to adhere to regulations in the UCMJ. You can't wear your uniform and participate in a lesbian/gay event. So in that, preacherman didn't go too far with his two visual aids in the OP, they were appropriate to the topic.

“Members of the Navy and Marine Corps, including retired members and members of reserve components are prohibited from wearing uniforms of the naval service while attending or participating in a demonstration, assembly or activity knowing that a purpose of the demonstration, assembly or activity supports personal or partisan views on political, social, economic or religious issues.”

So this never goes away.

So, the organization that gave you a job, paycheck, retirement, and benefits, is asking you not to use the company name in a support rally for something they haven't approved.

The same applies to pretty much any major business, and most minor ones.

And yes, it's not just about clothing either. You can do other things that mimic the military without wearing the uniform. Adam Kokesh's veterans march for Ron Paul on the White House comes to mind. Standing outside the White House shouting into a megaphone about CiC Obama's illegal wars, presenting the flag, marching appropriately to instructors orders, et al. What should happen to them? Some of those guys were in uniform. If we're going to excuse the rules again, then it doesn't matter? Arbitrary bureaucratic decision on a case-by-case basis. Some people obviously get away with it. Some people don't. It's not consistently enforced, and that doesn't help anyone know what to expect either even years after they return to civilian life and I would argue especially in those cases. If you disobey an order willfully or not, and they can't get ya on Article 90, they'll get you on 91. If that doesn't apply either, they'll get you on 92. If they want to come get you, the regulations are so comprehensive, they'll find a way.

And yet, there they are, complaining with a loudspeaker, in front of the White House, in violation of mandates, and they aren't being secreted away in black cars with tinted windows for re-education. Good thing none of them stepped on the grass, or they really would have been in trouble!

Yamato, no matter how much you like to think the military is full of automatons, the simple fact of the matter is that they are humans, they have rules they follow which aren't all that different from the rules you have to follow, and they have the latitude to decide when and where the rules should be enforced. I should know: I was a Master-at-Arms for eight years. There are simple rules of thumb that no officer even blinks at, such as discipline issues are best taken care of at the lowest appropriate level, and that taking action on rule violations would be pointless if the action would likely result in greater violations and greater infractions, particularly when the violations being broken don't actually cause any harm to people or property.

While I totally agree with Fess and perhaps others that the military's goal should focus on creating warriors, take me down that slope as to why the social(ist) engineering is necessary here exactly? What would happen without the social conditioning?

Socialist?

The military is a dictatorship. Socialism has nothing to do with it.

As to what would happen without the conditioning, well, we've seen that you don't exactly have an accurate idea of how the military does things, so you are going to have to be a bit more specific so others can point out your errors.

Show me how bad it can get; don't just tease me with alleged anecdotal evidence of "Well, I once knew a guy..." It's up to society to determine society, not government.

That's one big difference between the military and the civilian world right there. Civilians can make silly demands without thinking them through, while the military...

Well, in the military, someone showing people how bad things can get usually means people die.

If the hidden implication here is that gay people somehow don't make good soldiers (how?) then don't complain when you can't keep your recruitment numbers up.

Hidden where?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sexual tension in the military only applies to gays? That is a good one.

How did you quote Frank's line about officers and enlisted not fraternizing, and still manage to blurt out that sentence up there?

To add to the officers and enlisted fraternization thing, I would also say that we actively discouraged romantic interludes within the squadrons among the enlisted as well. Most of them are pretty young, relatively speaking, and its easy to get carried away with the office romance, but when it comes time to deploy, suddenly you get a bunch of females turning up pregnant and you get a bunch of guys thinking they got used. That's in addition to the normal office romance problems of the relationship going sour and you still having to be face-to-face with your ex on a daily basis.

It's part of a division officer's responsibilities to have a good handle on their enlisted personnel's personal lives. Not only are you able to offer advice from an experience standpoint, but you can also give the professional perspective on it, and, of course, you keep track of how many personnel are available or will be available at any given time.

Edited by aquatus1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

snip off topic

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you quote Frank's line about officers and enlisted not fraternizing, and still manage to blurt out that sentence up there?

With my keyboard. All legal. Frank's the one who blurted it out. Yes, he made qualifying comments about straights after that initial statement and so I liked his post overall.

But why make the initial statement with gays in it at all? Let's amend the statement he made and not get gays especially involved at all.

"I think sexual tension can interfere with a fighting unit's effectiveness, but so can a lot of things. Therefore the rule about enlisted and officers not fraternizing is probably a good one, and I would think it best that PEOPLE..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as it is a lawful order, certainly. It's part of the job requirements, obeying the boss.

Of course. You'll just get fired, which is probably preferable to working for someone who you find to be morally or socially repugnant.

They don't throw military in the brig for that sort of nonsense either. And there is an entire series of non-judicial punishments available prior to getting JAG involved in a disciplinary affair. Getting Legal into it is pretty much the final option.

So, the organization that gave you a job, paycheck, retirement, and benefits, is asking you not to use the company name in a support rally for something they haven't approved.

The same applies to pretty much any major business, and most minor ones.

And yet, there they are, complaining with a loudspeaker, in front of the White House, in violation of mandates, and they aren't being secreted away in black cars with tinted windows for re-education. Good thing none of them stepped on the grass, or they really would have been in trouble!

Yamato, no matter how much you like to think the military is full of automatons, the simple fact of the matter is that they are humans, they have rules they follow which aren't all that different from the rules you have to follow, and they have the latitude to decide when and where the rules should be enforced. I should know: I was a Master-at-Arms for eight years. There are simple rules of thumb that no officer even blinks at, such as discipline issues are best taken care of at the lowest appropriate level, and that taking action on rule violations would be pointless if the action would likely result in greater violations and greater infractions, particularly when the violations being broken don't actually cause any harm to people or property.

Socialist?

The military is a dictatorship. Socialism has nothing to do with it.

As to what would happen without the conditioning, well, we've seen that you don't exactly have an accurate idea of how the military does things, so you are going to have to be a bit more specific so others can point out your errors.

That's one big difference between the military and the civilian world right there. Civilians can make silly demands without thinking them through, while the military...

Well, in the military, someone showing people how bad things can get usually means people die.

Hidden where?

sigh

So much attempt at disagreement here...where to begin....

The government owns the military. Yes, Socialism, by definition.

Yes "hidden", and if it's not hidden then the implication is wide out in the open? Okay then come on out. You said that homosexuality is not to be tolerated. Who agrees with you on that? When I repeat what you say, it's "Cute". I'm not exactly sure what's motivating you here with the nitpicking but the meaning doesn't change when I say it.

Let's drop "hidden" from my statement then if that's what you latched onto to nitpick because it's not needed:. If the implication here is that gay people somehow don't make good soldiers (how?) then don't complain when you can't keep your recruitment numbers up.

If you can't present how bad the alternative lack of social conditioning can be in the military then you don't have anything good enough to show for it that's going to convince me otherwise. If gays in the military were such a problem that dead people were happening, that would be a valid response to what I'm asking.

Edited by Yamato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.