[pmcjury]

It's not about her being gay, is about the fact that she it's a a liar. She led and broke the law for now than two decades to get a head in her given career field. I field she knew she would have to lie to be admitted to. Lying because you don't agree with the rules is bull**** plan and simple.

It may not be a national security issue now, but before DADT was repealed it certainly was. What would she have been willing to so to keep from being outed as gay.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

[ChuteTheMall]

Originally Posted by Ummagumma

This is different from lying about your acts (drug use, etc.) because you can control your acts; you can't control your biology, and it has nothing to do with one's ability to fight for their country.

Are you implying that you can't control your sexual behavior?

[HexHead]

Bottom line. She lied on forms, regardless of whether she thought the issue was moral or not, or that it's legal now. All of those excuses are just smoke & mirrors to make you fag hags feel better about yourselves. Bren is correct, she lied and can't be trusted with the responsibilities now given to her.

[Jon_R]

Originally Posted by HexHead

Bottom line. She lied on forms, regardless of whether she thought the issue was moral or not, or that it's legal now. All of those excuses are just smoke & mirrors to make you fag hags feel better about yourselves. Bren is correct, she lied and can't be trusted with the responsibilities now given to her.

Have to read up to see if she did. If she did not feel she was a homosexual at time she entered service then which form did she lie on? After dadt she had to not tell.

[Detectorist]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Did the threat of disciplinary action make you cease "looking into it further?"

Yes. But the damage had been done. There were many things that I looked into that was deemed not my business even though I thought it was my job.

[HarlDane]

If we kicked out every General who lied about breaking the military's rules on sex during their careers, I have a feeling we might have a shortage in leadership.

[gwalchmai]

Threads like this really illustrate how the left has corrupted morality in the US. People condoning military officers lying while serving, gomers with no credibility accusing American heroes of homosexuality without even a pretense of evidence, left-leaning members slandering all those who disagree with PC opinion.

It's really sad.

[Cali-Glock]

Originally Posted by kylenewman

How would you feel if she was Jewish and there was a policy against Jews serving? Then years later the discriminative policy was eliminated. Would you think her hiding her religion was justified?

Why try to make a correlation between one's ethnicity or faith to one's actions? It is a FALSE. Stop it!

[HexHead]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

Threads like this really illustrate how the left has corrupted morality in the US. People condoning military officers lying while serving, gomers with no credibility accusing American heroes of homosexuality without even a pretense of evidence, left-leaning members slandering all those who disagree with PC opinion.

It's really sad.

It's a question of ethics, which is something sadly lacking here, which is funny considering the high and mighty stance so many GNG members make on so many topics. Either you tolerate liars, or you don't. Period.

Her only ceremony should,be like the beginning of the TV show Branded, where she's stripped of rank, buttons cut off, sword broken and walked out in humility and shame.

[kylenewman]

Originally Posted by Cali-Glock

Why try to make a correlation between one's ethnicity or faith to one's actions? It is a FALSE. Stop it!

I believe being gay is a genetic or psychological trait not a choice. Sexual orientation should be a protected class which prevents discrimination. The rules were unjust thE same as if you weren't allowed to serve based on race or faith.

I am attracted to women and don't find men attractive. I've never consciously told myself to like women so I assume the same occurs for those who are gay but towardS thE same sex.

If your in the camp of its a voluntary action to be gay, then the same is true with religion. One chooses their faith and decides to continue practicing their faith. My comparison is perfectly valid if you believe sexual orientation is a action of choice.

[Glock13]

I am not very religious, but I do believe in God. I also vehemently defend Christians whenever they are attacked. This applies to the gay issue as well. I personally think gays should have the right to marry and serve openly in the military. The more I hear out of many on the right really leads me to believe there is a lot of hate inside some of you. Some of you are now arguing that it is only because she "lied" that you be live she should be kicked out. C'mon guys...nobody is buying that. I really hope many of you take the time to sit down and at least consider the other side. I think your actions and your words are not only wrong, but are doing a huge disfavor to conservatives and our values.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Ummagumma

Bren,

I fully understand your point of view, and respect it. However, I believe that there are questions and restrictions which are inherently immoral / unethical and lying about them is not morally wrong. As I said earlier, 70 years ago we could have the same conversation about someone who lied about their race. I am sure today you wouldn't even think of bringing it up. This is different from lying about your acts (drug use, etc.) because you can control your acts; you can't control your biology, and it has nothing to do with one's ability to fight for their country.

Your seriously trying to benchmark "race" issues and homosexuality as civil rights? This requires a "born that way" premise, which being "born homosexual" was long ago proven, IIRC well over a decade ago, not to happen and to not be the case. People are NOT born homosexuals. The militant homosexual left pushed for this attribute so as to garner fore their agenda a civil rights platform supposedly equal to that of other minorities in this country. It was shown to be an endgame strategy and completely false assertion.

The homosexual militants, which are ardent about their agenda, have "marching orders" and will cease at nothing to see them to fruition. It's in public domain and without exclusive copyright, but due to its violation of TOS at this site, I'll simply post the link.

Everyone, regardless of your opinion on this matter of a promotion or homosexuality in general, should carefully read the following, The Homosexual Manifesto.

[HKLovingIT]

Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall

Are you implying that you can't control your sexual behavior?

I can't. That's why I have 36 kids with 23 different moms. I thank you all for your tax contributions. My shorties appreciate the new sneakers.

In other news...

I don't want to know what people are doing in their bedrooms unless it's Detectorist and he is going to come up with a GNG Lounge worthy story about this 18 yo waitress situation. (Check for a Bravia.)

I follow the DTIDA policy. Don't Tell, I Didn't Ask.




If she was born this way then she knew going in right? At the time she entered the service the law and policy were what they were. She had to fill out forms that said that she affirmed the information she was giving was true under penalty of up to 10 years and $10,000. They don't say "It's okay to lie on this form if you believe that the current policy is unfair, unjust or you don't like it."

If she discovered she was gay after DADT went into effect or if you are not of the "born this way" belief, she chose to be gay after DADT, then I guess she is all clear on any minor ethical questions concerning the veracity of sworn statements she may have made to secure entry to the service or a security clearance under the polices that were in effect at the time.

So it seems pretty clear:

If she was born this way. She knew since forever, and she had to have lied in violation of the laws and polices in effect at the time she entered the service.

If people are not born this way, and she chose to be gay, then I guess it all comes down to timing.

Or maybe she was born this way but had no idea until after DADT went into effect?

Of course then again, I know that if you have a clearance they do a little leg work to investigate your background. It's entirely possibly she was never gay and the Army made her gay recently. Otherwise it might have come up before.

Which cake ya wanna have and eat?

No, I don't think being gay has any effect on a person's ability to do a job and yes I think the whole thing is ridiculous. I do think that for certain jobs like, oh I don't know, General, that people have to be held to a very high standard. Like, lying on official documents and security clearance questionnaires should probably not be okay.

Did she do that? I have no idea.

[arclight610]

Originally Posted by Glock13

I am not very religious, but I do believe in God. I also vehemently defend Christians whenever they are attacked. This applies to the gay issue as well. I personally think gays should have the right to marry and serve openly in the military. The more I hear out of many on the right really leads me to believe there is a lot of hate inside some of you. Some of you are now arguing that it is only because she "lied" that you be live she should be kicked out. C'mon guys...nobody is buying that. I really hope many of you take the time to sit down and at least consider the other side. I think your actions and your words are not only wrong, but are doing a huge disfavor to conservatives and our values.

Lying is a big deal. If a general was an alcoholic, but signed forms stating that he wasn't he/she should be punished just the same.

[Jon_R]

Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall

Are you implying that you can't control your sexual behavior?

I think you obviously control your actions but not necessarily your attraction. Attraction is just wired into you at a low level. This can be the preference for blonds over brunettes, jeans and heels over an evening gown or leather over lace or guys vs. girls. Even one has their hot buttons. If you have no hot buttons that get you going you should try harder as I bet you do...

I am still waiting for something that says she did lie. She is currently living as a lesbian which is not a violation of current policy. I assume she was living as a lesbian during DADT which also was not a violation of policy as long as she did not tell.

Did she start living as a lesbian prior to DADT but after she entered service? Maybe, but I have not read that yet. If so she was in violation of the policy but unless she was asked and said no she did not lie.

If she was living as a lesbian at time she entered service and was asked and said no then she lied / fraudulent enlistment.

Because she is now a lesbian and carrying on as such does not tell us when that period of her life started so I can't say at what point if at all she lied and at what point if at all her lifestyle was in violation of Army policy.

If she lied to the Army or a commanding officer or investigator then IMO she should face a penalty. I felt the same about the SEALs a few years ago that smacked around a prisoner and then lied to the investigator and their commanding officer about it. They could have cut his throat and tossed him in a ditch for all I care but don't lie about it. If you can't trust the person to give you the truth then not much reason to trust them or for that matter even talking to them is a waste of time as you are not confident in the answer.

[Jon_R]

I offer a third option she was born that way but didn't know. Things just seemed off as she matured and she always thought she just had not found the right guy. Eventually she learned about her self and found something that worked for her. So would still be timing but if she thought she was hetero and answered as such but learned later she wasn't it does not mean she lied. Most of those forms say to the best of your knowledge.

I have no evidence in this case that is the way it happened but I have not read anything other then she is now gay and has a girlfriend. On all sides of the issue we are just guessing about the past. If someone has information about prior conduct provide it.

Originally Posted by HKLovingIT

So it seems pretty clear:

If she was born this way. She knew since forever, and she had to have lied in violation of the laws and polices in effect at the time.

If people are not born this way, and she chose to be gay, then I guess it all comes down to timing.

Or maybe she was born this way but had no idea until after DADT went into effect?

Which cake ya wanna have and eat?

[Jon_R]

Originally Posted by HKLovingIT

General, that people have to be held to a very high standard. Like, lying on official documents and security clearance questionnaires should probably not be okay.

Did she do that? I have no idea.

Security Clearance Questionnaires since 1993 (as far as I go back) does not ask your sexual orientation. The only sex related question is if you are Male or Female.

If you are going for a high level clearance TS and up it is likely going to come out as the investigator investigates. i commented earlier in the thread how that played out for a friend in 1993.

[HKLovingIT]

Originally Posted by Jon_R

I offer a third option she was born that way but didn't know. Things just seemed off as she matured and she always thought she just had not found the right guy. Eventually she learned about her self and found something that worked for her. So would still be timing but if she thought she was hetero and answered as such but learned later she wasn't it does not mean she lied. Most of those forms say to the best of your knowledge.

I have no evidence in this case that is the way it happened but I have not read anything other then she is now gay and has a girlfriend. On all sides of the issue we are just guessing about the past. If someone has information about prior conduct provide it.

That was one of mine as well:

"Or maybe she was born this way but had no idea until after DADT went into effect? "

Anything is possible.

Seems the central questions is: Did she lie on her entry papers and security clearance questions, and if so, is that okay or no big deal now that the policy has changed. Does that make her previous lying (if she did) moot?

That seems to be the object of what the debate is about. Least to me.

We have, and never will have any reliable information to determine what the case is, so it's just our usual Interwebz debating.

[HKLovingIT]

Originally Posted by Jon_R

Security Clearance Questionnaires since 1993 (as far as I go back) does not ask your sexual orientation. The only sex related question is if you are Male or Female.

If you are going for a high level clearance TS and up it is likely going to come out as the investigator investigates. i commented earlier in the thread how that played out for a friend in 1993.

I don't recall as I go back further than that. I'll go back and check out your previous post. Like I said, I don't care if someone is gay. I don't see that it has any bearing on job performance.

The issue worth discussing would be about willful deception, if that occurred, and how that might have a bearing on a person's suitability to be in a position of senior leadership. I guess not much though considering how much people lie their butts off to get elected and we keep voting for them.

[boby]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Everyone, regardless of your opinion on this matter of a promotion or homosexuality in general, should carefully read the following, The Homosexual Manifesto.

This crap is on the same level as "Those evil blacks will rape and kill the white women, he is a savage beast."

[arclight610]

Originally Posted by boby

This crap is on the same level as "Those evil blacks will rape and kill the white women, he is a savage beast."

Actually, there is alot of truth in that statement.

[Annoyedgrunt]

Originally Posted by arclight610

Actually, there is alot of truth in that statement.

Whatever you say, David Duke.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by boby

This crap is on the same level as "Those evil blacks will rape and kill the white women, he is a savage beast."

No, this was written by a male, homosexual strategist as a manifesto for other homosexual men to consider. I'm sure your response, like the tired rhetoric above, if ever true, was written by someone even you'd think was a "white man."

Besides, the homosexual agenda has literally NOTHING, and I mean it literally has NADA, ZIP, ZERO things to do with civil rights in general and or the Civil Rights movement in particular.

You're mixing apples and moon rocks with this comparison.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by Annoyedgrunt

Whatever you say, David Duke.

Or, if you prefer, the FBI's crime reports.

[boby]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

No, this was written by a male, homosexual strategist as a manifesto for other homosexual men to consider. I'm sure your response, like the tired rhetoric above, if ever true, was written by someone even you'd think was a "white man."

Besides, the homosexual agenda has literally NOTHING, and I mean has NADA, ZIP, ZERO things to do with civil rights in general and or the Civil Rights movement in particular.

It was written by a homosexual, clearly it must be what every homosexual believes.

In fact it is a civil rights issue.

civil rights

Noun:
The rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.

The term social refers to a characteristic of living organisms as applied to populations of humans and other animals. It always refers to the interaction of organisms with other organisms and to their collective co-existence, irrespective of whether they are aware of it or not, and irrespective of whether the interaction is voluntary or involuntary.

Sure seems like a civil rights issue to me.