# Marine Gay Conscientious Objector **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2003, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-gay-conscientious-objector/166185 "2003-04-03T14:08:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![bayonet1976](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/77aa72/32.png) [@bayonet1976](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bayonet1976)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-gay-conscientious-objector/166185/61 "2003-04-04T14:37:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*Actually, bayonet, it’s your opinion derived at from speculation alone. A lawyer certainly wouldn’t have told him that requesting an ADSEP would get him out of a disciplinary proceeding. Well, a good lawyer wouldn’t. \*\* Which is why I said > [@](#): > > …someone, perhaps a lawyer but more likely a friend, advised him… ---
**Author:** ![deball](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df705f/32.png) [@deball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deball)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-gay-conscientious-objector/166185/62 "2003-04-04T15:18:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*The proper channels I used were completing 20 years Active Service and the end I achieved was Transfer to the Fleet Reserve. > I am not a “Former PN1.” My rate/rating/branch/status are: PN1/USN/Retired. \*\* Oops, I did misread something in the early posts, so I withdraw the “p” word and you being a CO comments. My fault. Apologies. > [@](#): > > \*\*Being UA once does not indicate “he’s not a team player.” It indicates he made a serious mistake. Funk is now involved in the repercussions of that mistake. Now, had he made a habit of going UA, then that would certainly be a non-team player. Funk is also involved in the process of being recognized (or not recognized) by the Armed Forces as a Conscientious Objector. Being a CO also does not indicate he’s not a team player. \*\* I have to respectfully disagree with the first statement. It’s not like the stories note he went UA to visit his ailing mother on her deathbed. That would be a mistake, because there are other legal methods to do that. Also, he wasn’t UA because he decided to head out of town for the weekend, got stuck, and never got back in time. His unit was called into active duty and he just didn’t show up for over a month. If you still think that’s being a member of the team, then we are at an impasse as to what that means. I agree with your last statement in the area that being a CO does not mean a person is not a team player. If Funk had not proven himself as unreliable in his actions as well as his intentions by not being where he was supposed to be, and where he swore an oath of enlistment to be, I would not have a problem in believing him when he claims to be a CO. But that is not the case, and because of that, people will have a hard time believing anything he says. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-gay-conscientious-objector/166185/63 "2003-04-04T15:49:34Z")
**Monty**. our experiences don’t even contradict each other. You seem like you had a pretty good experience being recruited. Well, my friend had a really really bad one. His came with a lot of pressure and psychological manipulation. Maybe you were just ready and well informed about the process while my friend wasn’t. All I know is that my best friend in the whole world had a complete break down in the middle of his recruitment, and that didn’t stop anyone from hounding him with phone calls at six AM and crap like that. And based on that experience, I can personally understand how someone joining the military- especially the reserves- could get the wrong idea about what exactly the were signing on to, regardless of what their contract says. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-gay-conscientious-objector/166185/64 "2003-04-04T16:02:18Z")
even: I reiterate my comment about accusing someone not here of a criminal act. The story, as your friend related it to you, does not add up. I explained the reasons why it doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![skankweirdall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c6cbf5/32.png) [@skankweirdall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/skankweirdall)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-gay-conscientious-objector/166185/65 "2003-04-04T16:18:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*I would someone to give me a plausible explanation of how someone could get to be of an age that would make them eligible for military service, and that they would otherwise be eligible for military service, and yet could not know that **militaries are for killing people.** \*\* Shit, you mean I missed my chance? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-gay-conscientious-objector/166185/66 "2003-04-05T03:08:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > RTF: The contract is what the Reservist (to include the National Guardsman) signs. The Reserves have gotten called up and it’s not a secret that it happens. It’s no secret, but there’s a lot of 18 year olds who don’t follow the news closely, and would have been surprised as hell to find that out, before the Reserve call-ups for the present war. OTOH, if ‘everyone knows’ that Reservists get called up, then you’d have no objection to my proposal, since it would simply be telling potential recruits something they already know. > [@](#): > > Heck, being Active Duty doesn’t guarantee you’re going to get sent to a combat zone either! Well, no shit. Due to a variety of things, including bad organization, there’s lots of weekend warriors who are more likely to be sent to combat zones on multiple occasions than many active-duty types are to have that happen to them in their entire career. > [@](#): > > It’s not a legitimate point to call the Reserve components “hire-ons.” It’s demeaning, insulting, and worst of all, inaccurate. I’m not sure what this has to do with me, but carry on. > [@](#): > > “Lied to about what jobs they were going to get.” I call BS. “I call BS”?? I call Kings-X. Just calling something doesn’t make it so. > [@](#): > > If the contract has the MOS/Rating/AFSC listed, then they get it. So if the recruiter promises something that he doesn’t put in the contract, and it doesn’t happen, then it isn’t a lie. What a sweet ‘out’. With _that_ standard, you can call BS on _anything_: if it wasn’t on an official piece of paper, it didn’t happen. How kon-_veen_-yent. > [@](#): > > “I’ve known people who’ve been recruited.” Arguing from a logical fallacy. After all, every single person with whom I served was recruited. How does that demonstrate a logical fallacy? “Does this happen?” “Yes, I know someone it’s happened to.” > [@](#): > > “I’ve heard some stories from servicepersons.” I’m maintaining that’s exactly what those were: stories. Maybe the people telling you those stories felt better about themselves, or maybe they thought it’s just more cool to accuse someone who’s not there and therefore is unable to defend himself of the charge of illegal activity. Huh?? WTF?? Why would they bother to accuse people to me whose names I wasn’t told, and who I will never meet? Look, I’ve known people who liked being in the military, who were proud of their service, but they also knew that not everything about the US military was perfect. I’m relying on their integrity, and on their ability to assess what was going on in their world. If you’re saying no recruiter ever lied to a potential recruit, that happens to be _true_ by your definition, since by your definition, only what’s on the contract has moral standing. But _I’m not using your definition_; I’m using the normal, everyday definition of truth and lies. > [@](#): > > (even sven) Unfortunatly, it was also a pretty bad time in his life and not a time when he was at all mentally fit to make decisions. > > (Monty) I’d like to see your license to practice medicine (or is this under the specific discipline of Psychiatry?). You’re right, **Monty** : no one could _possibly_ make a decent judgment like that about a friend. If I tell you the sun rose in the east this morning, are you going to quiz me about my expertise in astronomy (the sun) and geography (east)? Get a grip, man. > [@](#): > > (even sven) This had to be obvious. He was crying in front of his recruiters. He was breaking down, and I am 100% sure that the constant phone calls at odd hours, intimidating meetings and huge demands on his time were to try to make sure he broke down towards signing up instead of away from it. > > (Monty) See above about accusing someone not present to defend himself. Exactly who’s being accused? It isn’t an accusation against a specific person if that person isn’t named or otherwise identified. No individual’s reputation is being smeared, justly or unjustly. **Monty** , it sounds like your rules here are, only your testimony is worth diddly; everyone else’s is invalid. _I call BS!_ 😃 > [@](#): > > “Being AWOL since mid-February sounds nontrivial to me.” Darn right! Being UA since yesterday is also non-trivial. I’m trying to figure out your point here, and I give up. > [@](#): > > & I think I’ll scream the next time I hear “this is a time of war.” Congress has not declared war. So? Scream away. This is a time of war. You can stuff your legalisms; we’ve sent hundreds of thousands of people to the other side of the world to invade a foreign country, and shoot and drop bombs on anyone who gets in their way. I don’t think I’m misunderstanding anything when I call that war. “Cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war.” - Shakespeare “Who let the dogs out?” - Baha Men ---
**Author:** ![Hermann\_Cheruscan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b782af/32.png) [@Hermann\_Cheruscan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermann_Cheruscan)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-gay-conscientious-objector/166185/67 "2003-04-05T03:32:19Z")
Whats up with being a “conscientious objector” in todays voluntary service? If this guy couldn’t handle it, he shouldn’t have joined up. ---
**Author:** ![Dreaming\_of\_Maria\_Callas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f14d63/32.png) [@Dreaming\_of\_Maria\_Callas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dreaming_of_Maria_Callas)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-gay-conscientious-objector/166185/68 "2003-04-05T11:39:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hermann Cheruscan \* > \*\*Whats up with being a “conscientious objector” in todays voluntary service? If this guy couldn’t handle it, he shouldn’t have joined up. \*\* What the fuck, **Hermann Cheruscan** , did you even read my posts and that long one of **Monty**? The regulations for conscientious objection provide for discharge for people who experienced change in religious belief _after_ entry into the armed forces. UnuMondo ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-gay-conscientious-objector/166185/69 "2003-04-05T16:57:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > It’s no secret, but there’s a lot of 18 year olds who don’t follow the news closely, and would have been surprised as hell to find that out, before the Reserve call-ups for the present war. Too bad. As you just admitted, it’s no secret. During their BCT and AIT, it remained not a secret. > [@](#): > > OTOH, if ‘everyone knows’ that Reservists get called up, then you’d have no objection to my proposal, since it would simply be telling potential recruits something they already know. Which is exactly what it is. “Everyone knows” is kind of disingenuous; however, the people concerned (the Reservist who’s subject to getting recalled to Active Duty, for example, certainly has been made aware of it. > [@](#): > > Well, no shit. Due to a variety of things, including bad organization, there’s lots of weekend warriors who are more likely to be sent to combat zones on multiple occasions than many active-duty types are to have that happen to them in their entire career. A very good example, instead of “bad organization,” is that those already on Active Duty are already stationed somewhere in support of the country’s treaty obligations (Japan, Korea, etc.) and thus the Reserve Component is the necessary means of fulfilling something that comes up suddenly. Thus the monthly & annual training to ensure those individuals have the needed skills. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what this has to do with me, but carry on. Well, I was just addressing the over-riding attitude that seems to be present in this thread that the Reserves “ain’t real Soldiers.” > [@](#): > > “I call BS”?? I call Kings-X. Just calling something doesn’t make it so. Nor does your friend’s fishy story make it true. I provided my rationale why that story doesn’t make sense. It just doesn’t add up. > [@](#): > > So if the recruiter promises something that he doesn’t put in the contract, and it doesn’t happen, then it isn’t a lie. What a sweet ‘out’. It’s not an out. As a contract, it must be written to protect both parties (the government and the enlistee) from false charges (such as "My recruiter lied to me!). > [@](#): > > With _that_ standard, you can call BS on _anything_: if it wasn’t on an official piece of paper, it didn’t happen. How kon-_veen_-yent. It’s not a matter of convenience. It’s a legal issue to protect both parties from false charges. > [@](#): > > How does that demonstrate a logical fallacy? Simple. Find your friend. Ask him, “Hey, didn’t you sign that contract?” When he answers, “Yes.” Then you get to ask, “Hey, what was in there that your recruiter lied about as opposed to not being under his control and thus giving you the option of an entry level separation for breach of contract? What specific lies did you recruiter tell you? What specific part of the contract which you initialed by ‘no promises other than what are written in this contract are valid’ and where you signed by the ‘I fully understand what I’m getting myself into’ or words to that effect did you not understand?” > [@](#): > > “Does this happen?” “Yes, I know someone it’s happened to.” > Huh?? WTF?? Huh? WTF? > [@](#): > > Why would they bother to accuse people to me whose names I wasn’t told, and who I will never meet? “My recruiter” is a specific individual. It is not some mythical conspiracy-theorist big brother nebulous entity. The Recruiter who also signs the contract (actually the application for enlistment) is a specific individual. His career and possibly his freedom are on the line if he falsifies the thing. > [@](#): > > Look, I’ve known people who liked being in the military, who were proud of their service, but they also knew that not everything about the US military was perfect. I liked being in the military and I also know that not everything about it is perfect. Thus the breach of contract provision and the punitive articles of the UCMJ for the stuff your friend has accused a specific individual of doing. > [@](#): > > I’m relying on their integrity, and on their ability to assess what was going on in their world. I’ve explained why, in this instance, your friend’s ability to assess what was happening isn’t what you seem to want it to be. Either that, or he just hasn’t related to you what really happened. As I said before, some folks seem to think it’s cool to say, “My recruiter lied to me!” > [@](#): > > If you’re saying no recruiter ever lied to a potential recruit, that happens to be _true_ by your definition, since by your definition, only what’s on the contract has moral standing. Actually, only what’s in the contract has legal standing. > [@](#): > > But _I’m not using your definition_; I’m using the normal, everyday definition of truth and lies. Your friend did not have the ability to say, “Hey, why ain’t those guarantees written here where it says ‘guarntees?’” > [@](#): > > You’re right, **Monty** : no one could _possibly_ make a decent judgment like that about a friend. I’ve already explained why your friend’s story doesn’t add up. Did he pursue charges against the recruiter? Did he pursue entry level separation? > [@](#): > > If I tell you the sun rose in the east this morning, are you going to quiz me about my expertise in astronomy (the sun) and geography (east)? No. And that is not in any way comparable. > [@](#): > > Get a grip, man. > Exactly who’s being accused? The Recruiter. > [@](#): > > It isn’t an accusation against a specific person if that person isn’t named or otherwise identified. Incorrect. The Recruiter is a specific individual. His signature appears on the enlistment paperwork. > [@](#): > > No individual’s reputation is being smeared, justly or unjustly. The Recruiter’s reputation and integrity are being smeared. > [@](#): > > **Monty** , it sounds like your rules here are, only your testimony is worth diddly; everyone else’s is invalid. Nope. What I do expect though is that a story make sense compared to the Real World. I’ve already provided why I don’t believe your friend’s story. Reread what I wrote. > [@](#): > > _I call BS!_ 😃 Unlike your friend, as you’ve related his story, I’ve actually provided why my assessment makes sense. > [@](#): > > I’m trying to figure out your point here, and I give up. Not my fault you don’t understand what I’ve clearly explained above. [qutoe]So? Scream away. This is a time of war. [/quote] Aaaahhhhhh! This nation is not in a declared war. We are not at war. Were we at war, certain legal things would follow. > [@](#): > > You can stuff your legalisms; we’ve sent hundreds of thousands of people to the other side of the world to invade a foreign country, and shoot and drop bombs on anyone who gets in their way. I don’t think I’m misunderstanding anything when I call that war. And this war was declared by Congress on what date? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-gay-conscientious-objector/166185/70 "2003-04-05T20:20:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by WillSantini \* > **And as far as his being gay, that reason alone is not grounds for a discharge. It’s actually quite difficult to get a discharge due to being gay.** Under current law, the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’ tell, Don’t Pursue” policy signed by Clinton, a declaration of a homosexual or bisexual orientation creates a “rebuttable presumption” that the declarant has committed “homosexual acts” in violation of military law. The declarant must be separated unless he or she successfully rebuts the presumption. To date, IIRC exactly one person has successfully rebutted the presumption and remained in the military after declaring her homosexuality. It is in fact very easy to be discharged as a homosexual and homosexuality is indeed sufficient grounds all by itself for discharge. There has been [something of a slowdown in gay discharges](http://www.sldn.org/templates/law/record.html?record=837) because a number of commanders are refusing to initiate discharge procedings, but there have been some recent high-profile discharges of Arabic linguists, notable at a time when, for obvious reasons, Arabic linguists are something of a necessity to the war machine. ---
**Author:** ![strega](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@strega](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/strega)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-gay-conscientious-objector/166185/71 "2003-04-05T22:13:37Z")
Wow, a lot of back and forth, guys. I want to say that when I was recruited, I walked into the recruiters office and asked to sign up. I also called them as much as they called me. Yes, the recruiter did drive me to Richmond to take exams and physical, and yes he did ask me to sleep with him. Hey, it was a mans world in '81. We got that last one straightened out, with no further harassment done, trust me. Also \*\*before I signed anything or took any exams \*\* I was asked if I had any objection to bearing arms. Why? Because the military has a plce for CO, and in fact used many during WWII as corpsman, couriers, admin personnel, etc. DID NOT MEAN THEY WOULD NOT POSSIBLY BE IN A COMBAT THEATER, did mean they would not be required to carry a gun. Think of all those places they used to put the women, My answer, by the way, was that if there was someone shooting at me, I HAD BETTER have something to shoot back with. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-gay-conscientious-objector/166185.md?page=3)