Gays In The Military

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
anns82 said:
Heterosexual relationships do not effect the efficiency or the effectiveness of the military.
Click to expand...
Then why does the military have a code that includes serious punishment for sexual misconduct?

Again, the problem is misconduct, not orientation.
 
ERose said:
I disagree with you on the above concept that gays are attracted to only gays and straights are attacted to only straights anyway. That makes absolutely no since. If I see a very good looking gay woman I am going to be attacted to her. Same way gay men or women can be attacted to straight men and women. Personally I do not care about the attractiveness argument. What I care about is it appropiate? The answer is no.
Click to expand...
*Attraction *is not the problem. Misconduct is.
 
RHC said:
What a completely unrelated post! This had to do with gays being open in the military because…?? 🤷 Can we say, “Red herring”?
Click to expand...
If the analogy is irrelevant, then why did you ask this:
A serious question, Larkin31 - have you ever served in the military?
Click to expand...
No. I am not female or Catholic or gay, either. 🤷
 
I think it is fine for gays to be in the military as long as they aren’t openly flirting with men, making out in the barracks, etc. These things will just make other soldiers feel uncomfortable and change the atmosphere too much.

People cannot control what urges they have, but they can choose whether or not to act on these urges. Have a little self-control, people.
 
PatriceA said:
Attraction is the problem, if it affects the moral and psyche of the unit and their mission is life-endangering.
Click to expand...
Over showering??? and using a bathroom stall? Are you serious?

I honestly think that this whole debate is simply over one has come to terms with living next to and fighting for a gay person. Over whether they are legitimate persons with whom you will share space and work and duty.
 
stephe1987 said:
I think it is fine for gays to be in the military as long as they aren’t openly flirting with men, making out in the barracks, etc. These things will just make other soldiers feel uncomfortable and change the atmosphere too much.

People cannot control what urges they have, but they can choose whether or not to act on these urges. Have a little self-control, people.
Click to expand...
I totally agree.

Even women in the military have been discharged for sexual misconduct, whether it is with men or other women. The rules are pretty clear, and strict. Gays can live by these, too. The already have.
 
larkin31 said:
Over showering??? and using a bathroom stall? Are you serious?

I honestly think that this whole debate is simply over one has come to terms with living next to and fighting for a gay person. Over whether they are legitimate persons with whom you will share space and work and duty.
Click to expand...
I didn’t quite understand the whole situation myself, and I might have had the opinion you have, until I married my husband who will have 20 years in the military this November. My opinion has changed after seeing the training he had to go through for his former job description and the various conversations I’ve been apart of with other military people over the years. The job description hubby has now, someone being gay probably wouldn’t be a problem. But when his job description was more life-endangering, yes it does make a big difference in his opinion and the opinions of the men he served with in his unit. They’re the ones that were putting their lives on the line, if they thought serving with someone being openly gay would affect their lives and the mission of the unit, I’m going to listen because they would know better than I.
 
larkin31 said:
If the analogy is irrelevant, then why did you ask this:No. I am not female or Catholic or gay, either. 🤷
Click to expand...
Your analogy was irrelevant and remains so. No offense.

I asked because your posts indicate unfamiliarity with the military and a lack of understanding of how military life differs completely from that of civilians. Working in the civilian world with someone who is gay is very different from serving in a combat situation with them for months on end.

Furthermore, you stated:
I work with all sorts of people whom I find attractive. I have shared hot tubs with them. I would never say a word or gesture of inappropriateness with them, because I would be fired. Why can’t the military do the same thing? I have worked with gays. I could not care less what they personally think of my physical attractiveness. Who does? Why would anyone, who has any maturity, care or worry about that?
Click to expand...
This is that unfamiliarity I was talking about. When you are in the military, it’s much different than sharing a hot tub on occasion. You share communal showers, barracks (communal bedrooms), etc. Most military people would not comment on a gay person, even now. They’re not stupid. However, with the repeal of DADT, it will become an EO issue. EO is Equal Opportunity.

From reading the posts of those of us who actually live in the military community, you should be able to see that the concern is whether we will be able to live and let live (as we did under DADT), or whether it will become an EO nightmare that ruins careers and lives, not to mention undermines the effectiveness of our military to conduct warfare.

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: You can be gay in the military right now. You just can’t shout it from the rooftops. They do their thing; we do our thing. No one asks, and no one tells. The bedroom stays at home. If all they want is the ability to serve, then this should be enough. But it’s not, which suggests it’s not about serving the country. It’s about advancing their agenda, and, in doing so, they jeopardize our troops who are currently fighting overseas on two fronts. Our troops should not have to be the subject of a great social experiment, especially during combat. Trust me, they have enough to deal with already.
 
larkin31 said:
Over showering??? and using a bathroom stall? Are you serious?

I honestly think that this whole debate is simply over one has come to terms with living next to and fighting for a gay person. Over whether they are legitimate persons with whom you will share space and work and duty.
Click to expand...
Yes. You keep ignoring the analogy to women and men. Could the same be said for men showering with women? Yes. Why? Because of the sexual attraction that results. Could this be said about homosexual men to straight men? yes, because of the sexual attraction that results.

I don’t care what you “think this whole debate” is over. Stick to the debate itself, don’t try to put red herrings into it (such as “over one has come to terms with living next to and fighting for a gay person. Over whether they are legitimate persons with whom you will share space and work and duty”). That is not the debate. By-the-way, that’s not how I feel, pal. So you’re wrong on that account. I have no problem being the neighbour of a gay person, or having a gay friend, or having a friendly relationship with a homosexual person. I have a problem with being put in certain positions with those people, such as in a shower. I feel the same towards women. I have no problem being their friend, being their neighbour, or anything like that. I WOULD have a problem with us taking a shower together.
 
larkin31 said:
I honestly think that this whole debate is simply over one has come to terms with living next to and fighting for a gay person. Over whether they are legitimate persons with whom you will share space and work and duty.
Click to expand...
We’ve been there, done that. Again, we know soldiers who are gay! They are good soldiers, and they get the job done. What they don’t do is shout “I’m gay!!!” from the rooftops.

You insist on making this seem like the people who don’t want to repeal DADT are homophobic. This is hardly the case. Perhaps it would be prudent to consider the experience of those who have actually been-there-done-that when we say it will harm the military more than help it.
 
larkin31 said:
*Attraction *is not the problem. Misconduct is.
Click to expand...
Like I said in my post I do not care about the attaction issue it is the inappropiateness of it and will that lead to more misconduct that is already there. From my experiences it would.
 
RHC said:
We’ve been there, done that. Again, we know soldiers who are gay! They are good soldiers, and they get the job done. What they don’t do is shout “I’m gay!!!” from the rooftops.
Click to expand...
No kidding. That’s not the standard we are talking about. This is not a very enlightening discussion. In a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy a gay soldier must keep secret or even lie if asked by fellow soldiers if he is gay or if he has a girlfriend back home, etc. He/she can never share the actual truth in any typical conversation that most adult humans have about the world of love and sex.

None of this is about “shouting from rooftops.” What a silly thing to say. :rolleyes:
 
larkin31 said:
Over showering??? and using a bathroom stall? Are you serious?

I honestly think that this whole debate is simply over one has come to terms with living next to and fighting for a gay person. Over whether they are legitimate persons with whom you will share space and work and duty.
Click to expand...
And you would think wrong. This debate has nothing to do with a person having the right to be gay or not. The debate is about whether or not it will negatively effect the environment that our military exist in.
 
ERose said:
And you would think wrong. This debate has nothing to do with a person having the right to be gay or not. The debate is about whether or not it will negatively effect the environment that our military exist in.
Click to expand...
I disagree. This is what is being “said,” but the actual argument for it is so weak that I consider it to be a mask. When people get charged up, the double-standards are then revealed. This is simply about aversion to homosexuality, and primarily the hetero male aversion.
 
larkin31 said:
No kidding. That’s not the standard we are talking about. This is not a very enlightening discussion. In a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy a gay soldier must keep secret or even lie if asked by fellow soldiers if he is gay or if he has a girlfriend back home, etc. He/she can never share the actual truth in any typical conversation that most adult humans have about the world of love and sex.

None of this is about “shouting from rooftops.” What a silly thing to say. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Again, you speak from misinformation. DADT means we don’t ask, you don’t tell. So, your scenario above is wrong. Soldiers, under the DADT policy, don’t ask if someone’s gay…hence the “don’t ask” part of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” name. Why would saying, “No, I don’t have a girlfriend back home” and leaving it at that be a problem?

I strongly suggest you stop making snide remarks about “silly” comments.
 
larkin31 said:
I disagree. This is what is being “said,” but the actual argument for it is so weak that I consider it to be a mask. When people get charged up, the double-standards are then revealed. This is simply about aversion to homosexuality, and primarily the hetero male aversion.
Click to expand...
Did you read any of the posts by people in the military community? You know, the ones that actually have at the very least a second-hand experience with the dynamics of how the miltiary works? At the very least you COULD acknowledge that maybe their opinion has some merit.

Did you ever answer the question about if you served in the military? Because it is relevant to the topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top