PDA

View Full Version : Navy participation in the June 2014 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Mont



BURAWSKI
07-08-2014, 04:02 AM
Ensign Admiraal’s recent comments in Navy Times regarding the Navy’s participation in the June 2014 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month observance are similar feelings that many Sailors on active duty are probably feeling, but may feel intimidated to speak about. I think it is wrong to expect those who do not advocate a particular lifestyle and behavior to not only accept that particular lifestyle, but to celebrate and embrace it. Many Sailors are reluctant to say anything because this lifestyle is now treated as an equal opportunity issue. I do not believe it is wrong for those who do not agree with the lifestyle to reject it and not be expected to accept it, just as I wouldn’t expect the LGBT’s to be expected to accept and embrace a heterosexual lifestyle. I think it is ironic that those who feel this particular lifestyle is wrong are marginalized and sometimes, even demonized as being prejudiced for being against this behavior. Doesn’t that go against true equal opportunity?

Stalwart
07-08-2014, 04:57 AM
Ensign Admiraal’s recent comments in Navy Times regarding the Navy’s participation in the June 2014 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month observance are similar feelings that many Sailors on active duty are probably feeling, but may feel intimidated to speak about. I think it is wrong to expect those who do not advocate a particular lifestyle and behavior to not only accept that particular lifestyle, but to celebrate and embrace it. Many Sailors are reluctant to say anything because this lifestyle is now treated as an equal opportunity issue. I do not believe it is wrong for those who do not agree with the lifestyle to reject it and not be expected to accept it, just as I wouldn’t expect the LGBT’s to be expected to accept and embrace a heterosexual lifestyle. I think it is ironic that those who feel this particular lifestyle is wrong are marginalized and sometimes, even demonized as being prejudiced for being against this behavior. Doesn’t that go against true equal opportunity?

I have not seen the article but have read that a couple of bases / commands held some type of LGBT ceremony etc much like other events for the various celebratory months that we have (African American Awareness, Asian American Awareness etc.) I don't have firsthand knowledge if attendance at any of them were mandatory or not.

I understand what you are saying, that if someone objects to something, they shouldn't be forced to celebrate or embrace it whether a LGBT or heterosexual lifestyle, or love of hunting, veganism etc. But I don't think anyone is being told to advocate any particular lifestyle; the consistent message I am getting via the Navy is to act professionally and treat everyone with a basic degree of personal respect ... this is far from advocating.

My observations are that the people that are truly having the hardest time with this is people who are (roughly) our age, raised in the 60's, or 70's or 80's when homosexuality was commonly, popularly and openly ridiculed and homosexuals (LGBT etc.) were pressured or shamed into silence -- the product in my case was a young adult who was not very accepting of that type of lifestyle. As I have gotten older my thoughts on it have softened; I am not advocating (trying to say people should be gay vice straight) but I do think everyone regardless of orientation, gender, race, religion, etc. should be treated with respect. Nowadays most 18-21 year old new accessions to the military are much more accepting of LGBT lifestyles than people our age – a product of their time – much how my father would shake his head at the thought of a black president – he was a product of his time.


At one time the military was the domain of white, Christian males and we were really good at killing the enemy … now the military is more diverse and we are still really good at killing the enemy. I make the comparison often that this is not really different than when the military was desegregated, or women allowed to join. There was push back then too, things had changed. Back then I don’t think people were being told they had to invite a black family over for dinner any more than people today would be forced to invite an LGBT couple over … you needn’t accept the lifestyle at home or in your personal life, but at work, on duty we do have to be professional regardless of the personal differences of whoever we work with. I have no doubt I work with people who are either racist (against blacks or whites), hate homosexuals, hate Christians or Atheists … you name it … but I have no idea because they are professional at work.

Would it be acceptable if I was not accepting of African Americans for me to request to not have a black roommate or to have them in my common berthing area? Would it be acceptable for me to use derogatory language that made their work environment hostile, or to belittle a shipmate just because he was black … no … all it does is make the work place less professional. I can’t think of one job in the military that someone who is LGBT is incapable of doing based solely on their sexual orientation. I don’t think people who reject the LGBT lifestyle are or should be “demonized” for it, but how is this (big picture) different than rejecting someone based on race or gender as long as they act professionally at work … at home or in your private life I have no concern about your belief. But as soon as someone wants to be unprofessional at work they are not being discriminated against for their belief but for their action.

BURAWSKI
07-08-2014, 02:18 PM
Yes I understand. I made the comment because the letter writer had said that he felt that his command was encouraging, almost to the point of requiring everyone to attend a gay pride celebratory event, and that he didn't advocate the lifestyle. Just saying you don't agree with the lifestyle seems to imply that you are intolerant or prejudiced, and that was the point I was trying to make on this. I think Sailors may be hesitant to indicate their true feelings out of a fear that they will be looked upon as being prejudiced when in reality it is not the person they are rejecting but the behavior. Behavior is quite different than race or gender. The most responsible thing would be for the Navy to remain neutral on this behavior, but the impression given to those who who do not agree with the lifestyle is that the Navy not only expects everyone to accept it, but to condone, embrace and celebrate it. That to me, in my opinion is wrong and contradictory to true equal opportunity. What about those who feel the behavior is morally wrong to accept? Seems to me those people should be able to feel free to express that without fear of being stigmitized as intolerant or "racist" or acting "unprofessionally". Tolerating the behavior is different than acceptance of the behavior. I believe a person can tolerate it, but not accept or condone it. I do not feel that I am intolerant for feeling this way. This is equal opportunity in the Navy? I think not. BTW, it never really made any sense to me for the Navy to be promoting the sexual preference of one particular group, and think it is inappropriate for a pride-type event to be hosted at work. Just as I don't promote my political affiliation I don't feel it is appropriate for sexual preference to be flaunted, which is a private decision made by each individual.

sandsjames
07-08-2014, 03:37 PM
I have not seen the article but have read that a couple of bases / commands held some type of LGBT ceremony etc much like other events for the various celebratory months that we have (African American Awareness, Asian American Awareness etc.) I don't have firsthand knowledge if attendance at any of them were mandatory or not.

I understand what you are saying, that if someone objects to something, they shouldn't be forced to celebrate or embrace it whether a LGBT or heterosexual lifestyle, or love of hunting, veganism etc. But I don't think anyone is being told to advocate any particular lifestyle; the consistent message I am getting via the Navy is to act professionally and treat everyone with a basic degree of personal respect ... this is far from advocating.

My observations are that the people that are truly having the hardest time with this is people who are (roughly) our age, raised in the 60's, or 70's or 80's when homosexuality was commonly, popularly and openly ridiculed and homosexuals (LGBT etc.) were pressured or shamed into silence -- the product in my case was a young adult who was not very accepting of that type of lifestyle. As I have gotten older my thoughts on it have softened; I am not advocating (trying to say people should be gay vice straight) but I do think everyone regardless of orientation, gender, race, religion, etc. should be treated with respect. Nowadays most 18-21 year old new accessions to the military are much more accepting of LGBT lifestyles than people our age – a product of their time – much how my father would shake his head at the thought of a black president – he was a product of his time.


At one time the military was the domain of white, Christian males and we were really good at killing the enemy … now the military is more diverse and we are still really good at killing the enemy. I make the comparison often that this is not really different than when the military was desegregated, or women allowed to join. There was push back then too, things had changed. Back then I don’t think people were being told they had to invite a black family over for dinner any more than people today would be forced to invite an LGBT couple over … you needn’t accept the lifestyle at home or in your personal life, but at work, on duty we do have to be professional regardless of the personal differences of whoever we work with. I have no doubt I work with people who are either racist (against blacks or whites), hate homosexuals, hate Christians or Atheists … you name it … but I have no idea because they are professional at work.

Would it be acceptable if I was not accepting of African Americans for me to request to not have a black roommate or to have them in my common berthing area? Would it be acceptable for me to use derogatory language that made their work environment hostile, or to belittle a shipmate just because he was black … no … all it does is make the work place less professional. I can’t think of one job in the military that someone who is LGBT is incapable of doing based solely on their sexual orientation. I don’t think people who reject the LGBT lifestyle are or should be “demonized” for it, but how is this (big picture) different than rejecting someone based on race or gender as long as they act professionally at work … at home or in your private life I have no concern about your belief. But as soon as someone wants to be unprofessional at work they are not being discriminated against for their belief but for their action.

Sounds a lot like the argument I made awhile back about tolerance and acceptance being two different things and that they are both ok...boy did I get railed against for that one.

garhkal
07-08-2014, 06:50 PM
Just saying you don't agree with the lifestyle seems to imply that you are intolerant or prejudiced, and that was the point I was trying to make on this. I think Sailors may be hesitant to indicate their true feelings out of a fear that they will be looked upon as being prejudiced when in reality it is not the person they are rejecting but the behavior.

Exactly. When i was AD Navy, we had people consistently marked down cause they were not 'avid' supporters of the black history month (or other ethnic group months) in 'equal opportunity'. SO its NOT a stretch to see someone fearing he will be marked down for not 'showing active support for LGBT runs and such.

Stalwart
07-08-2014, 11:09 PM
Yes I understand. I made the comment because the letter writer had said that he felt that his command was encouraging, almost to the point of requiring everyone to attend a gay pride celebratory event, and that he didn't advocate the lifestyle.

And based on the letter (I have read it now) it does seem that is how he felt -- but that may not have been the intent or the message either. This is something that some people are extremely sensitive too ... same as those who get riled up about African American Heritage Month ("Why isn't there a middle-aged white guy month"). I will say, I think addressing the situation directly (either to the command or the IG) vice an anonymous letter to Navy Times will probably garner a better result.



Just saying you don't agree with the lifestyle seems to imply that you are intolerant or prejudiced, and that was the point I was trying to make on this. I think Sailors may be hesitant to indicate their true feelings out of a fear that they will be looked upon as being prejudiced when in reality it is not the person they are rejecting but the behavior.

Some people may think you not agreeing with a lifestyle indicates intolerance or that saying you are accepting of it implies endorsement ... you are welcome to disapprove, but work is not the place to overtly voice your disapproval either. As you say, I don't think we should promote nor admonish what is ultimately a personal decision -- at work I don't do either. I do have a responsibility to promote / foster a work environment where everyone can be productive and get the mission done.



Behavior is quite different than race or gender.

Yes it is but do I have a right to impose my personal beliefs on what behavior is right or wrong on those in my work place and to marginalize or promote a hostile environment against those whose behavior I personally disagree with? I personally may not drink, smoke, believe in pre-marital sex, be a Republican, be a Democrat, be a [pick a religion] etc. Does my personal distaste for those behaviors or choices by others make it okay to preclude them from a workplace free of harassment? IMO it does not.



The most responsible thing would be for the Navy to remain neutral on this behavior

Completely agree; not just on this issue but a few topics that I can think of.



... but the impression given to those who who do not agree with the lifestyle is that the Navy not only expects everyone to accept it, but to condone, embrace and celebrate it. That to me, in my opinion is wrong and contradictory to true equal opportunity.

I have not gotten that impression nor seen anything that would make me think that way.



What about those who feel the behavior is morally wrong to accept? Seems to me those people should be able to feel free to express that without fear of being stigmitized as intolerant or "racist" or acting "unprofessionally".]

Again, what if I feel premarital sex is morally wrong; should I be able to tell my Sailors that they are morally lacking if they are engaging in premarital sex or cohabitating with their boyfriend/girlfriend?



Tolerating the behavior is different than acceptance of the behavior. I believe a person can tolerate it, but not accept or condone it. I do not feel that I am intolerant for feeling this way. This is equal opportunity in the Navy? I think not. ]

What I think people need to accept (have to) is that we have been directed to not discriminate based on orientation and that we cannot exclude or discriminate against people based on that aspect of their lives. We can personally think what we want of them, the workplace is just not the place to be vocal about it.



BTW, it never really made any sense to me for the Navy to be promoting the sexual preference of one particular group, and think it is inappropriate for a pride-type event to be hosted at work. Just as I don't promote my political affiliation I don't feel it is appropriate for sexual preference to be flaunted, which is a private decision made by each individual.

I don't think the military should promote one sexual preference over another either, but I don't think we should shun those who are homosexual either. Am I flaunting my sexual preference by having a picture of my wife or girlfriend -- just not both :) -- on my desk or by bringing my wife to the Navy Ball, Khaki Ball or a social function. If we really wanted to say that people should not flaunt their preference of spouse or partner then we would not allow any partners or dates to accompany the member to these events.





Exactly. When i was AD Navy, we had people consistently marked down cause they were not 'avid' supporters of the black history month (or other ethnic group months) in 'equal opportunity'. SO its NOT a stretch to see someone fearing he will be marked down for not 'showing active support for LGBT runs and such.

If someone was marked down for not attending a particular ethnic celebration then they should have submitted a statement with their eval to address the issue (I did once submit a statement about the lack of a midterm counseling for a FITREP. The squeaky wheel got the grease -- and submitting the statement did not adversely impact my next FITREP nor my selection at the promotion board.) If something is not correct, we should be professional enough -- or in some cases have enough balls to bring the issue up and if needed attach our name to it.

Are you sure that they were marked down for not being an "avid supporter"? Had they made some kind of statements at work that prompted counseling about professional conduct. I have participated in many, MANY QRB's for various ranks and never seen someone marked down in EO unless they did/said something offensive in the workplace and it had been documented. What I have seen is that the EO block is pretty consistently marked as a 3 unless the member reported on was the EEO or in some type of leadership role (LPO, LCPO, DivO etc.) that required them to promote a good work environment; but the average PO2 in a division didn't deserve more than a 3, but not less than a 3 either.

BURAWSKI
07-09-2014, 12:19 AM
I've read all your comments and have to conclude that I think your perspective is a good one. I see exactly where you are coming from and supervisors/leaders really have no other choice in that regard (BTW, the letter writer wasn't anonymous, because he did identify himself). This is a subject that is important and controversial, as well as a sensitive issue that still should be discussed at the appropriate time and setting because of the issues I mentioned previously. The letter writer mentioned that having a gay pride event sponsored at work seem to give the impression that everyone should not only condone, but accept and celebrate the lifestyle. I think that a command-sponsored gay pride commemorative event is profoundly different than just having someone displaying pictures of their loved ones in the workplace. That sends a different message and meaning entirely, and is the reason why I originally stated that I believe the Navy expects everyone to not only accept this behavior, but to embrace and celebrate it. However, your overall approach on the matter does make sense to me and I agree, albeit reluctantly.

Rainmaker
07-09-2014, 02:37 PM
I've read all your comments and have to conclude that I think your perspective is a good one. I see exactly where you are coming from and supervisors/leaders really have no other choice in that regard (BTW, the letter writer wasn't anonymous, because he did identify himself). This is a subject that is important and controversial, as well as a sensitive issue that still should be discussed at the appropriate time and setting because of the issues I mentioned previously. The letter writer mentioned that having a gay pride event sponsored at work seem to give the impression that everyone should not only condone, but accept and celebrate the lifestyle. I think that a command-sponsored gay pride commemorative event is profoundly different than just having someone displaying pictures of their loved ones in the workplace. That sends a different message and meaning entirely. But your overall approach on the matter does make sense to me and I agree.

I think it has to be pretty clear to anyone even half-way paying attention, that the radical leftists running the executive branch have quickly jumped the shark from not only tolerating but, celebrating and promoting this terrible illness called "gayness" that strickens 2% of the population.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/us-armed-forces-color-guard-to-march-in-gay-pride-parade-in-dc-called-a-first-nationwide/2014/06/05/32955202-ec26-11e3-b98c-72cef4a00499_story.html

Why would they celebrate dysfunction you ask? Well, what you need to understand first is that a cult has taken over our institutions of society. The only "God" they serve is themselves. This cult has been brainwashed during their formative years by their affirmative action hire professors to value "diversity" above all else.

Diversity Trumps everything with these fanatics. rule of law, the will of the citizens, the constitution, the good of a country. None of it matters ,because they believe that mankind is evolving into a genderless, jamoca colored race of super beings, and the sooner that happens the sooner we'll have Utopia. Of course they'll be the rulers of this utopia, since they were chosen by the universal life source to be enlightened first.

socal1200r
07-09-2014, 03:01 PM
If I was ever in a command position again, I for one would not encourage anyone under my command to participate in any kind of LGBT event, from a bake sale to a parade. I wouldn't discourage it, but I certainly wouldn't encourage it either. Repealing DADT was a BIG mistake, in my opinion, and it just opened a big can of worms for all kinds of LGBT issues (next of "kin", BAH "with dependents", "family" separation, burial plots, etc). I saw something from DoD regarding "Human Goals", and it was just another leftist liberal waste of paper. Today's DoD is a FAR cry from when I joined almost 30 years ago, and NOT in a good way.

garhkal
07-09-2014, 06:32 PM
And based on the letter (I have read it now) it does seem that is how he felt -- but that may not have been the intent or the message either. This is something that some people are extremely sensitive too ... same as those who get riled up about African American Heritage Month ("Why isn't there a middle-aged white guy month"). I will say, I think addressing the situation directly (either to the command or the IG) vice an anonymous letter to Navy Times will probably garner a better result.


Based on how my command was with me, when i wrote to the Navy times back in 03 (ish) and got published, it won't be seen as favorable. I got hammered, though they at least didn't take me to mast or anything. All cause in their opinion, even using navy times, or some other news paper 'letters to the editor' capacity, SHOULD be routed through the chain of command first!


Some people may think you not agreeing with a lifestyle indicates intolerance or that saying you are accepting of it implies endorsement


A lot of people i know DO feel that way. If you don't support X (like i mentioned above the Heritage months) you get marked down as being intolerant and therefore NOT 'Equal opportunity'.


Yes it is but do I have a right to impose my personal beliefs on what behavior is right or wrong on those in my work place and to marginalize or promote a hostile environment against those whose behavior I personally disagree with?


But is not having a LGBT pride RUN (which most runs of this nature DO get made mandatory) pushing their beliefs down others throats?


If someone was marked down for not attending a particular ethnic celebration then they should have submitted a statement with their eval to address the issue (I did once submit a statement about the lack of a midterm c ounseling for a FITREP. The squeaky wheel got the grease -- and submitting the statement did not adversely impact my next FITREP nor my selection at the promotion board.) If something is not correct, we should be professional enough -- or in some cases have enough balls to bring the issue up and if needed attach our name to it.

Are you sure that they were marked down for not being an "avid supporter"? Had they made some kind of statements at work that prompted counseling about professional conduct. I have participated in many, MANY QRB's for various ranks and never seen someone marked down in EO unless they did/said something offensive in the workplace and it had been documented. What I have seen is that the EO block is pretty consistently marked as a 3 unless the member reported on was the EEO or in some type of leadership role (LPO, LCPO, DivO etc.) that required them to promote a good work environment; but the average PO2 in a division didn't deserve more than a 3, but not less than a 3 either.


Yes they were (inc myself). Heck its almost required that to get more than a 3.0 in EO, to either help set those heritage months up. So NOT showing support often got people marked 3.0 or lower. Heck one of our guys even made it known (via those statements) that he didn't attend cause he felt doing HIS OWN work was more important. His very next eval, which i had to debrief him on was marked 2.0! Needless to say he did another statement, took it to the EO office, but didn't get it changed to my knowledge.


PS due to Mjolnir accidentally deleting my post, i am having to redo it.

sandsjames
07-09-2014, 07:05 PM
Yes it is but do I have a right to impose my personal beliefs on what behavior is right or wrong on those in my work place and to marginalize or promote a hostile environment against those whose behavior I personally disagree with? I personally may not drink, smoke, believe in pre-marital sex, be a Republican, be a Democrat, be a [pick a religion] etc. Does my personal distaste for those behaviors or choices by others make it okay to preclude them from a workplace free of harassment? IMO it does not.

Would you say something if someone acted flamboyantly gay in the workplace? If they are gay are they allowed to act that way? I don't know your answer, but I'm sure if someone was to be flamboyantly religious around the shop you'd put a stop to it.

Creating a hostile environment isn't done just by "imposing" personal beliefs. It's also done by hindering the expression of those personal beliefs.

If it's ok for someone to openly show support of certain lifestyles in the workplace, it should also be ok for someone to openly show non-support...or...if you're going to show support for one lifestyle (homosexual) in order to avoid hostility then you should also show support for other lifestyles (religious) in order to avoid the same hostility.

I just think it's a sad day when one section of the population is encouraged to express their feelings and beliefs while another section is encouraged to keep their mouths shut and go along with it...to avoid hostility.

If I have to tolerate/accept gays because it's the right thing to do then they should have to tolerate/accept my religious beliefs. Just makes me laugh that it's it's unacceptable to be unaccepting.

Measure Man
07-09-2014, 07:42 PM
Would you say something if someone acted flamboyantly gay in the workplace? If they are gay are they allowed to act that way?

This is a good question.

I'd be interested in seeing how something like that is handled....it's one of those deals that's difficult to nail down in specific identifiable bheavior, but we all know it when we see it. But, how do you address someone's tone of voice, facial expression, etc. as a behavior issue?

I don't have a good answer and have not encountered the issue personally...

sandsjames
07-09-2014, 07:53 PM
This is a good question.

I'd be interested in seeing how something like that is handled....it's one of those deals that's difficult to nail down in specific identifiable bheavior, but we all know it when we see it. But, how do you address someone's tone of voice, facial expression, etc. as a behavior issue?

I don't have a good answer and have not encountered the issue personally...

And I think that's the key to it all. We want people to act professional and treat each other professionally. I think very few people would have an issue with any race, religion, sexual preference, etc., in the workplace if people weren't fitting a stereotype.

I don't dislike gays, or blacks, or rednecks, or religious people, etc. However, I don't like being around any of them when they are being stereotypical.

I think the only person I can't stand being around is the white guy who fits the stereotype of the white guy trying to be a black guy...because that guy acts the same no matter who he's around.


edit: With more thought, it comes down to actions only. I don't like anyone who ACTS thuggish, flaming, redneck, bible thumping, etc...no matter what race, creed, color, age, gender, preference...If they don't act that way then we can get along just fine.

Measure Man
07-09-2014, 09:21 PM
And I think that's the key to it all. We want people to act professional and treat each other professionally. I think very few people would have an issue with any race, religion, sexual preference, etc., in the workplace if people weren't fitting a stereotype.

I don't dislike gays, or blacks, or rednecks, or religious people, etc. However, I don't like being around any of them when they are being stereotypical.

I think the only person I can't stand being around is the white guy who fits the stereotype of the white guy trying to be a black guy...because that guy acts the same no matter who he's around.


edit: With more thought, it comes down to actions only. I don't like anyone who ACTS thuggish, flaming, redneck, bible thumping, etc...no matter what race, creed, color, age, gender, preference...If they don't act that way then we can get along just fine.

I'm pretty sure acting redneck is required or at least highly encouraged in some type of leadership school...comes along with the faux humility.

"Well, I'm just an ol' country boy and don't have a dog in this fight...but ain't we pickin' our peaches before they is fuzzed up good?"

garhkal
07-09-2014, 10:14 PM
I just think it's a sad day when one section of the population is encouraged to express their feelings and beliefs while another section is encouraged to keep their mouths shut and go along with it...to avoid hostility.

If I have to tolerate/accept gays because it's the right thing to do then they should have to tolerate/accept my religious beliefs. Just makes me laugh that it's it's unacceptable to be unaccepting.

It does seem like its being pushed that to be religious and open is not kosher, where as being openly gay etc is encouraged..

Stalwart
07-10-2014, 01:04 PM
Would you say something if someone acted flamboyantly gay in the workplace? If they are gay are they allowed to act that way? I don't know your answer, but I'm sure if someone was to be flamboyantly religious around the shop you'd put a stop to it..

Flamboyantly anything is a distraction in a workplace. The only time I have ever had to ask anyone to separate their personal life from work was a few years ago I had an Air Force MSgt that worked for me whose personal passion was animal cruelty/animal rights. I found it acceptable that she said she did not eat meat, use/wear etc. animal products and things like that. When it turned into her imposing her personal moral code on those around her (to the point of telling the junior enlisted that eating meat was murder and that they were amoral for doing so it needed to be addressed.


Creating a hostile environment isn't done just by "imposing" personal beliefs. It's also done by hindering the expression of those personal beliefs.

True. It is about finding a medium between expressing one's self and expressing one's self onto others. As in the case above, I didn't care that she didn't eat meat; but telling others they are murders is over the line.


If it's ok for someone to openly show support of certain lifestyles in the workplace, it should also be ok for someone to openly show non-support...or...if you're going to show support for one lifestyle (homosexual) in order to avoid hostility then you should also show support for other lifestyles (religious) in order to avoid the same hostility.

Agreed, but I think a command having an optional lunch, discussion or reading on about LGBT month, or about African Americans, Native Americans, Women's History etc. is different than allowing someone to attack another group based on their personal beliefs as well. If someone doesn't want to show their support for said event, then just don't go. If you are being directed to go, you should discuss it with your chain of command or IG ... I have yet in my 24 years to see any of these events made mandatory or someone be dinged for not going to one. If I wanted to afford equal time to every dissent, I would also allow vocal racist (anti-white or anti-black) or anti-Semitic discussions or statements at work. At some point a line gets drawn, but no one will make everyone happy.


I just think it's a sad day when one section of the population is encouraged to express their feelings and beliefs while another section is encouraged to keep their mouths shut and go along with it...to avoid hostility.

If I have to tolerate/accept gays because it's the right thing to do then they should have to tolerate/accept my religious beliefs. Just makes me laugh that it's it's unacceptable to be unaccepting.

Yes, and if a homosexual, or atheist or whomever was in the workplace telling someone who had just come back from an Ash Wednesday event with the ash on their forehead how stupid it made them look or how stupid it was for them to be a Catholic, they would be appropriately / formally counseled as well.

Stalwart
07-10-2014, 01:15 PM
Based on how my command was with me, when i wrote to the Navy times back in 03 (ish) and got published, it won't be seen as favorable. I got hammered, though they at least didn't take me to mast or anything. All cause in their opinion, even using navy times, or some other news paper 'letters to the editor' capacity, SHOULD be routed through the chain of command first!.

Well, I would say that you should try to handle things via your command first, then via the IG and even your member of Congress before writing a letter to Navy Times. If for any other reason, the IG and a Congressional inquiry offers whistleblower protection and Navy Times does not.




A lot of people i know DO feel that way. If you don't support X (like i mentioned above the Heritage months) you get marked down as being intolerant and therefore NOT 'Equal opportunity'.



But is not having a LGBT pride RUN (which most runs of this nature DO get made mandatory) pushing their beliefs down others throats?

I have never seen these made mandatory. Edit: Not saying it hasn't happened ... I haven't seen it and IMO it would be wrong to make them mandatory, I would have no problems telling my boss that in person or in a memo for the record.




Yes they were (inc myself). Heck its almost required that to get more than a 3.0 in EO, to either help set those heritage months up. So NOT showing support often got people marked 3.0 or lower. Heck one of our guys even made it known (via those statements) that he didn't attend cause he felt doing HIS OWN work was more important. His very next eval, which i had to debrief him on was marked 2.0! Needless to say he did another statement, took it to the EO office, but didn't get it changed to my knowledge.

It isn't required to get above a 3 really in anything, as far as your performance trait average, the most important thing is where you are in comparison to the summary group average: if your trait average is 3.5 and the group average is 3.1 that is better than your average being 4.3 in a group whose average is 4.5. Again, in EO I see almost everyone (junior Enlisted, Chiefs and Officers) marked as a 3.0 unless they are in a leadership role or are the EEO.

I don't know the specifics of your situation and it is entirely likely you were at a crappy command -- they exist. In your example above, the EO was not the right venue to discuss eval markings, he should have addressed the IG.

I will say that there are a lot more people who think that just being vocal is going to correct a bad situation or make something right. People need to be vocal to the right audience and deliver a coherent message. The less time I am interpreting a rant vice evaluating a coherent complaint is more time I can spending solving the problem.

sandsjames
07-10-2014, 02:54 PM
Agreed, but I think a command having an optional lunch, discussion or reading on about LGBT month, or about African Americans, Native Americans, Women's History etc. is different than allowing someone to attack another group based on their personal beliefs as well.

"Optional" being the key word. We both know that an email with "Highly Recommended" does not mean optional.

And as far as Ash Wednesday goes, the ash on the forehead should not be allowed in uniform.

Stalwart
07-10-2014, 03:17 PM
"Optional" being the key word. We both know that an email with "Highly Recommended" does not mean optional.

Yes, but I have not seen it used for these types of activities. I would be more than willing to say I didn't think it appropriate if I did.


And as far as Ash Wednesday goes, the ash on the forehead should not be allowed in uniform.

Whether it should or should not ... it is, same as the yarmulke for Jewish members when it does not interfere with their duties. At my pay grade I am not making that policy, just responsible for the enforcement of it. As long as folks are following the policy I should not allow others to belittle or harass them for it.

EDIT: I have seen instances of what I viewed was undue command influence on a particular subject (not this one) and was willing to talk to my boss and the commander about it. I know I have to be tactful when I do ... and that a public discussion in front of juniors isn't the right way to go. In one case it wasn't necessarily comfortable since the person to whom I was saying "I think this is (you are) wrong" was a 2-star but I was willing to do it & the situation was readdressed/clarified and it never impacted my FITREP or duties I was assigned afterward. Not saying this is the case with you, but too many people are willing to tell and E3 they are doing something wrong, but not the O5, O6 or general/admiral.

BURAWSKI
07-10-2014, 03:48 PM
Yes, but I have not seen it used for these types of activities. I would be more than willing to say I didn't think it appropriate if I did.



Whether it should or should not ... it is, same as the yarmulke for Jewish members when it does not interfere with their duties. At my pay grade I am not making that policy, just responsible for the enforcement of it. As long as folks are following the policy I should not allow others to belittle or harass them for it.

EDIT: I have seen instances of what I viewed was undue command influence on a particular subject (not this one) and was willing to talk to my boss and the commander about it. I know I have to be tactful when I do ... and that a public discussion in front of juniors isn't the right way to go. In one case it wasn't necessarily comfortable since the person to whom I was saying "I think this is (you are) wrong" was a 2-star but I was willing to do it & the situation was readdressed/clarified and it never impacted my FITREP or duties I was assigned afterward. Not saying this is the case with you, but too many people are willing to tell and E3 they are doing something wrong, but not the O5, O6 or general/admiral.

This is a great point. Too many times I have seen the bobbing head syndrome. But you are also right about discussion in private about disagreements with policy. I have to admit that I've made mistakes in this area but have learned from it. But the Navy needs more of those willing to tactfully address these types of issues but instead you just see a salute and a "Yes Sir."

BURAWSKI
07-10-2014, 04:38 PM
Forgot to mention that whistleblowers do not usually get treated favorably or fairly, and despite all of the regulations, are usually targeted in some way for retaliation. It happens a lot. Been there done that. So the concerns about speaking up, even in private with superiors, about the problems associated with this subject are well founded. It is a political hot potato, and has a lot of people feeling uneasy and very reluctant to say anything. People in a supervisory position should speak up if potential problems are identified, despite risking retaliation. I know that it is easier said than done for some people.

Measure Man
07-10-2014, 04:38 PM
This is a great point. Too many times I have seen the bobbing head syndrome. But you are also right about discussion in private about disagreements with policy. I have to admit that I've made mistakes in this area but have learned from it. But the Navy needs more of those willing to tactfully address these types of issues but instead you just see a salute and a "Yes Sir."

One of the most valuable assets a leader can have is a subordinate that will tell them when his ass is showing.

sandsjames
07-10-2014, 04:52 PM
Whether it should or should not ... it is, same as the yarmulke for Jewish members when it does not interfere with their duties. At my pay grade I am not making that policy, just responsible for the enforcement of it. As long as folks are following the policy I should not allow others to belittle or harass them for it.



Really, it shouldn't be an issue. There shouldn't be a need for harassment. It's pretty ironic that the Air Force has "uniform" standards yet we don't have to be uniformed in them. Nobody should be "expressing" themselves, or ANY of their beliefs, in uniform. Doesn't mean they can't follow those beliefs, just don't be expressing them.

BURAWSKI
07-10-2014, 05:03 PM
Really, it shouldn't be an issue. There shouldn't be a need for harassment. It's pretty ironic that the Air Force has "uniform" standards yet we don't have to be uniformed in them. Nobody should be "expressing" themselves, or ANY of their beliefs, in uniform. Doesn't mean they can't follow those beliefs, just don't be expressing them.

That goes for expressing sexual orientation on the job and that is what is happening in the Navy. Does this make sense? Is it just me not in tune with the times? Having these commemorative/pride events, not to mention during normal working hours, is totally inappropriate and wrong for a military organization. Where is the leadership on this issue? Where? I ask you.

sandsjames
07-10-2014, 05:05 PM
That goes for expressing sexual orientation on the job and that is what is happening in the Navy. Does this make sense? Is it just me not in tune with the times? Having these commemorative/pride events, not to mention during normal working hours, is total inappropriate in a military organization. Where is the leadership on this issue? Where? I ask you.Again, I'll repeat...the should be NO expression of personal beliefs and values while wearing the uniform.

Measure Man
07-10-2014, 06:32 PM
Again, I'll repeat...the should be NO expression of personal beliefs and values while wearing the uniform.

I don't think there is any problem with some expression....unless your expression of personal beliefs and values is that other people suck.

i.e. It's fine to say, "I am a Christian"...it is not fine to say, "If you are not a Christian you are disgusting" or whatever.

Yes, even fine to demonstrate your own Christianity by having some Ash on your forehead....but not fine to say others are sinners for not having it.

Wear a cross necklace...wear a yarmulke...wear magic underwear, etc. I think all of that is okay. WE all know we are not 100% uniform...heck, there are different uniform options! Some people wear watches, some don't...there is some leeway within the uniform.

sandsjames
07-10-2014, 06:42 PM
I don't think there is any problem with some expression....unless your expression of personal beliefs and values is that other people suck.

i.e. It's fine to say, "I am a Christian"...it is not fine to say, "If you are not a Christian you are disgusting" or whatever. Agree...and it's also not fine to say "If you don't agree with my Christian lifestyle than you are an ass".


Yes, even fine to demonstrate your own Christianity by having some Ash on your forehead.... Not in uniform, it shouldn't be.


Wear a cross necklace...wear a yarmulke...wear magic underwear, etc. I think all of that is okay. WE all know we are not 100% uniform...heck, there are different uniform options! Some people wear watches, some don't...there is some leeway within the uniform.No...no...and no. I'm already not allowed to do anything that could be seen to endorse a political candidate while in uniform. Why are any of othe other issues any different? Why should I be allowed to wear something that endorses any religion, race, sex, creed, color, lifestyle?

Again, this is the issue. Most people don't give a shit what you or I do in our personal lives. They just don't want us to be endorsing our lifestyles in the workplace environment. And that's how it should be.

And, yes, there is leeway in our uniform. But I'm not allowed to come in every day of the week with ash on my forehead. Why should an exception be made for Ash Wednesday? It shouldn't. Not in the military. Hell, I can't wear a wristband unless it's for a cause the military endorses. They should either be allowing endorsement of nothing or allowing endorsement of everything. And endorsement of everything causes problems...endorsement of nothing causes no problems.

Measure Man
07-10-2014, 06:56 PM
Agree...and it's also not fine to say "If you don't agree with my Christian lifestyle than you are an ass".

Not in uniform, it shouldn't be.


I don't have a problem with it...and I believe it is authorized, but your opinion is noted.


No...no...and no. I'm already not allowed to do anything that could be seen to endorse a political candidate while in uniform. Why are any of othe other issues any different? Why should I be allowed to wear something that endorses any religion, race, sex, creed, color, lifestyle?

Again, this is the issue. Most people don't give a shit what you or I do in our personal lives. They just don't want us to be endorsing our lifestyles in the workplace environment. And that's how it should be.

And, yes, there is leeway in our uniform. But I'm not allowed to come in every day of the week with ash on my forehead. Why should an exception be made for Ash Wednesday? It shouldn't. Not in the military. Hell, I can't wear a wristband unless it's for a cause the military endorses. They should either be allowing endorsement of nothing or allowing endorsement of everything. And endorsement of everything causes problems...endorsement of nothing causes no problems.

You raise some interesting points, but I still disagree. I don't know of anything saying you can't have Ash on your head every day if it's part of your religious observace. So, Ash Wednesday is not an exception, it's just no one wants to wear it every day.

Politics is very different as there are very specific rules about the military supporting particular candidates. That has nothing to do with uniformity or workplace harmoney, but has more to do with military coups and influencing elections, etc.

I don't know what you mean by endorsing, really, on some of this stuff....just because you ARE a Christian in the workplace, does that mean you are endorsing it? You stop being who you are when you are in the workplace, and some expression of that is to be expected.

sandsjames
07-10-2014, 07:09 PM
I don't know what you mean by endorsing, really, on some of this stuff....just because you ARE a Christian in the workplace, does that mean you are endorsing it? You stop being who you are when you are in the workplace, and some expression of that is to be expected.It's fine to be a Christian in the workplace. It's fine to be gay in the workplace. Hell, if a guy wants to wear womens underwear in the workplace, who cares? Now if the person needs to keep making it clear to everyone that he's a Christian, a cross-dresser, etc...then it becomes an issue.

The Air Force has already crossed this road, and decided. They did it when they put a restriction on tattoos that "may be offensive" being exposed. Again, have anything you want, do anything you want, just keep it "covered" at work.

That doesn't mean a gay guy can't talk about his boyfriend. That doesn't mean that a Christian can't talk about what they did at church on Sunday.

Somebody telling me, at work, that I need to acccept gays and "get with the times" is no different than me telling someone, at work, that they need to accept Jesus Christ as their savior. Do you see how that could be annoying and hinder the workplace?

I've said it before. People just need to "be". Most people would be much more accepted and act much more accepting if a big deal didn't have to be made out of everything. I don't need to know that you had the most amazing salad for dinner.

garhkal
07-10-2014, 07:32 PM
Well, I would say that you should try to handle things via your command first, then via the IG and even your member of Congress before writing a letter to Navy Times. If for any other reason, the IG and a Congressional inquiry offers whistleblower protection and Navy Times does not.


IIRC my letter to them was in response to an article that the navy times ran, NOT something my command did/didn't do. Which is why i didn't understand why they were so butt hurt about me NOT going through them when i wrote it and sent it in.




I have never seen these made mandatory. Edit: Not saying it hasn't happened ... I haven't seen it and IMO it would be wrong to make them mandatory, I would have no problems telling my boss that in person or in a memo for the record.

Maybe its the difference in Branches. I know us Navy folk, do seem to push those sorts of runs and such as being mandatory (be there or be at work is the common mantra). Not sure whether the others are the same way or not.

BURAWSKI
07-10-2014, 07:41 PM
Some junior Sailors may feel intimidated by how it is presented and instead of saying anything just remain silent on the issue.

Measure Man
07-10-2014, 07:45 PM
It's fine to be a Christian in the workplace. It's fine to be gay in the workplace. Hell, if a guy wants to wear womens underwear in the workplace, who cares? Now if the person needs to keep making it clear to everyone that he's a Christian, a cross-dresser, etc...then it becomes an issue.

Agreed.


The Air Force has already crossed this road, and decided. They did it when they put a restriction on tattoos that "may be offensive" being exposed. Again, have anything you want, do anything you want, just keep it "covered" at work.

That doesn't mean a gay guy can't talk about his boyfriend. That doesn't mean that a Christian can't talk about what they did at church on Sunday.

Somebody telling me, at work, that I need to acccept gays and "get with the times" is no different than me telling someone, at work, that they need to accept Jesus Christ as their savior. Do you see how that could be annoying and hinder the workplace?

I've said it before. People just need to "be". Most people would be much more accepted and act much more accepting if a big deal didn't have to be made out of everything. I don't need to know that you had the most amazing salad for dinner.

We don't have any disagreement here.

What are we supposed to do for the rest of the day, now?

sandsjames
07-10-2014, 07:56 PM
Agreed.



We don't have any disagreement here.

What are we supposed to do for the rest of the day, now?

Can I just continue to post in order to keep the appearance of disagreement? If not then I shall become bored and get myself into trouble.

sandsjames
07-10-2014, 07:57 PM
Maybe its the difference in Branches. I know us Navy folk, do seem to push those sorts of runs and such as being mandatory (be there or be at work is the common mantra). Not sure whether the others are the same way or not.

No...never "mandatory" in the AF. Just "Highly Encouraged"...which means that somoene will be asking the boss where everyone in shop is if they aren't at the "event".

Stalwart
07-11-2014, 03:25 AM
IIRC my letter to them was in response to an article that the navy times ran, NOT something my command did/didn't do. Which is why i didn't understand why they were so butt hurt about me NOT going through them when i wrote it and sent it in.

Wow ... I go back to the "you may have been in a crappy command" statement.





Maybe its the difference in Branches. I know us Navy folk, do seem to push those sorts of runs and such as being mandatory (be there or be at work is the common mantra). Not sure whether the others are the same way or not.

I have been in the Navy 12 years (almost) -- 5 different commands & again ... I have never seen anything like that. I have seen luncheons, or readings/presentations in a conference room for various commemorative months, but nothing that was, or was implied as mandatory. I also spent 12 years enlisted in the Marines, and didn't see it there either.

Chris_1991-2011
07-11-2014, 05:12 AM
No...never "mandatory" in the AF. Just "Highly Encouraged"...which means that somoene will be asking the boss where everyone in shop is if they aren't at the "event".

This is one of the issues that irritated me and never made any sense in my 20 years in the AF. I can see the importance/benefits in supporting your unit, base, and/or local community, but what does supporting an event really mean? To me it means volunteering your time to get the word out about the event, organizing/leading the event, setting up/tearing down, running/working the event, or purchasing items/food, or donating money. These are the things that are, for the most part, quantifiable and can be used in performance reports and award/decoration packages. But when you have events that are "Highly Encouraged" (mandatory fun) or made to seem mandatory when they aren't what do you have?

People that are "encouraged" or feel they have to attend an event are irritated, pissed off, may feel like children, and/or would rather be somewhere else, sometimes even work, etc. because they feel pressured into attending. You have people that are just talking to friends/coworkers, taking advantage of free food/drinks, and generally there to make an appearance so leadership sees them and gets the impression they support the event/cause and are "team players". And some of these people use the event for their performance reports and award/decoration packages as if they actually did something.

Events shouldn't be "Highly Encouraged" or made to seem as mandatory. If people truly want to support and/or are interested in an event/cause they'll show up and/or support it. It seems to me that if events were simply advertised and people could make up their own minds on whether to show up/support these events or not, it would become obvious as to if the events were worth having in the first place or not or again next year. It would seem that doing things like this would have some sort of positive affect, but then I could be way off on some/all of the above (below).

There are some things that could be a slight gray area as to whether you support something or not; at least in my opinion. Take [insert group being supported such as LGBT pride day/week/month/year] "fun" run. If someone decides to participate in the run, are they supporting the group? Or does it give the perception that you support said group which is bothersome/worrisome? Obviously you're going to have people that are gay and/or fully support the LGBT community. But what about the "PT Nazis"/fitness gurus/people using it as an opportunity to get a work out in, or are (very) competitive and see the run as an opportunity to compete/win (which would be sad in my opinion as it's a "fun" run), are kiss asses (no pun intended), or (desperately) need a bullet for a performance report/dec/quarterly package? Aren't you the one that truly knows whether you actually support and/or believe in the event? Or are some overly concerned about other peoples perception of you supporting/believing something? I'm just thinking/being curious.....

Salty Old Dog
07-14-2014, 02:48 PM
I have said for years now, let them do as they will, and definitely let them marry.....there's no reason that heterosexuals should be the only miserable people around, right? ;)

However, when it comes to this whole LGBT lifestyle thing, while I may have the "live and let live" attitude toward it, it doesn't mean I plan on participating in any "support" activities. Just as I doubt they would, if we had a "Hetero and damn proud of it" month, with activities. I figure that one will come around, right after we get our "Caucasian Heritage Month" approved. :rolleyes:

BURAWSKI
07-14-2014, 03:47 PM
I have said for years now, let them do as they will, and definitely let them marry.....there's no reason that heterosexuals should be the only miserable people around, right? ;)

However, when it comes to this whole LGBT lifestyle thing, while I may have the "live and let live" attitude toward it, it doesn't mean I plan on participating in any "support" activities. Just as I doubt they would, if we had a "Hetero and damn proud of it" month, with activities. I figure that one will come around, right after we get our "Caucasian Heritage Month" approved. :rolleyes:

Allowing gays to serve openly in the military is beginning to have an adverse affect on the military culture. The argument was that allowing gays to serve openly would have no adverse affect on morale, since most other countries allow it. But it is instances like this that show that problems are festering with no resolution in sight. I see this as creating problems when you have a majority of Sailors hesitant to address this issue out of fear of retaliation or a career ending administrative action for doing nothing more than speaking their mind.

garhkal
07-14-2014, 07:50 PM
Allowing gays to serve openly in the military is beginning to have an adverse affect on the military culture. The argument was that allowing gays to serve openly would have no adverse affect on morale, since most other countries allow it. But it is instances like this that show that problems are festering with no resolution in sight. I see this as creating problems when you have a majority of Sailors hesitant to address this issue out of fear of retaliation or a career ending administrative action for doing nothing more than speaking their mind.
Exactly. To many feel they have to bottle up their concerns/feelings on the issue over fear of retaliation (which we all know has happened in the past for rocking the boat) which harms morale.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 07:57 PM
Exactly. To many feel they have to bottle up their concerns/feelings on the issue over fear of retaliation (which we all know has happened in the past for rocking the boat) which harms morale.

Yeah...same goes for all those southern rednecks that join the military and have to keep their dislike for minorities quiet over fear of retaliation.

Rainmaker
07-14-2014, 08:35 PM
Yeah...same goes for all those southern rednecks that join the military and have to keep their dislike for minorities quiet over fear of retaliation.

Rainmaker wonders if black people resent constantly having their situation compared to that of a bunch of gender-confused activists

BURAWSKI
07-14-2014, 08:55 PM
Rainmaker wonders if black people resent constantly having their situation compared to that of a bunch of gender-confused activists

That is an interesting analogy that you threw out there. My concern has nothing to do with gender or race. It is with behavior, something that has somehow morphed into an equal rights issue. I never could understand that. It is one thing to allow gays to serve openly, which I support. But it is another thing to actually have the Navy endorse the lifestyle, which I do not, and which the Navy is actively involved in providing a platform for acceptance and endorsement. I can't understand that once gays were allowed to serve openly, why the Navy just remain neutral on the lifestyle. But creating an atmosphere where those that do agree with the lifestyle can not express their opinion is wrong. So, yes there is a difference. But people find it easy I suppose to put people with concerns like mine on the defensive. That is the issue. Not whether a person is part of the LGBT Community.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 09:14 PM
Rainmaker wonders if black people resent constantly having their situation compared to that of a bunch of gender-confused activists

Of course they do. And I don't blame them a bit. I've stated many times that gays comparing their issues to the civil rights issues of blacks is a joke and highly offensive. A gay guy can walk down the street and nobody knows he's gay. So people who dislike gays would never know. People who dislike blacks can easily tell, obviously, if a guy is black.

Measure Man
07-14-2014, 09:59 PM
Of course they do. And I don't blame them a bit. I've stated many times that gays comparing their issues to the civil rights issues of blacks is a joke and highly offensive. A gay guy can walk down the street and nobody knows he's gay. So people who dislike gays would never know. People who dislike blacks can easily tell, obviously, if a guy is black.

I never understand why people think that two things have to be exactly the same in order to make comparisons about them.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 10:10 PM
I never understand why people think that two things have to be exactly the same in order to make comparisons about them.

Neither do I, but those who are now fighting for these "rights" are the ones who have made the comparison. And that's why the question was asked about how blacks should feel about gays making the comparison.

Measure Man
07-14-2014, 10:23 PM
Neither do I, but those who are now fighting for these "rights" are the ones who have made the comparison.

What I'm saying is I don't see anything wrong with them making the comparison.

The issues are not all the same...but there are some parallels.


And that's why the question was asked about how blacks should feel about gays making the comparison.

What if they are gay and black?

garhkal
07-15-2014, 06:25 AM
Of course they do. And I don't blame them a bit. I've stated many times that gays comparing their issues to the civil rights issues of blacks is a joke and highly offensive. A gay guy can walk down the street and nobody knows he's gay. So people who dislike gays would never know. People who dislike blacks can easily tell, obviously, if a guy is black.

That depends on the gay guy. I have seen plenty of people who were obvious flamers, both in how they carried themselves and in their speech.

sandsjames
07-15-2014, 11:19 AM
What if they are gay and black?What if they are lisdexic and martian?

sandsjames
07-15-2014, 11:19 AM
That depends on the gay guy. I have seen plenty of people who were obvious flamers, both in how they carried themselves and in their speech.Choice. They have the ability to hide it walking down the street.

garhkal
07-15-2014, 08:40 PM
Choice. They have the ability to hide it walking down the street.

True they can choose to try and hide it. Honestly i wish more would take that choice.

socal1200r
07-16-2014, 12:59 PM
True they can choose to try and hide it. Honestly i wish more would take that choice.

I was in the base post office a while back, and there was a male SSgt in line in front of me, talking with a female NCO. This guy was as queer as a three dollar bill, and couldn't have been more gay if he tried, talking about his boyfriend and how they were trying to find a place to live, etc. Had I been in uniform, I would've told him to STFU, because I found his conversation offensive. And if he had a problem with that, I would've told him we'll flip for it, and last I checked, an O5 outflips a SSgt...

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 01:02 PM
I was in the base post office a while back, and there was a male SSgt in line in front of me, talking with a female NCO. This guy was as queer as a three dollar bill, and couldn't have been more gay if he tried, talking about his boyfriend and how they were trying to find a place to live, etc. Had I been in uniform, I would've told him to STFU, because I found his conversation offensive. And if he had a problem with that, I would've told him we'll flip for it, and last I checked, an O5 outflips a SSgt...

Please don't ever discuss anything activities you do with your wife...

Stalwart
07-16-2014, 03:45 PM
I was in the base post office a while back, and there was a male SSgt in line in front of me, talking with a female NCO. This guy was as queer as a three dollar bill, and couldn't have been more gay if he tried, talking about his boyfriend and how they were trying to find a place to live, etc. Had I been in uniform, I would've told him to STFU, because I found his conversation offensive. And if he had a problem with that, I would've told him we'll flip for it, and last I checked, an O5 outflips a SSgt...

I don't see from what you wrote what was offensive, what exactly offended you? Was it just that he was discussing his significant other -- who happens to be same-sex. Would you be just as offended if a single male was discussing finding a place to live with his female girlfriend? That in and of itself isn't offensive. I could see if he was graphically describing sex, which would also be inappropriate for a heterosexual to discuss.

If it bothered you that much you could have still identified yourself as a Lt Col ([Edit:] in all honesty your rank really doesn't matter, if I hear or see someone doing something offensive if they are junior to me, my peer or senior I am going to say something to them ... right is right and wrong is wrong ... regardless of rank) and asked him to keep it down but in all honesty, had you told him to "STFU" I think you may have been opening up an argument that you (O5 or not) would probably end up losing.

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 03:51 PM
Had I been in uniform, I would've told him to STFU, because I found his conversation offensive.

Why would you need to be in uniform? Is that where you get your super powers?

garhkal
07-16-2014, 07:40 PM
Na.. probably needs the reassurance it gives him to make a challenge.

USAF-Controller
07-16-2014, 08:50 PM
I was in the base post office a while back, and there was a male SSgt in line in front of me, talking with a female NCO. This guy was as queer as a three dollar bill, and couldn't have been more gay if he tried, talking about his boyfriend and how they were trying to find a place to live, etc. Had I been in uniform, I would've told him to STFU, because I found his conversation offensive. And if he had a problem with that, I would've told him we'll flip for it, and last I checked, an O5 outflips a SSgt...

I'm only a TSgt but I would have loved for you to try that on me. The IG would have had a field day with it.

socal1200r
07-17-2014, 12:26 PM
I'm only a TSgt but I would have loved for you to try that on me. The IG would have had a field day with it.

I don't give a flying f*ck about the IG in something like this. They put their pants on one leg at a time, just like I do. All this politically correct BS has got to go...

USAF-Controller
07-17-2014, 06:16 PM
I don't give a flying f*ck about the IG in something like this. They put their pants on one leg at a time, just like I do. All this politically correct BS has got to go...

What I was getting at was that the SSgt Was not violating any rules, he was just talking about something you did not like. For you to order him to shut up was unlawful and you were in the wrong.