Sexual Orientation and Military Service

[denuseri]

Should the Military place restrictions on it's service members for their sexual orientation?

[IAN 2411]

I was in the UK Special forces, and i think that we all had kinks and sexual prefrences, the UK has restrictions on gays, but i believe that is understandable. There is a buddy, buddy system and if you upset a person, you dont want his boy freind fucking up your life if you need his protection, because he is retaliating. I believe the Danish Army allow gays but they have very few wars, and in no way do i mean to insult the Danes or their Army with that remark. Other kinks? Well i believe that it would not interfere with their daily life, in fact, i think their vanilla relationships cause the most problems. There was one person i knew that had a boyfreind, but out of the army that i knew of, and he knew that i knew, but live and let live, he was not likely to mess with the other personel so i said nothing. He never once in 14 years asked why, but he gave me a lot of respect and it was a natural respect, but i have always been very broad minded.

Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

I just find it odd that we in the USA have taken the stance that we have on it considering we are supposed to be all about freedom. (Not to mention the role of women in our military)

Which, I do give kudos to Obama and the Adm. Mike Mullen for stateing that the don't ask don't tell policey is in serious need of revision.

Odd how McCain has changed is position 180 degrees too.

Smh, F'ing politicians.

[DuncanONeil]

I was active duty '65 - '69. In that time I encountered a few "gays" in uniform. At least one hit on me. So I do not see the issue in the restriction if folk can still get in.

I just find it odd that we in the USA have taken the stance that we have on it considering we are supposed to be all about freedom. (Not to mention the role of women in our military)

Which, I do give kudos to Obama and the Adm. Mike Mullen for stateing that the don't ask don't tell policey is in serious need of revision.

Odd how McCain has changed is position 180 degrees too.

Smh, F'ing politicians.

[IAN 2411]

denuseri,

The thing that you have to remember is that the laws about gays in the forces of both the USA and GB were placed there many years ago. They were placed there not by the polititions, but the forces comanders themselves, all being at least Brigadeer upwards. They were made water tight by the military lawers, and what politition or high ranking commander is going to jepordise his / her career by trying to change tradition. I expect there are gays in both our armies, but it will be behind closed doors, and if it ever comes to the serface it will not be publisised in a court martial, because it never happened. Before i left the army in 1980 there was a case in my Regiment, the whole battalian knew about it, but the two men involved were secreted away back to the UK. The expected court martial never happened, they were both honerably discharged as soon as their feet touched the tarmac at Heathrow Airport.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

If it is put in place by the General Staff it is not a law but a policy. ANd I suspect that in both countries it is a policy and not a law.

denuseri,

The thing that you have to remember is that the laws about gays in the forces of both the USA and GB were placed there many years ago. They were placed there not by the polititions, but the forces comanders themselves, all being at least Brigadeer upwards. They were made water tight by the military lawers, and what politition or high ranking commander is going to jepordise his / her career by trying to change tradition. I expect there are gays in both our armies, but it will be behind closed doors, and if it ever comes to the serface it will not be publisised in a court martial, because it never happened. Before i left the army in 1980 there was a case in my Regiment, the whole battalian knew about it, but the two men involved were secreted away back to the UK. The expected court martial never happened, they were both honerably discharged as soon as their feet touched the tarmac at Heathrow Airport.

Regards ian 2411

[IAN 2411]

If it is put in place by the General Staff it is not a law but a policy. ANd I suspect that in both countries it is a policy and not a law.

I hate to cotridict you on this one Duncan, but if ever you were charged in the army for any serious offence, including omosexual activities, it would come under Military Law. It is so binding that on a court martial of any sort in the UK, there has to be a QC for the defence. I had a freind that was charged with GBH under Military law, he had his own QC and the prosicution had a military lawer. When he lost his case, he served his first 30 days in a military prison at Coalchester, and then transfered to a civilian prison to serve the two years remaining before being dishonerably discharged.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

You are free to contradict. I still contend, and admit I am not familiar with the pertinent documents in British service, that here in the US the governing document for courts martial is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Note that this is not a law per se in the US but a codification of other US laws in a form unique to the military.
As can be seen by; " Authority: E.O. 12473; 10 U.S.C. 47.

Source: 68 FR 36916, June 20, 2003, unless otherwise noted.


Sec. 152.1 Purpose.

This part:

[[Page 569]]

(a) Implements the requirement established by the President in
Executive Order 12473 that the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), United
States, 1984, and subsequent editions, be reviewed annually.
(b) Formalizes the Joint Service Committee (JSC) and defines the
roles, responsibilities, and procedures of the JSC in reviewing and
proposing changes to the MCM and proposing legislation to amend the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 U.S.C., Chapter 47).
(c) Provides for the designation of a Secretary of a Military
Department to serve as the Executive Agent for the JSC.


Sec. 152.2 Applicability.

This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Military Departments (including the Coast Guard by agreement with the
Department of Homeland Security when it is not operating as a Service of
the Department of the Navy), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the Combatant Commands, the Inspector General of the Department of
Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other
organizational entities in the Department of Defense (hereafter
collectively referred to as ``the DoD Components'')."
This MCM and the UCMJ by extension are based on executive order and federal regulations. Which are also not laws, though grounded in them.

I hate to cotridict you on this one Duncan, but if ever you were charged in the army for any serious offence, including omosexual activities, it would come under Military Law. It is so binding that on a court martial of any sort in the UK, there has to be a QC for the defence. I had a freind that was charged with GBH under Military law, he had his own QC and the prosicution had a military lawer. When he lost his case, he served his first 30 days in a military prison at Coalchester, and then transfered to a civilian prison to serve the two years remaining before being dishonerably discharged.

Regards ian 2411

[IAN 2411]

Finally some progress from the pencil pushers in Washington.


From Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, CNN
Washington (CNN) - Congressional Democrats reached an agreement Monday with the White House and possibly the Pentagon on a key legislative step toward repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars openly gay soldiers from the military.

US Senate votes to lift military gay ban

Politicians in America have voted to repeal the ban against gays serving openly in the US military and sent the measure to President Barack Obama for his signature.

The Senate voted 65-31 to end 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell," policy. The US House of Representatives passed the bill earlier this week as lawmakers pushed to complete their work before the new Congress is seated in January.

"By ending 'don't ask, don't tell,' no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love," Obama said in a statement before the final vote.

Obama vowed during his 2008 presidential campaign to end the ban, which he denounced as unfair, unwise and a violation of basic human rights.

He had been criticised by liberal groups who said he had failed to push hard enough to end the policy.

More than 13,000 men and women have been expelled from the US military under "don't ask, don't tell," which allows gays to serve in the armed forces as long as they keep their sexual orientation secret. Many of those dismissed have said they hope to return to service.

****

Why was everything done so public as if fanfared? When the UK changed the rules of "Dont ask, Dont tell" no one knew of it not even the gays. It was never against British law to be gay in the forces after gays were given equal rights, it was only in the military book of regulations. However when the UK made that law the Military left the book of regulations shut tight.

Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}

[StrictMasterD]

No

[DuncanONeil]

That is not the same thing. There is no provision in the UCMJ prohibiting BEING homosexual. The "requirement" to separate a homosexual from service is a policy not a law.

I hate to cotridict you on this one Duncan, but if ever you were charged in the army for any serious offence, including omosexual activities, it would come under Military Law. It is so binding that on a court martial of any sort in the UK, there has to be a QC for the defence. I had a freind that was charged with GBH under Military law, he had his own QC and the prosicution had a military lawer. When he lost his case, he served his first 30 days in a military prison at Coalchester, and then transfered to a civilian prison to serve the two years remaining before being dishonerably discharged.

Regards ian 2411

[steelish]

Personally, I see both sides of the issue.

One one hand, no one should be restricted from serving our country if it is their wish - unless they have a physical reason they cannot do so.

On the other hand, if there are sexual relations going on within a unit, a soldier (man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight, etc) might not have his/her head completely in the battle if he or she is concerned with the safety of a loved one that is fighting side-by-side with said soldier. I believe this more than anything is the concern of the government. However, that door has already been opened by allowing women to serve in combat, so because that line has already been crossed, I feel that this specific argument is moot. If the argument is used that being forced into combat with someone who's sexual orientation makes said soldier uncomfortable, then the government MIGHT win that case, because there are enough "touchy-feely" people out there to stand behind this issue. I believe though that the military (whichever armed force the soldier serves in) instills enough maturity and bolsters patriotism to the point it overrides any misgivings about another person's sexuality.

[DuncanONeil]

As for Women in combat. It was not merely an issue of sex in the unit.
As for the other stuff;

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.

Applies to everyone. Article 120 deals with rape and carnal knowledge, but as of 2006 was changed. The new article can be found at http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justi.../art120new.htm It list 36 specific offenses. which is why I did not post it.

ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

Anything that affects discipline can come under this article, including consensual sex.

Personally, I see both sides of the issue.

One one hand, no one should be restricted from serving our country if it is their wish - unless they have a physical reason they cannot do so.

On the other hand, if there are sexual relations going on within a unit, a soldier (man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight, etc) might not have his/her head completely in the battle if he or she is concerned with the safety of a loved one that is fighting side-by-side with said soldier. I believe this more than anything is the concern of the government. However, that door has already been opened by allowing women to serve in combat, so because that line has already been crossed, I feel that this specific argument is moot. If the argument is used that being forced into combat with someone who's sexual orientation makes said soldier uncomfortable, then the government MIGHT win that case, because there are enough "touchy-feely" people out there to stand behind this issue. I believe though that the military (whichever armed force the soldier serves in) instills enough maturity and bolsters patriotism to the point it overrides any misgivings about another person's sexuality.

[DuncanONeil]

The male - female issue is called fraternization. Same applies between the ranks.
It is not as simple an issue as many would like to call it.

Personally, I see both sides of the issue.

One one hand, no one should be restricted from serving our country if it is their wish - unless they have a physical reason they cannot do so.

On the other hand, if there are sexual relations going on within a unit, a soldier (man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight, etc) might not have his/her head completely in the battle if he or she is concerned with the safety of a loved one that is fighting side-by-side with said soldier. I believe this more than anything is the concern of the government. However, that door has already been opened by allowing women to serve in combat, so because that line has already been crossed, I feel that this specific argument is moot. If the argument is used that being forced into combat with someone who's sexual orientation makes said soldier uncomfortable, then the government MIGHT win that case, because there are enough "touchy-feely" people out there to stand behind this issue. I believe though that the military (whichever armed force the soldier serves in) instills enough maturity and bolsters patriotism to the point it overrides any misgivings about another person's sexuality.

[DuncanONeil]

Our favorite kink will also get you in trouble with the power structure in the Services!

Personally, I see both sides of the issue.

One one hand, no one should be restricted from serving our country if it is their wish - unless they have a physical reason they cannot do so.

On the other hand, if there are sexual relations going on within a unit, a soldier (man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight, etc) might not have his/her head completely in the battle if he or she is concerned with the safety of a loved one that is fighting side-by-side with said soldier. I believe this more than anything is the concern of the government. However, that door has already been opened by allowing women to serve in combat, so because that line has already been crossed, I feel that this specific argument is moot. If the argument is used that being forced into combat with someone who's sexual orientation makes said soldier uncomfortable, then the government MIGHT win that case, because there are enough "touchy-feely" people out there to stand behind this issue. I believe though that the military (whichever armed force the soldier serves in) instills enough maturity and bolsters patriotism to the point it overrides any misgivings about another person's sexuality.

[denuseri]

Being "uncomfortable" isn't a good exuse imho, it didnt stop other minorities from serving and alltough women have restricted access in some militaries, it hasn't stopped women from serving.

As far as sexual relations go between service members, thats commonly been restricted even between hetrosexuals and is a punishable offence between members of the same command.

[IAN 2411]

I think the point that steelish is trying to make is this, if there are two gay men on the front line and one of them is a specialist. Then the speicialists boyfriend, mate whatever is out in the open, but in close combat with the enamy. His borfreind has to put a rocket so close that it not only kills thirty enemy and saves sixty troops, but at the same time puts his mate in the kill zone, it will have an effect on the specialist mate to carry out his task. I believe this to be true, and you have to think vanilla to think gay in that scenario, it is sad but a possibility that a lot of people would die for the sake of one persons love. That is the scenario that the military chiefs are afraid of, and so to are the streight troops fighting beside the gay lovers. I have tried to make that as clear as i can. Please dont for one minute think that i am anti gay, becaue there are places for gays in the forces, but not in a combat batallian, because life and death depend on cool heads.

Regards ian 2411

[SadisticNature]

I think its absolutely ridiculous for the military to turn away able bodied people of sound mind in a situation where they have stop loss programs that prevent people from leaving after their term is up. And yes that is regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender or any other factor they could consider discriminating on.

[DuncanONeil]

While that is the standard and accepted argument for preventing the situation, it does not stand to test. Soldiers do not die for a cause nor, really, for their country. They die for the guy in the next foxhole. This bond is strongest in those that have actually gone into harms way, likely strongest among Marines. You count on that "other" soldier to keep you safe. If that means they fire "danger close" they are expected to do so. All uniforms know this!

I think the point that steelish is trying to make is this, if there are two gay men on the front line and one of them is a specialist. Then the speicialists boyfriend, mate whatever is out in the open, but in close combat with the enamy. His borfreind has to put a rocket so close that it not only kills thirty enemy and saves sixty troops, but at the same time puts his mate in the kill zone, it will have an effect on the specialist mate to carry out his task. I believe this to be true, and you have to think vanilla to think gay in that scenario, it is sad but a possibility that a lot of people would die for the sake of one persons love. That is the scenario that the military chiefs are afraid of, and so to are the streight troops fighting beside the gay lovers. I have tried to make that as clear as i can. Please dont for one minute think that i am anti gay, becaue there are places for gays in the forces, but not in a combat batallian, because life and death depend on cool heads.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

And this is any difference when the specialist is a female and the boyfriend is in that threatened unit?

I think the point that steelish is trying to make is this, if there are two gay men on the front line and one of them is a specialist. Then the speicialists boyfriend, mate whatever is out in the open, but in close combat with the enamy. His borfreind has to put a rocket so close that it not only kills thirty enemy and saves sixty troops, but at the same time puts his mate in the kill zone, it will have an effect on the specialist mate to carry out his task. I believe this to be true, and you have to think vanilla to think gay in that scenario, it is sad but a possibility that a lot of people would die for the sake of one persons love. That is the scenario that the military chiefs are afraid of, and so to are the streight troops fighting beside the gay lovers. I have tried to make that as clear as i can. Please dont for one minute think that i am anti gay, becaue there are places for gays in the forces, but not in a combat batallian, because life and death depend on cool heads.

Regards ian 2411

[fetishdj]

The precedent has to be ancient Greece here, where it was not only encouraged to be gay but the men in the army were encouraged to pair up because it was beleived that a strong pair bond between two individuals made them more likely to fight effectively - to defend each other if nothing else. Whether this has any comparison in the modern forces is a different matter and I am not aware of any evidence - would be interested in seeing if there is.

One question I do have to ask, however, is: which is worse - a man pining away and not focusing on his duties because of missing his wife/lover or a man worrying about his wife/lover being in the same place as he is? Personally I think that they are the same and, frankly, don't think any professional soldier serves any less well because of 'the wife and kids back home' so why should it be any different if the 'wife' happens to be a man?

But we are mired in the conventions and traditions which not only forbid gays in the military but also prevent women from serving on the front line (I beleive that one is on the Geneva convention, though some countries - Isreal, for example - do ignore it). It may be time for a rethink of some old traditions which were largely based on old fashioned attitudes to sexuality and gender politics.

Of course, what always amused me is the fact that it is precisely because of gays in the military that we have the BDSM lifestyle we have today

[DuncanONeil]

See msg #21

The precedent has to be ancient Greece here, where it was not only encouraged to be gay but the men in the army were encouraged to pair up because it was beleived that a strong pair bond between two individuals made them more likely to fight effectively - to defend each other if nothing else. Whether this has any comparison in the modern forces is a different matter and I am not aware of any evidence - would be interested in seeing if there is.

One question I do have to ask, however, is: which is worse - a man pining away and not focusing on his duties because of missing his wife/lover or a man worrying about his wife/lover being in the same place as he is? Personally I think that they are the same and, frankly, don't think any professional soldier serves any less well because of 'the wife and kids back home' so why should it be any different if the 'wife' happens to be a man?

But we are mired in the conventions and traditions which not only forbid gays in the military but also prevent women from serving on the front line (I beleive that one is on the Geneva convention, though some countries - Isreal, for example - do ignore it). It may be time for a rethink of some old traditions which were largely based on old fashioned attitudes to sexuality and gender politics.

Of course, what always amused me is the fact that it is precisely because of gays in the military that we have the BDSM lifestyle we have today

[IAN 2411]

fetishdj, you should read my post once more, because i have given you a good reason why the army thinks that gay people should not be soldiers on the front line. We do have women on the front line in the uk, and they are there because we have one with her leg missing, and one that was caught in a cross fire and shot to pieces, and they both have the George Cross to prove it. It might be accidental that they were in that position in the first place, but that in no way minimises their heroic deed. While i was in the Para's, i think every one of my buddies had some kind of kink or fetish, it was those little faults that made us the powerful men we were.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

0123456789

[MMI]

I have a question. What is the official position on heterosexuals? Now that women are serving on board ship and in the Army, how do they deal with relationships that grow up between male and female?

[DuncanONeil]

UCMJ Article 120

I have a question. What is the official position on heterosexuals? Now that women are serving on board ship and in the Army, how do they deal with relationships that grow up between male and female?

[DuncanONeil]

I have a question. What is the official position on heterosexuals? Now that women are serving on board ship and in the Army, how do they deal with relationships that grow up between male and female?

There are several things that can be done all fall under Article 134 of the UCMJ. This is a very ambiguous articles. It is considered to be the "catch all" article. For things considered to be "prejudicial to good order and discipline"

Article 134. General article:
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

Example; Cohabitation, Wrongful
"See Paragraph 60 (Article 134 - General Article).
Elements.

(1) That, during a certain period of time, the accused and another person openly and publicly lived together as husband and wife, holding themselves out as such;

(2) That the other person was not the spouse of the accused;

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Explanation. This offense differs from adultery (see paragraph 62) in that it is not necessary to prove that one of the partners was married or that sexual intercourse took place. Public knowledge of the wrongfulness of the relationship is not required, but the partners must behave in a manner, as exhibited by conduct or language, that leads others to believe that a martial relationship exists.

Lesser included offense. Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment. Confinement for 4 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 4 months.

Or; Indecent Acts With Another
See Paragraph 60 (Article 134 - General Article).
Elements.

(1) That the accused committed a certain wrongful act with a certain person;

(2) That the act was indecent; and

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Explanation. “Indecent” signifies that form of immorality relating to sexual impurity which is not only grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common propriety, but tends to excite lust and deprave the morals with respect to sexual relations.

Lesser included offenses. Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years."

Some offenses formerly adjudicated under Article 34 have been moved to Article 120, a much more punitive Article as it is based on events such as rape.

[IAN 2411]

It seems that i overlooked this when writing my previous posts, the Laws have now been changed.






British Army Gay
Recruitment Drive Launched
By Jonathan Leake and Philip Cardy
The Sunday Times - UK
8-27-5

The army came out in style this weekend when it launched a recruitment drive aimed at tempting more gays, lesbians, transvestites and even transsexuals into the ranks.

It set up a recruitment stall at the Gay Pride festival in Manchester, backing its new-found commitment to homosexual rights by sending 10 gay and lesbian soldiers in combat trousers and tight T-shirts to join thousands of marchers on a five-mile parade through the city.

They strode out behind a float put together by the RAF, which was also recruiting. Themed on a fighter jet, it featured an oversized cockpit and a banner proudly proclaiming, "RAF rise above the rest".

At the stall, the men in uniform, complete with medals, mingled with eager would-be recruits, one dressed in tight leather shorts and a pink cowboy hat.

It was the first time the army had actively tried to recruit from such groups. It says it simply wants to tap into the talents of the gay population.

Lieutenant-Colonel Leanda Pitt, commander of regional recruiting in the northwest, said: "It is such a massive event in the Manchester calendar that we can't afford not to attend. As far as the army is concerned, sexual orientation is a private matter."

For campaigners, however, the sight of gay soldiers on parade was more reminiscent of a victory march.

It was only because gay rights groups such as Stonewall went to the European Court of Human Rights in 1999 that the Ministry of Defence was forced to lift its long-standing ban on homosexuality in the services.

Yesterday Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, welcomed the military presence at the Gay Pride march. He said: "The army is now beginning to realise that even at infantry level there are very good, tough lesbians and gay men who are capable of serving very competently. There is a huge pool of talented lesbian and gay people out there who want to serve their country."

This weekend, the MoD confirmed the new policy also applied to transvestites and transsexuals. A spokesman said: "People's sexual orientation is none of our business. We have a code of social conduct that everyone has to follow whatever their preference."

The RAF became the first of the armed forces to take part in a Gay Pride festival when it joined the same Manchester march last year.

The police have allowed uniformed officers to take part in such events since 2003. Yesterday there were contingents from three forces - Greater Manchester, Cheshire and North Yorkshire.

While the march continued, the army's recruiting stand did brisk business. The officers manning it were dressed in full military regalia, but were easily outdone by their would-be recruits: one sported a pair of red devil horns and a cape.

Captain Guy Sutcliffe said hundreds of people had taken leaflets and many more were expected to visit before the festival ends tomorrow.

He said: "We are actively recruiting anyone. We reflect society irrespective of sexuality, gender or religion." Sutcliffe said the army had 'no idea' how many gay soldiers there were within its ranks. "It's not relevant," he said. "It's not something we monitor."

Such attitudes mark a huge change within the forces. Recruitment of non-heterosexuals has only been permitted since 1999 when the European court ruled the ban on gays was against the law.

Since then, the RAF has led the way in promoting diversity. It attended last year's Manchester Gay Pride and a similar event in Brighton this year, and has also supported transsexual officers seeking sex-change treatment.

In 2000 Flight Lieutenant Eric Cookson became Flight Lieutenant Caroline Paige and last year two squadron leaders applied to have £32,000 sex-change operations and now fly as women.

Warrant Officer Lutha Magloire, 39, of the Logistic Corps, who organised the soldiers, contingent, said he had asked for 10 recruits " and got 30 volunteers. "We don't really care what sexual orientation you are if you want to come and join us in the army."

Regards ian2411

[Ozme52]

They use the other F-word. No fraternization.

Means exactly the same thing of course.

[azure]

Equal opportunities are thrust down our throats to the ridiculous extreme. Gays in the military - not a great idea - when you have 16 to a room, and have to strip down inches from a gay girl / boy - that's uncomfortable. Women in the military - sure but do not expect them to do all the same jobs as the men. One-armed vegetarians and single mothers with 15 kids... no way! Regardless how well they can carry six men through a field of burning straw.