Active duty gays say coming out has been non-event

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 7:10 PM GMT
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44921415/ns/us_news-life/#.Tpsr2GDyCy4
  • waccamatt

    Posts: 1918

    Oct 16, 2011 7:37 PM GMT
    A non-event just as we all have known for years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 7:38 PM GMT
    OMG.. have you seen the horrendous numbers of military members leaving the service in droves?












    Yeah right.. The sky fell didnt it? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 7:47 PM GMT
    Which IMO is the way it should be.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Oct 16, 2011 7:55 PM GMT
    And I hear that all traces of unit cohesion are gone....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 7:58 PM GMT
    tazzari saidAnd I hear that all traces of unit cohesion are gone....
    I know! Its every man for himself! Thats the American way! LMAO
  • BIG_N_TALL

    Posts: 2190

    Oct 16, 2011 8:10 PM GMT
    I just read that 85% of all the vessels in the US Navy have been commandeered by homos with plans on using them for gay cruises....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 8:24 PM GMT
    tazzari saidAnd I hear that all traces of unit cohesion are gone....

    Yeah, but replaced with fabulous cohesion in locker rooms and latrines. There's cohesion going on all over the place.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 8:40 PM GMT
    And, enter the black sheep...

    Honestly, I'm sick of hearing about this 'non-event'. In the words of the current President, there is absolutely no need to spike the football.

    Outserve is a VERY limited representation of members of the military who happen to be gay. The claim of 4000+ is like any statistic. There is a huge difference between 'active members' and total numbers.

    I participated for approximately a year, however when quotes and thoughts like this "the right wing's biggest fear." began to appear, I decided it had entered the realms of a political organization, something I vowed never to do as an active duty member.

    It saddens me too, because the concept of an organization that can act as a support network for military members is great. However, interactions I had with both 'leadership' and Josh Seefried himself provided me with a different impression and direction of where the organization was going. The choice to hold a 1 day conference, IN VEGAS, with a VERY limited agenda full of information that can be obtained in greater quantities at existing events was incredibly questionable and the last straw for me.

    Don't get me wrong. Do I like serving without the chance of being kicked out? Yes. Am I supportive of what Outserve did to get us there? Yes. However the organization is now like a dog that finally caught the car. It has no idea what to do with it and thus they are now grasping at straws to be ANOTHER rights group.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Oct 16, 2011 9:12 PM GMT
    quoting the immortal bard, W.S.: "much ado about nothing"
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Oct 16, 2011 9:21 PM GMT
    Just like the relentless hissy fits the right-wing bigots pitch about marriage equality... until it actually becomes law in a state like mine, and no one even notices. What a bunch of sad fools.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 10:03 PM GMT
    I’m sure eventually there have and will be some problems and they’re be dealt with as any other personnel issue on base. We’re dealing with men and women of various maturity levels and backgrounds, mix in alcohol and well… disciplinary issues are going to occur.. but I think these are the exceptions and not the rule. A friend of mine in the military just came out to the closest friend in the service this week who acted like it wasn’t a big deal and actually stated “I was waiting for you to get that out, now lets drink”. I think most coming out stories in the military will be just as nondramatic as that.

    And just because DADT is over doesn’t mean a 21 year old Lance Corporal may not be dealing with the same coming out/sexual identity issues as many young men not in the military are for any number of reasons. His playing field is just more even now with the closeted college jock at the school across town.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Oct 16, 2011 10:47 PM GMT
    Isn`t it always like this: impossible; then undesirable; finally routine....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 11:22 PM GMT
    All straight sailors soldiers and marines are now being corrupted and have started having gay sex against their will because they now know that they have been showering and sharing sleeping quarters with gay men! OMG the world is coming to an end. Oh, the humanity!

    icon_rolleyes.gif...Next topic, please.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4864

    Oct 17, 2011 1:47 AM GMT
    JDean saidAnd, enter the black sheep...

    Honestly, I'm sick of hearing about this 'non-event'. In the words of the current President, there is absolutely no need to spike the football.

    Outserve is a VERY limited representation of members of the military who happen to be gay. The claim of 4000+ is like any statistic. There is a huge difference between 'active members' and total numbers.

    I participated for approximately a year, however when quotes and thoughts like this "the right wing's biggest fear." began to appear, I decided it had entered the realms of a political organization, something I vowed never to do as an active duty member.

    It saddens me too, because the concept of an organization that can act as a support network for military members is great. However, interactions I had with both 'leadership' and Josh Seefried himself provided me with a different impression and direction of where the organization was going. The choice to hold a 1 day conference, IN VEGAS, with a VERY limited agenda full of information that can be obtained in greater quantities at existing events was incredibly questionable and the last straw for me.

    Don't get me wrong. Do I like serving without the chance of being kicked out? Yes. Am I supportive of what Outserve did to get us there? Yes. However the organization is now like a dog that finally caught the car. It has no idea what to do with it and thus they are now grasping at straws to be ANOTHER rights group.


    Doesn't know what to do now? It seems to me that the obvious thing is to see to it that gay men and women in the armed services receive the same rights as others in the service, i.e., the right to have the service provide heath insurance for their spouses, the right to share residences with their spouses, etc. Their job is NOT finished; they still have plenty to do.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4864

    Oct 17, 2011 1:51 AM GMT
    One of the reasons that the fulminating fundamentalists and other homophobes fought the repeal of DADT was that they knew that they would be exposed as liars when the repeal didn't cause the anticipated problems. Now they have been exposed nationwide, even worldwide, as the liars they are. They have lost credibility.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2011 2:34 AM GMT
    FRE0 saidOne of the reasons that the fulminating fundamentalists and other homophobes fought the repeal of DADT was that they knew that they would be exposed as liars when the repeal didn't cause the anticipated problems. Now they have been exposed nationwide, even worldwide, as the liars they are. They have lost credibility.


    +1,000

    Thread winner.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2011 2:47 AM GMT
    FRE0 saidOne of the reasons that the fulminating fundamentalists and other homophobes fought the repeal of DADT was that they knew that they would be exposed as liars when the repeal didn't cause the anticipated problems. Now they have been exposed nationwide, even worldwide, as the liars they are. They have lost credibility.


    They are conveniently ignoring their failed predictions and the lack of anticipated fireworks...until they can make a scandal stick. That's a typical Fox News diversionary tactic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2011 4:55 AM GMT
    FRE0 saidOne of the reasons that the fulminating fundamentalists and other homophobes fought the repeal of DADT was that they knew that they would be exposed as liars when the repeal didn't cause the anticipated problems. Now they have been exposed nationwide, even worldwide, as the liars they are. They have lost credibility.


    Exactly. I've heard a lot of people blame Clinton for DADT. There is some very willfull ignorance on many people's parts, and sometimes that includes liberals. We need to continue to push Obama to 'evolve' his stance on gay marriage: that being said, there is no one in the Republican leadership at this point who is close to providing support for our troops who happen to be gay. Let alone Republicans who support gay marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2011 6:46 AM GMT
    north_runner said
    Exactly. I've heard a lot of people blame Clinton for DADT. There is some very willfull ignorance on many people's parts, and sometimes that includes liberals. We need to continue to push Obama to 'evolve' his stance on gay marriage: that being said, there is no one in the Republican leadership at this point who is close to providing support for our troops who happen to be gay. Let alone Republicans who support gay marriage.



    I have the sneaking suspicion that Obama secretly does support gay marriage but is just afraid of coming out (no pun intended) publicly and admitting it for fear of losing some support and thus potentially the ability to get reelected. Obama is incredibly gay friendly even if he hasn't put as much effort as many would have liked into ensuring the rights of LGBT citizens. He's provided a lot of moral support for the LGBT community...more so than any other president, which may not seem like much but people look up to people in power and if the POTUS says on national television that it's okay to be gay...well I'd like to think that that has a lot of impact on the national psyche. I wouldn't be surprised if he were to be reelected for him to "suddenly realize" that his previous stance on gay marriage was wrong and that now he supports it. After all he wouldn't have to worry about being reelected so he would have nothing to lose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2011 7:00 AM GMT
    I'm sure some Republicans running for president will STILL talk about reinstating DADT. That's about the saddest thing ever. If you see 100% positive reaction from a change, what logic persuades you to reverse this? I'll tell you what logic. 0%.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2011 8:08 AM GMT
    Cardinal724 said
    north_runner said
    Exactly. I've heard a lot of people blame Clinton for DADT. There is some very willfull ignorance on many people's parts, and sometimes that includes liberals. We need to continue to push Obama to 'evolve' his stance on gay marriage: that being said, there is no one in the Republican leadership at this point who is close to providing support for our troops who happen to be gay. Let alone Republicans who support gay marriage.



    I have the sneaking suspicion that Obama secretly does support gay marriage but is just afraid of coming out (no pun intended) publicly and admitting it for fear of losing some support and thus potentially the ability to get reelected. Obama is incredibly gay friendly even if he hasn't put as much effort as many would have liked into ensuring the rights of LGBT citizens. He's provided a lot of moral support for the LGBT community...more so than any other president, which may not seem like much but people look up to people in power and if the POTUS says on national television that it's okay to be gay...well I'd like to think that that has a lot of impact on the national psyche. I wouldn't be surprised if he were to be reelected for him to "suddenly realize" that his previous stance on gay marriage was wrong and that now he supports it. After all he wouldn't have to worry about being reelected so he would have nothing to lose.


    Gay people need to wake up and smell the coffee, and stop it with this Stockholm Syndrome crap.

    President Johnson didn't "secretly" support full freedom and equality for blacks: he put his reputation, career, and re-election on the line to do so. That is the difference between a profile in courage like LBJ and an empty suit like Obama.

    Obama has been always about one thing: his own brand. He will not lead; he will follow the polls and give into fear except where he believes it will give him political advantage. That is why he tried -- and thank God failed -- to stymie the DADT repeal in favor of the START treaty.

    Unfortunately, given the choice between a gutless wimp like Obama and the openly hostile homophobes aiming at the GOP nod, gay people are left with a clear but truly pathetic choice. At least Obama can be dragged kicking and screaming to where he should be.

    But I'm not into applauding people for only doing what's right when it benefits them. Gay people deserve full freedom and equality and until Obama says he supports that, including gay marriage, I am not going to read his mind and assume otherwise. As far as gay rights are concerned, he is a useful tool -- nothing else.

    When the goal is 100, 99 and a half is insufficient.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2011 9:20 AM GMT
    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREPresident Johnson didn't "secretly" support full freedom and equality for blacks: he put his reputation, career, and re-election on the line to do so. That is the difference between a profile in courage like LBJ and an empty suit like Obama.


    I never said secretly supporting gay marriage was the honorable or right thing to do, it's simply an opinion on what I believe might be what Obama thinks and what his strategy for LGBT folk might be. I agree with you that Obama should come out and say what he truly believes instead of toning himself down to please conservatives but at the same time doing so might cost us in the long run.

    Let's say by some chance my hunch about Obama just happens to be correct and he is reelected and in his second term he decides to legalize gay marriage and announces to the public that he's had a "change of heart", in hind sight would it really be so bad that he waited? Sometimes it can be good to lie low and then strike when you know you can win. Imagine if Obama came out this term and said he will fight to make sure we have gay marriage. If he failed to accomplish this, not only would we not have gay marriage but he probably wouldn't be reelected due to the many conservatives who would hate to see him try again. We might even wind up with a more conservative president after that and the fight for gay marriage would be put on an indefinite hiatus.

    Obama did accomplish a major goal this term-getting rid of DADT. It is possible that this is a "warm up" to ease the country into the notion that gays aren't all that scary and giving them rights won't bring about the apocalypse. I think that repealing DADT will also make instituting gay marriage nation wide easier because the fact that the repeal so far hasn't really changed anything might get people to think "hey, if gays serving in the military didn't destroy our country, maybe gay marriage won't either"


    ****Disclaimer: This is entirely hypothetical of course. It would be silly of me to assume I know what Obama is secretly thinking and planning. For all I know he could be thinking "fuck gay marriage" and have no intention whatsoever of ever trying to legalize it. The whole point I'm trying to make is that in the off chance Obama does secretly support gay marriage, waiting until his second term to give LGBT people that right may not necessarily be a bad idea and wouldn't necessarily make him a coward. This may be a pointless topic of discussion as hypotheticals really never helped anyone but I think it's interesting to ponder. *****
  • hebrewman

    Posts: 1367

    Oct 17, 2011 9:54 AM GMT
    wait. you mean there are gays in the us military? impossible. sounds to me like it's a 'european plot' to undermine everthing that is 'american'. what a total crock.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2011 2:09 PM GMT
    Cardinal724 said
    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREPresident Johnson didn't "secretly" support full freedom and equality for blacks: he put his reputation, career, and re-election on the line to do so. That is the difference between a profile in courage like LBJ and an empty suit like Obama.


    I never said secretly supporting gay marriage was the honorable or right thing to do, it's simply an opinion on what I believe might be what Obama thinks and what his strategy for LGBT folk might be. I agree with you that Obama should come out and say what he truly believes instead of toning himself down to please conservatives but at the same time doing so might cost us in the long run.

    Let's say by some chance my hunch about Obama just happens to be correct and he is reelected and in his second term he decides to legalize gay marriage and announces to the public that he's had a "change of heart", in hind sight would it really be so bad that he waited? Sometimes it can be good to lie low and then strike when you know you can win. Imagine if Obama came out this term and said he will fight to make sure we have gay marriage. If he failed to accomplish this, not only would we not have gay marriage but he probably wouldn't be reelected due to the many conservatives who would hate to see him try again. We might even wind up with a more conservative president after that and the fight for gay marriage would be put on an indefinite hiatus.

    Obama did accomplish a major goal this term-getting rid of DADT. It is possible that this is a "warm up" to ease the country into the notion that gays aren't all that scary and giving them rights won't bring about the apocalypse. I think that repealing DADT will also make instituting gay marriage nation wide easier because the fact that the repeal so far hasn't really changed anything might get people to think "hey, if gays serving in the military didn't destroy our country, maybe gay marriage won't either"


    ****Disclaimer: This is entirely hypothetical of course. It would be silly of me to assume I know what Obama is secretly thinking and planning. For all I know he could be thinking "fuck gay marriage" and have no intention whatsoever of ever trying to legalize it. The whole point I'm trying to make is that in the off chance Obama does secretly support gay marriage, waiting until his second term to give LGBT people that right may not necessarily be a bad idea and wouldn't necessarily make him a coward. This may be a pointless topic of discussion as hypotheticals really never helped anyone but I think it's interesting to ponder. *****


    It's like your roommate threatening to kick you out because you're filthy, and you trying to prevent that by promising to clean up the apartment next year, IF he doesn't kick you out next month.

    The obvious response: clean up the goddam apartment RIGHT NOW.

    Obama is already President. He has already been President for almost a full term. He didn't need to wait for re-election to push for gay marriage: he could have already done it. Most especially because his re-election is not guaranteed, and it's NOT going to be his views on social issues that determine his re-election: we may end up with a conservative anyway. Maybe Obama didn't notice, but most of the country already supports gay marriage. If he really thinks supporting something that a majority of Americans support will cause him to lose the election then he is full of shit. He is weak, scared, not a leader, AND opposed to gay marriage, just like when it came time to put up or shut up on DADT he disappeared and it was left to the Senate to carry the ball over the goal line (over the objections of his White House who then, of course, danced around in the end zone like they'd actually done something).

    I know some liberals love to pretend like Obama is playing 4th dimensional chess game, and that the real Obama is going to magically emerge...one day. Not gonna happen. I'm not going to bow and lick the feet of the Democrats just because they 'oh so graciously' throw some table scraps to the floor for their pet gay dogs to lick up. Neither am I going to twist myself into knots inventing all kinds hypotheticsl scenarios to convince myself that Obama is something he's not.

    Your most salient point is that these hypotheticals are pointless. So why invent them? You don't have to invent the fact that Obama does not support gay marriage: those are his words. His stated opposition to gay marriage is not hypothetical and involves no mind reading. Thus, that makes him the enemy we have to work with, NOTHING else.