Gays in military: Do allies' experiences matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stanmaxkolbe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bluegoat said:
We allow gays in the military here. But what I found when I was in was that many people still didn’t choose to share that information. How did I know that - because usually you had a reasonable idea of who was gay anyway.

I can’t imagine that it is any different in the US - if you are living and working in close contact with people, you get to know them, often even the things they don’t tell you. I just don’'t see that the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy could be all that effective - it seems pointless to me.

If someone is not professional enough to serve with someone who is gay, or with someone of another sex for that matter, I really don’t want to give them a dangerous weapon and send them out into the world in the name of my country…
Click to expand...
I want to start by saying, that I don’t really have a stanse on this “issue” just comments that have run through my mind on both sides.
My first point is that every man, no matter their sexual orientation should be allowed to defend their country. Being, gay, should not necessarily make them less able to defend their country…but…this leads me to my other point…
Many men might feel very uncomfortable with the knowledge that their bunkmate or comrad is gay. This discomfort could lead to the person paying more attention to the gay man and thoughts of “is he looking at me” “can he handle this” “is he attracted to insert name” All these questions running through the minds of the gay man’s comrads could potentially harm the company on missions, minds won’t be where they should. It’s not that any man is wrong for thinking that way, but it could happen.

I don’t mean to sound insensitive, these are just thoughts that have crossed my mind when this issue arose.
 
Barbkw said:
“Having said that the chaplain you mention obviously feels it does and it seems a stupid way to treat him rather than perhaps asking him to explain how from his point of view it does cause him such problems.”

The Catholic Chaplains and other Chaplains of protestant denominations preach from the Bible where noncelibate sexual acts are immoral.

When the military allows same sex attracted people to be openly noncelibate, it allows for open displays of the homosexual lifestyle.

Homosexual married (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, transexuals) from the states that legalized it will be entitled to housing, will they not?

The homosexual partnered will want their marriages blessed or they will want the military Chaplains to marry them.

I can see that being a difficult problem for a protestant Chaplain who is not willing to blaspheme Sacred Scripture.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense and reveals a basic misunderstanding of the roles of chaplins. Why would a devout Christian chaplin have more trouble dealing with an unchaste homosexual than he does dealing with an unchaste heterosexual? Chaplins have nothing to do with things like housing assignments for married personnel - why would allowing gay people to live in military housing mean anything more or less to a chaplin than it would to someone else? Chaplins are not required to perform sacraments for servicemembers that would not be authorized by their faith. A Protestant or Catholic chaplin could decline to perform a gay marriage, just as he can decline to perform a Wiccan marriage or a Jewish marriage - or any marriage if he feels there is some reason not to perform that marriage.

The chaplins have a right, within the limits of military discipline, to voice their opinions on this issue. I am sure that, like any other group, there are some that oppose it, some that welcome it, and a lot that really don’t care. But when DADT is repealed, the chaplins that are unhappy with that decision won’t be in any more difficult a position than any one else who is unhappy with that decision.
 
Right, because their sexual practices are immoral. Their sex acts should not be seen as normal or acceptable.
 
That isn’t just Catholics, most all protestant denominations also hold that the sex acts of homosexuals are immoral and anti-Biblical.

The homosexual agenda (noncelibate same sex attracted persons) is to advance throughout society that their sexual acts are normal.

It didn’t work across the United States, so then they went to each individual State, and now their focus is on the military.
 
Your support for open homosexuality in the military is cowardly behavior in my opinion.

You aren’t helping same sex attracted toward Christ. You’re dooming these men and women to their immoral sexual desires and helping to silence Christian counseling in the military.

That you can’t form any opinion other than that of the homosexual agenda is disturbing.
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
Immorality may be "tolerated’ within the ranks, but the Military Code and power strucuture actively discourages it, though, if I remember correctly.
Remmber, Military Justice considers Adultery a crime. 👍
And it does not bother you the 10-15 percent of our service members MAY quit if this is totally implemented?
Hmmmmmmmmm.:doh2:
Click to expand...
Not only that, but this is a Catholic forum and we, as citizens need to do our best to ensure that our military holds to moral principles.

When Archbishop Broglio (Archdiocese of the Military) issues statements supporting the repeal of DADT, then I will support it. Untill then, I will not.

As far as our allies, I have not been overly fond of the direction most of their societies have been heading vis a vi traditional moral principles, so I see very little reason to follow them in this matter either.
 
You can’t even stand up as a Christian to immorality - to know it when you see it - or to hold any opinion against it.
 
But we, as the people, have a right to make our voices heard in the conduct of the military.

Does not the people of any democracy have the right to prohibit their military from activities which the people find immoral? And the best way of doing that is via the democractic process.

We can ( and many of us just did) vote for representatives who will keep DADT in place as the law of the land.
 
The sex acts between unmarried heterosexuals are immoral.

The sex acts of homosexuals are both “intrinsically evil” and immoral.
 
“At the moment your nation probably has far, far more gay servicemen and women than make up my nation’s entire armed forces. They are allowed to serve so long as they shut their mouth.”

One homosexual with an agenda didn’t keep his mouth shut at all.

Military Homosexual Scandal Tied to WikiLeaks Treason

"In the scandal involving the theft and release of classified military information that could cost the lives of U.S. military personnel, the British Telegraph newspaper is reporting that the American soldier at the center of the scandal was “openly homosexual” and apparently held a grudge against the U.S. because of the military’s anti-gay policy.

In another bizarre twist, reliable reports suggest that Private First Class Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army Intelligence analyst accused of leaking the classified information to the WikiLeaks.org website, was not only a homosexual but was considering a sex change. Manning was arrested at the end of May and is being detained by U.S. authorities."
 
What does your military do with the homosexuals who decide to change their sex, or half change their sex?

Those men who no longer want to be known or seen as men, or vica versa?

Surely, they aren’t allowed to discriminate against these people’s sexuality.
 
*What does the personal performance of this man who is guilty of treason prove either way? *

Did you read the article.

This homosexual man/woman who had a grudge against the military’s DADT had a flaming he/she fit and decided the best thing to do was to jeapordize the lives of thousands of Iraqi and US military men and women.

This wasn’t treason.

He did it because he mattered more, and the open expression of his sexuality mattered more.
 
“quite rightly so”.

Really?

Your tolerance toward the homosexual agenda is unacceptable to me.
 
A bigot?

No. I see homosexuality for what it is. Not for what you would like it to be.

The article states that he believes in his mind that he is a she. And that he wishes to have a sex change.
 
The problem is that it isn’t just this guy. I have a serious issue with homosexual activists because they act VERY immature when they can’t get their way as is the case with this fella. Again, most homosexuals I don’t think will do this but these activists who want to shove their agenda down everybody’s throat act very, very immature. They are very narcissistic. They don’t care about the defense of the country just as they don’t care about marriage or family. NO. Its all about them and them only. If they don’t like something then they try everything they can do to change the definitions/policies, etc to suit them. This is why it would be best for those who are homosexual in the military to not blab it out because honestly, who cares?? The military is a cohesive force who follows orders. They fight as a group for a mutual cause of defense. Having a bunch of narcissistic people openly flaunting their behavior in the military will not help morale, etc. Again, if there is a man or woman who has SSA and don’t blab on about it then that would be fine but unfortunately, as in the case with this fella in the wikileaks case, it isn’t fine. NO, they have to make a huge hissy fit about it. We have seen this kind of behavior before (remember the fall out after Prop 8?) and it is very ugly. We don’t need this kind of silliness in the military too. Can’t they leave anything alone anymore? I’m sick of them trying to tear down everything that we traditionally hold dear, especially marriage and family as well as religion, education, and now our military. Its sick.
 
Again, that would be fine if they didn’t flaunt that they were gay. Its one thing for a man or woman to say that they are homosexual and leave it at that and another in which they flaunt it and want things their own way. This is the problem.
 
Keep your head buried in the sand thou Jharek.

It’s all just “ad hominem” blather about the “homosexual agenda.”
 
Honestly, I don’t think that most soldiers would care but it can be a problem if these homosexuals were activists. This is one of the problems that I have with “coming out.” I don’t care what they do in their bedrooms. I don’t come out and say that I am heterosexual. I don’t make my sexuality my entire identity. Unfortunately, many homosexuals do. That seems to trump everything from being men/women to being a different race, nationality, or even religion. Being homosexual is EVERYTHING to them…at least to the ones who flaunt it. This is another reason why it is disordered. To the homosexual activist, family/marriage/country/children, etc means nothing. They can’t look outside of themselves. Sure, some homosexuals who don’t flaunt it all the time and say, “look at me, i’m gay you MUST accept what I do in my bedroom or else” can probably look beyond themselves but it is becoming more and more unlikely like in the case with this wikileaks fella. What he did was despicable. It will put many soldiers in harm’s way. He didn’t care about the mission, etc. Nope. He only cared about himself and his “grievances”. This is the attitude that characterizes the homosexual activists and their agenda. Its all about them. That is all they care about. That kind of attitude and agenda has NO place in the military just as it has no place in marriage/family/ and the Faith.
 
Ok, you want to know what it is? It is the systematic and sometimes forced movement to make everyone accept as normal and healthy, homosexual behavior and lifestyles. It starts with teaching little children that it is good and healthy to be homosexual. It then goes on to it being ok to adopt children and so called “marriage” by trying to change the very nature and definition of marriage in the law. It is also a movement to color every piece of literature, music, historical person as being “homosexual” or having “inclinations.” There are historical revisionists who want to “queer” the middle ages by saying that most of the literature, art, music, etc of the time was homoerotic. Everything to them is eroticism. That is all they think about. I work at a university and I see what passes for scholarship in it. This is what they are “exploring”. Again, it permeates everything and they are trying to bring down marriage/family, the Church, and now trying to weaken our already overstressed military.
 
Did you understand anything that I said?? Again, perhaps in Israel they don’t have such a problem with activists wanting to tear down everything. They have a mandatory service period. We don’t. Again, probably most won’t go all activist and hurt the mission but as in the case with this wikileaks guy and probably some others, they will hurt the mission by flaunting it and making life difficult for everyone.

Also, there is something else that you have to keep in mind. The military has other restrictions on who can serve and who can not. Anyone that has a psychological or even some medical problems can’t serve. Even though the APA and others have taken “homosexuality” off the lists of psychological problems, their behavior says otherwise. The fact is is that many of them are very psychologically disordered and therefore are not fit for service.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top