Gays In The Military

[Suspicious_Mind]

Homosexual attraction is such a great aberration against the natural law, that it has to be educated out of people that this is the case through vice – making them more animal like.

I never said it’s OK, this topic is solely about homosexuals in the military, learn to stick to the point, or don’t talk at all.

This is mortal stuff. And if you buy the propaganda that it’s ‘ok’ you’re in hot water that’s going to boil.

It’s also a mortal sin to gravely mispresent people, discriminate against them, and talk foul of them.

People who pretend it’s normal, or buy that somehow people who have it are ‘victims’ do not understand that though these people need to be helped, there is no way society should ever tolerate it as publicly acceptable.

Have you noticed how everyone who has replied to this topic actually relates it to the military, but you haven’t? A light-bulb should switch on.

To put it into the military, makes the military weak. You can say it doesn’t, and claim your military is functioning well. Effeminate men, overly shy and nervous, obsessive, exhibitionist men, do not make good soldiers. And these are only some of the common problems that go along with this sin.

Oh, and you serve in the military do you? You obviously don’t. I do, and I know many, they are found in all corps, all the way into the special forces regiments, and those regiments function fine. So don’t talk about issues you know nothing of.

Your rant is irrelevant, this is not a topic of whether homosexuality is right or wrong, it’s about whether homosexuals should be in the military, you gave some non-sensical reasoning behind why they should not be in the military, you also assumed all homosexuals are effeminate men, overly shy, and nervous, which is complete trash.

 

[Shin]

As a general rule these are the problems that accompany it, you can’t say that because there are exceptions this isn’t a prevalent problem. It’s obvious. People know it.

I have family that served in the military, and friends. If you’re going to say I can’t talk about it because I’m not in it – Tough. Go tell the President he can’t head the military because he’s never been in it.

You are the one who is ignoring all the problems that go along with this sin. Go ahead, explain away the quotes I just posted. Tell me the Popes and saints I quoted are wrong. Tell me they’d approve of it – that would be shameless baloney and you know it!

 

[Brendan]

This is complete rubbish. Gay people serve in the Australian Special Air Service, and they don’t seem to have any trouble. It’s a special forces regiment and they don’t seem to have any trouble at all. In fact I know of this reading a book written by a Trooper from the SAS and he commented on how his colleague was gay, this was in the early 90’s - how he was first reluctant to come out with it even though it was tolerated, but when he did, no one really cared. People don’t join the military to indulge, those with such motivations quickly find they are in the wrong environment.

No, it is still quite the case actually. Do you expect women in the Austrialian military to share shower space and toilets with men.

Would you be surprized if women objected to having to do so ( and note that I mentioned, even if they knew that the men would keep their hands to their selves)

Why would having known homosexuals in the shower be an different for men.

[qoute]
So during an enemy contact, are you afraid the homosexual might pull a fast one on you?

Note that I mentioned that the desire not to have to undress ( or even urinate) was not sexual in nature, but rather an issue of modesty.

Would you recommend that your daughter join the military if you knew she was going to be told to shower with men and that she would not have a choice in the matter?

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

As a general rule these are the problems that accompany it, you can’t say that because there are exceptions this isn’t a prevalent problem. It’s obvious. People know it.

No they aren’t, you are completely delusional.

I have family that served in the military, and friends. If you’re going to say I can’t talk about it because I’m not in it – Tough. Go tell the President he can’t head the military because he’s never been in it.

Obama never put in that policy, infact it will eventually be removed, he’s spoken about it.

You are the one who is ignoring all the problems that go along with this sin. Go ahead, explain away the quotes I just posted. Tell me the Popes and saints I quoted are wrong. Tell me they’d approve of it – that would be shameless baloney and you know it!

Since you’re not in the military, please excuse me if I don’t side with your redundant opinion. I don’t care if your family has served in the military, so what? They aren’t the ones arguing here are they? Why does it matter?

I don’t disagree with the quotes of those saints or popes, I’m against homosexuality, I however am completely against discrimination, especially when it comes to the workplace. None of those quotes have nothing to do with the military, nor the workplace. They are all to do with the SIN of homosexuality.

Learn to use quotes in their proper context, instead of making the Church look ignorant.

Good luck.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

No, it is still quite the case actually. Do you expect women in the Austrialian military to share shower space and toilets with men.

Would you be surprized if women objected to having to do so ( and note that I mentioned, even if they knew that the men would keep their hands to their selves)

Why would having known homosexuals in the shower be an different for men.

Women are in the same barracks, they don’t share rooms nor toilets. The reason you can’t separate homosexuals like men and women is because men and women are separated because of gender Pretty obvious.

Instead of criticizing it, why not accept that it’s actually working for different militaries? I can understand if it’s never been trialled before, people would be reluctant to accept it, but it actually works in other militaries.

Note that I mentioned that the desire not to have to undress ( or even urinate) was not sexual in nature, but rather an issue of modesty.

Would you recommend that your daughter join the military if you knew she was going to be told to shower with men and that she would not have a choice in the matter?

What a weird scenario? When has the military ever imposed such a thing? How do you propose we go about regulating bi-sexuals then?

To answer your question, of course I would not allow my daughter to do such a thing. Would I allow my son to join the military knowing he’d be in a section with some gay people in it? Sure.

You are thinking of this situation in a very narrow way. I did give an example of this works even at the highest levels of army operations in special forces, and it works well. Other armies have it working well, the US will soon. I hope the changes come soon.

 

[Shin]

“Just as Saint Basil establishes that those who incur sins [against nature] . . . should be subjected not only to a hard penance but a public one, and Pope Siricius prohibits penitents from entering clerical orders, one can clearly deduce that he who corrupts himself with a man through the ignominious squalor of a filthy union does not deserve to exercise ecclesiastical functions, since those who were formerly given to vices . . . become unfit to administer the Sacraments.”

Saint Peter Damian

‘Brimstone calls to mind the foul odors of the flesh, as Sacred Scripture itself confirms when it speaks of the rain of fire and brimstone poured by the Lord upon Sodom. He had decided to punish in it the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment emphasized the shame of that crime, since brimstone exhales stench and fire burns. It was, therefore, just that the sodomites, burning with perverse desires that originated from the foul odor of flesh, should perish at the same time by fire and brimstone so that through this just chastisement they might realize the evil perpetrated under the impulse of a perverse desire.’

Pope St. Gregory the Great

Well, I know that the military isn’t the same as the priesthood… But somehow I’m intelligent enough to draw the comparison here, and make the next logical step that after all these things are said, you know what?

No, they wouldn’t be properly in there either.

You know there are still some ignored laws on the books about sodomy being a crime. In a Christian society it always -is one-. So, in the military, in the police? Uh-uh.

Discrimination that prevents people who have certain problems from entering into certain professions is not a vice – it’s proper and a virtue.

 

[Brendan]

Women are in the same barracks, they don’t share rooms nor toilets. The reason you can’t separate homosexuals like men and women is because men and women are separated because of gender Pretty obvious.

But what you are asking men to do in front of homosexuals is no different from asking women to do the same in front of men.

Instead of criticizing it, why not accept that it’s actually working for different militaries? I can understand if it’s never been trialled before, people would be reluctant to accept it, but it actually works in other militaries.

What a weird scenario? When has the military ever imposed such a thing?

But that is EXACTLY what you are suggesting men do in front of homosexuals. If women are entitled to sexual modesty in front of those who are, in general, attracted to them, why not men?

To answer your question, of course I would not allow my daughter to do such a thing. Would I allow my son to join the military knowing he’d be in a section with some gay people in it? Sure.

Why the double standard? Is your son not entitled to sexual modesty too?

What if the military assured you that the men your daughter would be showering with would make no advances. Would that satisfy you? Or are you just being heterophobic?

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

“Just as Saint Basil establishes that those who incur sins [against nature] . . . should be subjected not only to a hard penance but a public one, and Pope Siricius prohibits penitents from entering clerical orders, one can clearly deduce that he who corrupts himself with a man through the ignominious squalor of a filthy union does not deserve to exercise ecclesiastical functions, since those who were formerly given to vices . . . become unfit to administer the Sacraments.”

Saint Peter Damian

‘Brimstone calls to mind the foul odors of the flesh, as Sacred Scripture itself confirms when it speaks of the rain of fire and brimstone poured by the Lord upon Sodom. He had decided to punish in it the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment emphasized the shame of that crime, since brimstone exhales stench and fire burns. It was, therefore, just that the sodomites, burning with perverse desires that originated from the foul odor of flesh, should perish at the same time by fire and brimstone so that through this just chastisement they might realize the evil perpetrated under the impulse of a perverse desire.’

Pope St. Gregory the Great

Well, I know that the military isn’t the same as the priesthood… But somehow I’m intelligent enough to draw the comparison here, and make the next logical step that after all these things are said, you know what?

No, they wouldn’t be properly in there either.

You know there are still some ignored laws on the books about sodomy being a crime. In a Christian society it always -is one-. So, in the military, in the police? Uh-uh.

Discrimination that prevents people who have certain problems from entering into certain professions is not a vice – it’s proper and a virtue.

Someone who has no idea about the military, but wants to make arm-chair analyst comments about it.

All I can say is, at least the change will come about, and I’m glad it will too. Perhaps one day, if there happens to be some major war (God forbid) and you find yourself drafted, and when you’re in a rifle section lying in a gun-pit for 3 hours in the cold and find yourself in an enemy contact, you’re going to want that gay guy on the Mag 58 sending lead down range so that you aren’t taken out by the assault group.

Perhaps Brendan can enlighten you on this, he’ll know about it.

Good luck.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

But what you are asking men to do in front of homosexuals is no different from asking women to do the same in front of men.

How is this the same?

A women in front of a man is completely different to a man in front of a man, sure that man is homosexually oriented, so what? You don’t spend the majority of your time undressing in the army do you? You are attempting to nullify a job based on some minor aspect of the role, which is ridiculous.

I would not have any problem if I was serving with homosexuals in the army, as long as they know why they are in the army, and if it’s for the right reasons.

But that is EXACTLY what you are suggesting men do in front of homosexuals. If women are entitled to sexual modesty in front of those who are, in general, attracted to them, why not men?

Because the gender is different? How many times do I have to state it?

Why the double standard? Is your son not entitled to sexual modesty too?

See above.

What if the military assured you that the men your daughter would be showering with would make no advances. Would that satisfy you? Or are you just being heterophobic?

Don’t be ridiculous

Not only are you asking something idiotic as if I’m being heterophobic, which is completely unfounded. You are making up some scenarios that don’t even exist, the military allowing men and women to shower together

On the other hand, homosexuals in the military, it’s happening, and it’s working. This isn’t just some random army either, this is the Australian Army. Should be evidence enough without the need to dream up weird scenarios that doesn’t even merit the argument at hand.

Why won’t you send an email to the Australian Defence Force and show your concern? Maybe they’ll politely send you an email back pointing out your ignorance.

 

[Shin]

Someone who has no idea about the military, but wants to make arm-chair analyst comments about it.

All I can say is, at least the change will come about, and I’m glad it will too. Perhaps one day, if there happens to be some major war (God forbid) and you find yourself drafted, and when you’re in a rifle section lying in a gun-pit for 3 hours in the cold and find yourself in an enemy contact, you’re going to want that gay guy on the Mag 58 sending lead down range so that you aren’t taken out by the assault group.

Perhaps Brendan can enlighten you on this, he’ll know about it.

Good luck.

You like to make ad hominem attacks a lot rather than deal with the actual matter for discussion, don’t you? I don’t see any military training shining through here let me tell you. Maybe you should go back to basic.

You know what? I don’t think that if there is some major war, I want to fill up the military with every Clive, Charmane and Shona who can’t cut it and has psychological and spiritual problems.

Or that gay guy might just get nervous and shoot someone in the foot, or that woman might just find out she’s not strong enough to toss the grenade too far – that in fact she’s not cut out for it anymore than she’s cut out for pro football.

“At Parris Island, it was discovered that 45 percent of female Marines were unable to throw a hand grenade far enough to avoid blowing themselves up. If I were in a foxhole with a woman about to toss a hand grenade, I’d consider her the enemy.”

Walter E. Williams

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

You like to make ad hominem attacks a lot rather than deal with the actual matter for discussion, don’t you? I don’t see any military training shining through here let me tell you. Maybe you should go back to basic.

Which bit was the ad hominem attacks? It’s funny that you mention fallacies, because you’ve strewn red herrings all over the place.

I see, someone who has not been in the military is telling another person to go back into basic training because they don’t see my military training shining through?

Do you know what I’m trained in? To use rifles and take down enemies, i’m in infantry, so yes, you currently don’t see my training here, because I’m on a forum and I don’t feel the need to be armed with a rifle at the moment

You know what? I don’t think that if there is some major war, I want to fill up the military with every Clive, Charmane and Shona who can’t cut it and has psychological and spiritual problems.

Leave the aspect of military training and recruiting to people who know what they’re talking about, why won’t you go up to a recruiting offence and let them know the quotes of the pope.

Cannon fodder anyone?

Or that gay guy might just get nervous and shoot someone in the foot, or that woman might just find out she’s not strong enough to toss the grenade too far – that in fact she’s not cut out for it anymore than she’s cut out for pro football.

Despite some women actually passing 21 SAS selection in the UK? Or that woman who passed Commando training in Australia? Hmm…even though they aren’t allowed in, it was a test of whether some females could pass selection.

Or that gay guy who serves in the Australian SAS? If you don’t know what I’m talking about, look it up.

“At Parris Island, it was discovered that 45 percent of female Marines were unable to throw a hand grenade far enough to avoid blowing themselves up. If I were in a foxhole with a woman about to toss a hand grenade, I’d consider her the enemy.”

Walter E. Williams

This is true, I disagree with women being employed in direct combat positions. The military isn’t all about direct combat, there is the logicstics corps, the transport corps, etc. Hand grenades are used by infantry and other direct combat units.

The Australian Army doesn’t allow women in direct combat roles either. You obviously are unaware that the military has a wide range of roles such as legal officers, chaplains, medics, engineers and other job roles that have nothing to do with direct combat right? And women are employed in those positions.

Way to go for using the Marines as an example That’s a direct combat marine infantry unit. Then again, do you even know what infantry is?

Now, I’ve had enough arguing about the military with someone who knows nothing about it.

Good luck.

 

[Brendan]

How is this the same?

A women in front of a man is completely different to a man in front of a man, sure that man is homosexually oriented, so what? You don’t spend the majority of your time undressing in the army do you? You are attempting to nullify a job based on some minor aspect of the role, which is ridiculous.

…Because the gender is different? How many times do I have to state it?

Why exactly is it different. Because men and women have different sexual organs. I’m sure that everyone involved is aware of that.

We also agree that the men involved can behave themselves and won’t hit on the people they are showering with.

So it then boils down to an matter of sexual modesty, in which case the issue IS the same.

A person, of any gender, should not be forced to share quarters with those who might generally find them to be sexually attractive, even if that person makes no outward sign.

 

[camerong]

It really no different than asking a platoon of women to shower with a man, even if the man promises celebacy.

The women are ENTITLED to feel uncomfortable in such a situation. And that is an overall reduction in morale, and hence troop readiness.

I was a Troop Commander in an Armor unit. The 4 men inside a tank have to live in VERY close quarters. And they have to function as a cohesive team. One of my biggest challenges was creating the correct ‘mix’ of crew in each of the tanks.

Adding in a known homosexual into the mix would have impared my unit’s overall readiness. The other 3 members of his crew would have, correctly, been uncomfortbale living in tight quarters, in exacly the same way a woman would feel uncomforable if she had to take a pee into a zip lock bag 2 feet away from a man. (which is often how tankers have to do such things).

This is a good point that should be addressed. It seems to me that having homosexuals in the military might require some changes. What about having homosexuals only in certain positions? Women aren’t eligible for all jobs, perhaps that would be appropriate for homosexuals as well. Specifically, there were a vast number of homosexuals fluent in Arabic who left the service or never could have joined because of this ban. The benefit to the military of having these individuals could be worth taking steps, even expensive ones, to ensure homosexuals don’t make others feel uncomfortable. For instance, putting in individual shower stalls in barracks, keeping homosexuals out of combat roles, etc. This could be coupled with strict rules against any kind of homosexual activity–including leering. As a troop commander, I imagine you realize the cost of recruitment and retention–allowing homosexuals into the military would decrease these costs considerably, especially for several of the most needed roles, such as translators. ETA: These kinds of steps would account for your objection regarding sexual immodesty.

But I’m not sure such steps to segregate homosexuals would be necessary (or prudent). Do you really think that flagrant homosexuals would ever serve? It seems that whole persona is utterly incompatible with military culture, and so the only gays in the military would be very restrained ones that are indistinguishable from their heterosexual peers. I know several celibate, gay Catholics, and I would have no problem dressing in front of them or being in a tank with them. Further, none of them have any interest in military service; I imagine those gays who are interested in the business of killing people and breaking things are even less likely to make others feel uncomfortable.

I’m interested in hearing your thoughts, as I don’t think my opinion in this area is firmly formed.

 

[camerong]

“At Parris Island, it was discovered that 45 percent of female Marines were unable to throw a hand grenade far enough to avoid blowing themselves up. If I were in a foxhole with a woman about to toss a hand grenade, I’d consider her the enemy.”

This is utter BS. Anyone who has been through basic training has seen dozens of women throw grenades, all of whom easily threw past the point of putting themselves in danger. Are women as strong and aggressive as men? Of course not. But I’ve never encountered someone who has actually been in the modern military who would feel uncomfortable having a well-trained female with him if attacked. Luckily M16 triggers aren’t that hard to squeeze.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

This is utter BS. Anyone who has been through basic training has seen dozens of women throw grenades, all of whom easily threw past the point of putting themselves in danger. Are women as strong and aggressive as men? Of course not. But I’ve never encountered someone who has actually been in the modern military who would feel uncomfortable having a well-trained female with him if attacked. Luckily M16 triggers aren’t that hard to squeeze.

Several of them beat me too, and they let me know about it

 

[camerong]

Several of them beat me too, and they let me know about it

Hah! Was gonna say, I barely qualified with my rifle, whereas many of the females in my platoon got expert. They should be the ones not wanting me in the foxhole (or the humvee)…

 

[Shin]

Looks like the one tactic learned is repetition of something untrue sometimes convinces some people it must be true. I’m… not impressed.

This is utter BS. Anyone who has been through basic training has seen dozens of women throw grenades, all of whom easily threw past the point of putting themselves in danger. Are women as strong and aggressive as men? Of course not. But I’ve never encountered someone who has actually been in the modern military who would feel uncomfortable having a well-trained female with him if attacked. Luckily M16 triggers aren’t that hard to squeeze.

I refer you to the House Armed Services Committee website for reference.

"Requirements for graduation are also gender-normed and flexible. In fact, members of a congressional delegation visiting Fort Leonard Wood recently learned that there are separate gender-specific standards for the throwing of hand-grenades, primarily because comprehensive tests at Parris Island in 1987 and 1990 found that 45% of female Marines could not throw a live grenade safely beyond the 15 meter bursting radius. "

And the website of the Marines where still today, a woman doesn’t have to do a single pullup… only a ‘flexed arm hang’.

Woohoo… I’m impressed… 12 second flexed arm hang for the initial strength test… and 15 for the big time!

50 crunches in 2 minutes? Knock me over with a feather!

With the requirements fall like rocks… military performance is not going to be at the level it should be. Nevermind the gentler way the female recruits have to be treated.

Private Benjamin here we come!

 

[Shin]

I should also add this link from the same source as directly addressing the misinformation about the usefulness of gays in the military.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Looks like the one tactic learned is repetition of something untrue sometimes convinces some people it must be true. I’m… not impressed.

I refer you to the House Armed Services Committee website for reference.

"Requirements for graduation are also gender-normed and flexible. In fact, members of a congressional delegation visiting Fort Leonard Wood recently learned that there are separate gender-specific standards for the throwing of hand-grenades, primarily because comprehensive tests at Parris Island in 1987 and 1990 found that 45% of female Marines could not throw a live grenade safely beyond the 15 meter bursting radius. "

And the website of the Marines where still today, a woman doesn’t have to do a single pullup… only a ‘flexed arm hang’.

Woohoo… I’m impressed… 12 second flexed arm hang for the initial strength test… and 15 for the big time!

Why are you spewing such sexist rhetoric around the place? The female strength test is different because it’s catered for females, females don’t undertake the same role as males, so there’s no need to test them to the same level.

In either case, there is a MILITARY test isn’t there? So obviously the authorities see it fit that women can serve, who are you to question this? Don’t you have something useful to do like end world poverty?

50 crunches in 2 minutes? Knock me over with a feather!

Once you’ve served time in the military, then let us know, if not, be on your way.

Don’t even bother enlisting, types like you are sorted out very quickly in the military.

What are you going to surprise us with next? “Over and out”?

 

[camerong]

Looks like the one tactic learned is repetition of something untrue sometimes convinces some people it must be true. I’m… not impressed.

I refer you to the House Armed Services Committee website for reference.

"Requirements for graduation are also gender-normed and flexible. In fact, members of a congressional delegation visiting Fort Leonard Wood recently learned that there are separate gender-specific standards for the throwing of hand-grenades, primarily because comprehensive tests at Parris Island in 1987 and 1990 found that 45% of female Marines could not throw a live grenade safely beyond the 15 meter bursting radius. "

And the website of the Marines where still today, a woman doesn’t have to do a single pullup… only a ‘flexed arm hang’.

Woohoo… I’m impressed… 12 second flexed arm hang for the initial strength test… and 15 for the big time!

50 crunches in 2 minutes? Knock me over with a feather!

With the requirements fall like rocks… military performance is not going to be at the level it should be. Nevermind the gentler way the female recruits have to be treated.

Private Benjamin here we come!

That study can say what it wishes, but literally 100% of women in basic training complete this task with no difficulty. The sit-up requirements for men and women is actually quite similar, at least in the Army, and most women got more than I did. The gentler way females are treated?! HAH. My drill sergeant most definitely did not treat the females any gentler. I again think you will have the same response from anyone who has been in the modern military.

The average female solider with a rifle is just as deadly as the average male with a rifle. End of discussion, unless someone with actual experience training troops in the modern military says otherwise, and I’m certain anyone with such experience would agree with what we are saying.