Gays In The Military

[hosemonkey]

The word “homophobic” is brandished like a weapon. It is a word like “racist”. As soon as it is mentioned, everybody is supposed to cringe in fear and disgust, like vampires in the presence of garlic. I am not afraid of either of those words. If the sexual practices of homosexuals disgust me, then I am “homophobic”. If I disagree with the homosexual agenda, then I am “homophobic”. Guilty as charged. I do not fear homosexuals, but I am disgusted by what they do. If I defend and promote my race, then I am “racist”, guilty as charged, so sue me. You are incorrect when you contend that there has been only one argument, that of “uncomfortableness”. A number of other arguments have been raised. Perhaps you should read all the posts again. Many of us are “homophobic racists” labeled as such by Liberals. I regard it as a badge of honor when bestowed by such as these.

 

[anns82]

Thank you…for caring…Please read my posts and you will have ther perspectives of at least one member.

Take care,

I’ve been reading the posts, and though I have not made it clear previously, I am also a part of the military community. Life for the military is very different from that of the civilian world, which many do not realize, and which is why I believe the military perspective should be highly valued. Although personal experiences are important it does not tell what structural changes will have to be implemented, which is why I am very interested in what the study of the actual ramifications of DADT ends up saying. Any politician who wants to make a decision before the study comes out does not actually care about the military - he/she is only concern about his/her own agenda.

 

[larkin31]

The word “homophobic” is brandished like a weapon. It is a word like “racist”. As soon as it is mentioned, everybody is supposed to cringe in fear and disgust, like vampires in the presence of garlic. I am not afraid of either of those words. If the sexual practices of homosexuals disgust me, then I am “homophobic”. If I disagree with the homosexual agenda, then I am “homophobic”. Guilty as charged. I do not fear homosexuals, but I am disgusted by what they do. If I defend and promote my race, then I am “racist”, guilty as charged, so sue me.

Does it not matter that you might be wrong? Perhaps barring them from service is unjust. After all, when last there was a draft, the armed services included gays. It always has. Just like every other profession. Have you had other jobs? Can you not work around gays or lesbians?

Secondly, thinking about the sexual practices of other persons, straight or gay, is very unpleasant. One should avoid the practice in all cases. And what this has to do with whether a soldier can carry out his/her duties effectively is unclear to me. Are you stating that this kind of thinking about the sexual practices of others is common?

You are incorrect when you contend that there has been only one argument, that of “uncomfortableness”. A number of other arguments have been raised.

Which?

 

[hosemonkey]

Does it not matter that you might be wrong? Perhaps barring them from service is unjust. After all, when last there was a draft, the armed services included gays. It always has. Just like every other profession. Have you had other jobs? Can you not work around gays or lesbians?

Secondly, thinking about the sexual practices of other persons, straight or gay, is very unpleasant. One should avoid the practice in all cases. And what this has to do with whether a soldier can carry out his/her duties effectively is unclear to me. Are you stating that this kind of thinking about the sexual practices of others is common?

You have lost the focus of the thread. After careful contemplation, I have determined that I am NOT wrong. Yes, I have had many other jobs and I have worked around homosexuals and lesbians. BUT, I did not have to live with them or be exposed to them in any other than a civilian job capacity. Having said that, I have treated many persons in my capacity as a Paramedic, both straight and undoubtedly homosexual. In that instance, I treat everyone as if they were infected. Something that the “Gay community” has inflicted upon us. That in itself will become a huge factor in a combat situation. If we have open homosexuals in the military and I am a medic, I am going to want some very prominent identification before I give him CPR or get his blood or body fluids all over me. Sorry. Is that wrong? Perhaps, but that’s the way it is. The issue is NOT wether there are homosexuals in the service or not. The issue is DADT. Someone’s sexual practices are no one’s business as long as they are kept private. What you do in private is your affair. The issue is the PUBLIC claim of homosexuality. Don’t wave it in folk’s faces and don’t do it where others can have knowledge of it. That’s all. The Church is most correct when she says that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered”, which is a polite way of saying that it is twisted and unnatural. This casts deep suspicion on those afflicted with this disorder and who practice it and makes me doubt their ability for military service. However, there are homosexuals in the military, DADT is good policy and should be retained and rigidly enforced.

 

[larkin31]

You have lost the focus of the thread. After careful contemplation, I have determined that I am NOT wrong. Yes, I have had many other jobs and I have worked around homosexuals and lesbians. BUT, I did not have to live with them or be exposed to them in any other than a civilian job capacity. Having said that, I have treated many persons in my capacity as a Paramedic, both straight and undoubtedly homosexual. In that instance, I treat everyone as if they were infected. Something that the “Gay community” has inflicted upon us. That in itself will become a huge factor in a combat situation. If we have open homosexuals in the military and I am a medic, I am going to want some very prominent identification before I give him CPR or get his blood or body fluids all over me. Sorry. Is that wrong? Perhaps, but that’s the way it is.

National policy can’t be “perhaps wrong, but let’s do it anyway.” Doctors and paramedics deal with this all the time; so can/does the military.

The issue is NOT wether there are homosexuals in the service or not. The issue is DADT. Someone’s sexual practices are no one’s business as long as they are kept private. What you do in private is your affair. The issue is the PUBLIC claim of homosexuality. Don’t wave it in folk’s faces and don’t do it where others can have knowledge of it.

As I said, DADT requires a silence and form of lying that is not required of heteros. That is unjust. Either you can give a strong reason for this unequal treatment, or you have to change the policy.

…DADT is good policy and should be retained and rigidly enforced.

Sure, but enforce it for straights, too: no pictures of girlfriends displayed, no talk of sexual exploits, no references to the attractiveness of any women whatsoever. And THEN the policy will be just.

 

[hosemonkey]

Sure, but enforce it for straights, too: no pictures of girlfriends displayed, no talk of sexual exploits, no references to the attractiveness of any women whatsoever. And THEN the policy will be just.

Nope, you are talking about prohibiting NORMAL behavior. I’m talking about prohibiting ABNORMAL behavior. Your arguments have no impact on my opinion. What’s abnormal is abnormal and that does not change.

 

[larkin31]

Nope, you are talking about prohibiting NORMAL behavior. I’m talking about prohibiting ABNORMAL behavior. Your arguments have no impact on my opinion. What’s abnormal is abnormal and that does not change.

You are not addressing the issue. DADT goes beyond prohibition of behavior. It asks service personnel to stay silent or even lie about their orientation. DADT means that one cannot serve even if a gay never touches another person nor even makes an advance.

 

[sedonaman]

You need to look up “ad hominem.” You are misusing the term here.

You have absolutely no concept of the history of how we got to where we are after 225 generations of Western Civilization and you care less. For you, history started yesterday. You are of that one generation that insists it knows better than the sum total of all the rest that went before. You might know nothing about it, but you will definitely have an opinion. You have no military experience, so naturally you could not follow my reasoning and how it applies to the topic. My post was not addressed to you for that reason.

To the question of whether or not homosexuals should be in the military, you ask “why not?” when, as the advocate of social change, you should be explaining to us “why”. Frankly, you have not made your case because all your posts can be summarized into those two words.

Have a nice day.

 

[ERose]

I have been asking the same thing. I have not seen anyone on this thread propose a positive argument on why the DADT needs to be abolished. Not one. “I don’t mind” is not a legitimate argument that just means you are a modern day “relativist” and are only a relativist when someone agrees with your point of view.

We get it that you are not going to change your opinion. Really we get it. But as you have noticed we are not changing ours either.

I was in a USMC infantry unit and I know for a fact it will not be accepted in that unit nor will that openly gay man will be accepted either. He has a better shot of making it if he keeps his mouth shut on the subject like many of them do. You may not like that and think that is wrong but you must understand “grunts” don’t care what you think they care what each other thinks and thats that. The “grunts” put their life on the line so you can have the right to say anything you want, but they will not accept you or anyone else forcing something on them that is against their code of honor.

Granted I am speaking only for the combat arms of our military. Openly gay men would most probably be fine in support jobs where they get more privileges, most probably have their own quarters, don’t have to be as disciplined, and be part of something greater than themselves. But in combat arms he will not be welcomed nor accepted.

 

[ERose]

You are not addressing the issue. DADT goes beyond prohibition of behavior. It asks service personnel to stay silent or even lie about their orientation. DADT means that one cannot serve even if a gay never touches another person nor even makes an advance.

Obviously you do not know what DADT means. The military does not ask and you do not tell. All he has to be is remain silent about it. He is never asked to lie.

 

[ERose]

Nope, you are talking about prohibiting NORMAL behavior. I’m talking about prohibiting ABNORMAL behavior. Your arguments have no impact on my opinion. What’s abnormal is abnormal and that does not change.

I have to agree with hosemonkey. We are talking about abnormal behavior. If one is gay he has either a mental or genetic disability or he is sexual devient. The military does not allow people to serve if they are color blind, have some form of physical or mental disability. That is why you have to go through a physical. If one has a sexual deviency problem let him or her get treated for that issue before joining.

 

[larkin31]

Obviously you do not know what DADT means. The military does not ask and you do not tell. All he has to be is remain silent about it. He is never asked to lie.

I mean in all the casual conversations about home. DADT asks only gays to remain silent or to lie about their lives at home. It is an inherently unequal policy. A soldier can be the best at every performance marker, but if he/she even mentions a gay partner or interest, they can be discharged. I know that there are soldiers that consider this punishment too harsh and have not reported their fellow soldiers who have admitted to being gay. Because it does not matter.

 

[larkin31]

…The “grunts” put their life on the line so you can have the right to say anything you want, but they will not accept you or anyone else forcing something on them that is against their code of honor.

Which “code of honor” includes sexual orientation? “You can only fight next to me if you aren’t gay”?

 

[larkin31]

You have absolutely no concept of the history of how we got to where we are after 225 generations of Western Civilization and you care less. For you, history started yesterday. You are of that one generation that insists it knows better than the sum total of all the rest that went before. You might know nothing about it, but you will definitely have an opinion. You have no military experience, so naturally you could not follow my reasoning and how it applies to the topic. My post was not addressed to you for that reason.

To the question of whether or not homosexuals should be in the military, you ask “why not?” when, as the advocate of social change, you should be explaining to us “why”. Frankly, you have not made your case because all your posts can be summarized into those two words.

Have a nice day.

Gays have ALWAYS been in the military. And the other men KNEW that they were gay. And when a gay man engaged in sex while on duty he was discharged. That is the fact of history. I see know reason to change this. DADT, however, asks gays as a form of explicit policy to maintain a stricter level of silence or dishonesty than was the working practice of the past. Now, if a gay person reveals his/her orientation, he/she can be discharged. History does matter, but historical practices are not always right, just, or even effective. And the military knows this very well. The military is not exempt from all matters of justice. If a squad cannot accept a gay person who passes all the other requirements of service, then I think it says more about the squad than the gay individual.

 

[larkin31]

We get it that you are not going to change your opinion. Really we get it. But as you have noticed we are not changing ours either.

I am not trying to change anyone’s opinion. Are you?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

And if an older homosexual soldier asks a new younger straight recruit for a “date”, can the young soldier report the homosexual soldier for sexual harrassment? Or is the homosexual a protected class? So, the homosexuals can hit on the heterosexuals until they either accede or lash out? And if the heterosexuals resist, can they be charged with discrimination?

Are there classes in the military for young members so they will know how to handle verbal/physical “approaches” by older homosexual members?

Hmmm.

It bothers me that there still has been no discussion of these issues.

 

[Lypher]

Hmmm.

It bothers me that there still has been no discussion of these issues.

Monte,
This is how it will work if it the lifestyle is accepted as “Normal”

1. Gay superior cannot date a junior or ask them out.
2. Gay member speaks about their date last night and offends someone then the person offended must first let the offender know they are offended and stop and then the next time turn them in for sexual harassment. Sexual banter at work is NOT tolerated even now.
3. All dances, balls will be Gay inclusive
4. Housing will be gay inclusive and those gay couples raising children will be accepted. All children from traditional families MUST accept this behavior or be subject to discrimination charges.
5. Military hospitals will have to accept the significant others and will be treated. Any Doctor that has moral issues with this will be punished.

The issue is not that we cannot do this. The issue is that it will change the culture of the base. Right now gay couples do NOT hold hands so my 4 year old would have no reason to make a comment. After DADT goes away my 4 year old may make a comment and if so I will have to CORRECT him on the spot or I could face disciplinary measures. What this will do is teach my child that it is acceptable behavior.

If in the future I was present for the above action where one of my junior sailors child did this. I, as a senior, would be waiting for the sailor to correct the Child. My sailor would KNOW I was watching and be FORCED to do so or face the consequences. Once this becomes regulations that is just what will happen.

Is it true that gays currently serve YES, is this generation more accepting YES, but for those with children that do not wish to live this way the end of DADT will be the call to depart the services…either that our teach our children to be silent or accepting of the behavior.

CIAO

 

[Lypher]

This makes sense, and although I have not been in any of the armed services, we all know through the testimony of others that many many have served dutifully and honorably and were understood to be gay by other service men and women and who were easily tolerated because there was no sexual activity between them that was not beyond the typical banter between adults.

Banter would not be allowed in my shop. It is not allowed now and if I find it I stamp it out. Males and females are neutered in the federal workforce beyond the lower pay grades. It is a Sterile environment, ugly and dehumanized actually, but that is the only way it can be due to sexual harassment rules…sad really, very sad and this will make it only worse.

 

[phoenixrrt62]

-just wanted to say that when I was the service, yeah, there were gays I worked with, showered with, was in the field with…did they do anything? No. Did it bother me? No. I couldn’t have cared less.

Mind, I’m female. Perhaps we aren’t as threatened? I don’t know.

Know what? The people who were married and banging people that were NOT their wives/husbands was MUCH more of a problem than gays ever were…you kidding?
The field problems (field training) were a free for all in our company. And no, it wasn’t the gays who were doing anything, these people were straight.

Hell, our CO was sleeping with enlisted people in the unit. That mess was common knowledge…our first sergeant was sleeping with a E-4, and turned around and married her as soon as that divorce came through…and people are worried about DADT. Pfft. Please.

Our chaplain was probably beside himself. Poor guy. I worked for him for a bit when I was pregnant (I had complications, was on light duty for about a month). I’d venture to say he has those blinders on nice and tight…

.

 

[Lypher]

-just wanted to say that when I was the service, yeah, there were gays I worked with, showered with, was in the field with…did they do anything? No. Did it bother me? No. I couldn’t have cared less.

Mind, I’m female. Perhaps we aren’t as threatened? I don’t know.

Know what? The people who were married and banging people that were NOT their wives/husbands was MUCH more of a problem than gays ever were…you kidding?
The field problems (field training) were a free for all in our company. And no, it wasn’t the gays who were doing anything, these people were straight.

Hell, our CO was sleeping with enlisted people in the unit. That mess was common knowledge…our first sergeant was sleeping with a E-4, and turned around and married her as soon as that divorce came through…and people are worried about DADT. Pfft. Please.

Our chaplain was probably beside himself. Poor guy. I worked for him for a bit when I was pregnant (I had complications, was on light duty for about a month). I’d venture to say he has those blinders on nice and tight…

.

Phoenix,
It is strange to me that people here on this thread are getting caught up with the sexuality of the adults in uniform. When I was an E-4 and E-5 we had a gay guy in my berthing compartment. He was a nice person and he was accepted, but and a big BUT it was uncomfortable being around him in the showers or dressing.

The above being said I am not TOO worried about the adults in uniform. I am worried about the workplace and the school house and the Exchange, Ball and Homecoming and all the other events in life. This will CHANGE how a military family can raise their children. Graduation Balls on base will be same sex couple so my kids would not go. You can say that is a choice and I will say you are right, but that will change the military. When I depart after my next tour with nearly 28 years (Currently 24+) and I will be telling others of faith NOT to join. Is this good for the country? I don’t know, maybe it is…but we need to make this change as a country understanding exactly what that change will be.

I personally believe that those people in uniform, for the most part, that have values will find this lifestyle incompatible and will leave. You say you were in the services. Think about this once this is regulation will the Catholic Chaplain be able to preach from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin and immoral? I believe that they will be muzzled. They will be told they can no longer teach this part of the faith. The Military Arch Bishop has already said (Check the site) that in areas of faith and morales the military cannot intrude, but you and I know that it will happen and that is what the Arch Bishop is afraid of because when it happens he will pull the Catholic Chaplains out of the services. This will happen and so for a few gays we will change the lives of countless people…This is what I do not agree with.

DADT was a good compromise. This will change the nature of the services and I believe that many of those with families and incompatible morals will leave, and so like you mentioned above, even more people with less morals will join and so long as the country understands this then fine. The people that will be in the services will be serving something other then God and country. Maybe money and country I don’t know, but taking God out is not a good idea for me.

Thank god it is near the end of my career and I can influence my son to stay away. He currently wants to be a pilot but I think he needs to focus on something with a little better values then the US military. Something that is more in line with our beliefs. It is sad but I never thought I would have to say that the military is to be avoided. I know individuals had issues like your CO, but not the institution was good. Now they are going to adopt these anti-Christian morals. Sad really…