Pentagon Study: Low Risk if Don't Ask Ends

charver said:
I appreciate that our army, after the recent cuts, amounts to a hundred or so chaps walking around a drill square with wooden rifles but when we got shot of the "if you're gay you're not coming in" rule, we didn't see a huge upsurge in straight blokes milking the system.

The gays have been fighting for years in our military and, to be honest, they didn't do to badly.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you guys offer for benefits. I'm also not against gays serving. Or marrying. Just pointing out a problem that will be exploited.
 
Duplicity and Guile said:
I don't know what you guys offer for benefits. I'm also not against gays serving. Or marrying. Just pointing out a problem that will be exploited.
Click to expand...

I've never thought you were on the anti-gay wing, Billy.

Although i don't think the potential of exploitation is a major factor either way. I'll guess that you could probably cover all the gay partners in the military for the cost of decommissioning a couple of nuclear warheads.
 
charver said:
I've never thought you were on the anti-gay wing, Billy.

Although i don't think the potential of exploitation is a major factor either way. I'll guess that you could probably cover all the gay partners in the military for the cost of decommissioning a couple of nuclear warheads.
Click to expand...
Let me do the math real quick. We'll be using a few assumptions here. A male E-3 of 2 years (the largest enlisted group, comprising about 50% of our entire military). Base pay is $1813 a month, divided by two (pay is bi-weekly) is $906. Now we'll multiply that by 500,000 (our active military is about 1.5 million). That's about almost 1 billion dollars a month. Being married means that they would now get COMRATS, the money they pay for food which isn't part of base pay. Last I check COMRATS was $350 a month, which is also non-taxable. So adding that to base pay and you get $2163. And you also need to factor in the housing allowance, BAH. This isn't as set in stone, and is more determined by local cost of living. In North Carolina it was $965 a month last I checked. BAH is also non-taxable. So total income, taxable and non-taxable for a E-3 living in North Carolina who is married would be $3128. Basically it's twice the pay, and half of that income is none taxable.
 
christiefan915 said:
Well, I'm not in the military and get info from outside sources but it doesn't seem like there's a fuck ton of gays in there, either.
Click to expand...
Christy, I'm not saying there are a lot of gays. I'm saying there are a lot of straight service members who would marry each other so they could get more money and not live in the barracks.
 
Duplicity and Guile said:
Let me do the math real quick. We'll be using a few assumptions here. A male E-3 of 2 years (the largest enlisted group, comprising about 50% of our entire military). Base pay is $1813 a month, divided by two (pay is bi-weekly) is $906. Now we'll multiply that by 500,000 (our active military is about 1.5 million). That's about almost 1 billion dollars a month. Being married means that they would now get COMRATS, the money they pay for food which isn't part of base pay. Last I check COMRATS was $350 a month, which is also non-taxable. So adding that to base pay and you get $2163. And you also need to factor in the housing allowance, BAH. This isn't as set in stone, and is more determined by local cost of living. In North Carolina it was $965 a month last I checked. BAH is also non-taxable. So total income, taxable and non-taxable for a E-3 living in North Carolina who is married would be $3128. Basically it's twice the pay, and half of that income is none taxable.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're an even more cynical chap than myself (and that's a compliment).

I obviously can't speak about the US military with as much authority as yourself. However, i am sceptical about how many servicemen would spontaneously marry each other (which, theoretically, would have no legal standing in the US anyway) in order to boost their pay packets. I'm still working under the assumption that civil partnerships aren't legal in all the states as yet (although i concede i may well be wrong here).
 
charver said:
Maybe you're an even more cynical chap than myself (and that's a compliment).

I obviously can't speak about the US military with as much authority as yourself. However, i am sceptical about how many servicemen would spontaneously marry each other (which, theoretically, would have no legal standing in the US anyway) in order to boost their pay packets. I'm still working under the assumption that civil partnerships aren't legal in all the states as yet (although i concede i may well be wrong here).
Click to expand...
You are correct. Currently same sex couples are not considered legally joined in our country. I'm merely talking about this in advance, as both will be legal, in my life time. Most of what I'm dealing with is hypothetical. As for whether many service members would do it, I can say a lot would (though certainly not all).
 
Duplicity and Guile said:
You are correct. Currently same sex couples are not considered legally joined in our country. I'm merely talking about this in advance, as both will be legal, in my life time. Most of what I'm dealing with is hypothetical. As for whether many service members would do it, I can say a lot would (though certainly not all).
Click to expand...

All i'm saying is that what you suggest hasn't happened (to my knowledge anyway) in the UK, or Australia, or anywhere else where civil partnerships have the full force of the law behind them and homosexuals are permitted to join the military.

There are loads of welfare benefits people could get by indulging in a civil partnership over here but either people just don't seem to realise this, the stigma of marrying another chap is still too great or people are just too honest.
(although now you've suggested it i'm seriously considering marrying my mate, Mike :D)
 
charver said:
All i'm saying is that what you suggest hasn't happened (to my knowledge anyway) in the UK, or Australia, or anywhere else where civil partnerships have the full force of the law behind them and homosexuals are permitted to join the military.

There are loads of welfare benefits people could get by indulging in a civil partnership over here but either people just don't seem to realise this, the stigma of marrying another chap is still too great or people are just too honest.
(although now you've suggested it i'm seriously considering marrying my mate, Mike :D)
Click to expand...
Maybe not, I'm not a psychic. But I think it would happen.
 
a contract, so easily broken! for some about three times! and counting, especially when they are young and 125 and carry it mostly in their arms!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top