Gays In The Military

[Brendan]

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.

There might be benefits, but for the situations that you had mentioned, could they be employed as civilian contractors. Civilians are generally assigned their own quarters, and thus would not necessitate the reconfiguration of most of the living quarters for the world wide military.

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. .

The level of restraint is actually immaterial to the point of sexual modesty. Would you consider it acceptable for a woman to have have to share things like showers and bunk space with men, even if the men were models of restraint?

No, as Catholics, we would recognize that as an infringement on their sexual modesty.

The same is true for men being asked to do the same with homosexuals, whatever level of restraint is being demonstrated.

As Catholics, we know there there are elements to human dignity that must be maintained. Denial of military service is not such a thing. There are those who are denied such for things as simple as flat feet, or having had malaria.

So there is no loss of inate human rights by denying someone who desires to serve for other biological reasons.

But a denial of the basic human dignity of sexual modesty is one that Catholics cannot deny.

 

[DPMartin]

It should be changed because it’s discriminatory. It’s like depriving homosexuals of jobs in the civilian sector because they are gay.

We could go back to executing gay people, it was quite successfull back in the day, it even kept the occurrences of “immorality” quite low compared to now - so should we go back to executing gay people?

If you are to serve in the military you set aside your life. Also the military is to be discriminatory that’s a major part of it’s job, in forming, and maintaining solders. The military is not a democracy in case you don’t know. It’s a dictatorship, your superior by rank dictates orders, you do. In a free society you have a point, but the military is not a free society. Which is what a volunteer agrees to leave behind, to serve and protect that free society he does not participate in until his agreement is fulfilled.

What is immoral there genius , is to not fulfill or stand in your part of the agreement when you have means to do so. Of which the military does proved. any whiners out there just don’t what to stand in their agreement that they were not forced to agree to. Therefore not persons of honor nor respect. Fair or unfair, is not the issue, the military provides you means to meet the agreement, therefore you have no excuse.

Those who meet the agreement despite what ever there personal issues and problems, and sacrifices may be are the ones who deserve the honor and respect for they are persons of honor and respect, Which is what a solder is hopefully formed to be, not the whiners.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

If you are to serve in the military you set aside your life. Also the military is to be discriminatory that’s a major part of it’s job, in forming, and maintaining solders. The military is not a democracy in case you don’t know. It’s a dictatorship, your superior by rank dictates orders, you do. In a free society you have a point, but the military is not a free society. Which is what a volunteer agrees to leave behind, to serve and protect that free society he does not participate in until his agreement is fulfilled.

I’m a solider in army, thank you “genius” for giving me a quick crash-course. Funnily enough I still recall the first lesson in the army, it was a lecture, it was titled “Discrimination and Harassment” - it talked about gender, race, and sexual orientation.

So if I were you, I’d take a step back.

I agree with everything you’re saying there, this has nothing to do with homosexuality though does it? So what exactly are you trying to get at?

What is immoral there genius , is to not fulfill or stand in your part of the agreement when you have means to do so. Of which the military does proved. any whiners out there just don’t what to stand in their agreement that they were not forced to agree to. Therefore not persons of honor nor respect. Fair or unfair, is not the issue, the military provides you means to meet the agreement, therefore you have no excuse.

I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say here. I don’t think you do either.

I think the major reason is because it’s non-sensical English, fix it up before you post, so that others don’t have to guess what you’re trying to say

In either case I think I’ve covered everything I’ve had to say in the topic so far, so read through the topic before coming in all red-faced and giving us an irrelevant rant.

Those who meet the agreement despite what ever there personal issues and problems, and sacrifices may be are the ones who deserve the honor and respect for they are persons of honor and respect, Which is what a solder is hopefully formed to be, not the whiners.

 

[Lypher]

All,

I just noticed this thread and wanted to add my :twocents:. I see it this way if we allow gay members to serve openly here is what would happen.

1. Medical care and all benefits would have to be extended for partners.
2. Partners would be allowed to join all base organizations and openly espouse their beliefs.
3. Tradtion of the return of loved ones. i.e. the ship coming to the pier would include the embrace and open mouth kissing of same sex couples in uniform the same as occurs now with married and dating couples. This tradition would cease to exists or become a private affair and FAMILIES and children would suffer by not being able to participate or by having their children exposed to this behavior in a forum that would OPENLY condone it by the US Military.
4. If a conservative man or women in uniform found any of this objectionable they would have to leave the service, accept it, or be prosecuted for any statements that painted this behavior in a negative light.
5. Children and spouses would be required to accept this behavior or face expulsion from the bases.

As an Officer in the Military I would enforce these beliefs, which I do not agree with, and it would hurt all people of faith. This is just a plain fact of life. You would have to accept this behavior of leave. Their would be NO middle ground because any negative comments or discrimination by members or family would be considered hate speech. I mean ANY.

The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy works very well accept for those with an agenda and want to push their lifestyle on to others and make them accept it.

It will truly be a sad day if or when this open policy is adopted. I would NEVER want my children to have to see military members of the same sex kiss in uniform at an any time, let alone an officially sanctioned event, such as a home coming.

This would be the end of the military family. Many spouses that support our troops are VERY conservative and donate many hours of their time in support of troops. I would venture to bet that if they had to accept, and they would lawfully have to accept openly practicing homesexuals in to their organizations, they would abandon them. I would STRONGLY discourage my wife from involvement with the spouses organizations.

This is a terrible idea and more social engineering that will not help the organization.

These are of course are only my personal opinions and observations, but I really believe the second and third order effects of this decision would be horrible on the families that would be forced to accept these beliefs. I am currently actively recommending against military service to my children due to all the changes that have been forced upon me since I started my career in 1986. Serving my country during the Cold war, Tanker War, Gulf War, Balkens, and OIF and OEF have all been worthwhile, but the social engineering is terrible. I have served on four ships with five different cruises each of at least 6 months in duration, for a total time on the water of over 8.5 years. I have lived the last two years away from my family on remote locations and won’t be reunited until after March of this year, IF I a lucky to get the right orders and IF I am not deployed. These family sacrafices go with the job, but forcing this lifestyle on my children goes against why I wanted to defend this country. I would lose my freedo and this is too much. After 24 years it will be time to pack it up and look for a place to retire.

I live in the Keys near Key West and my children are exposed to this alternative lifestyle, but I currently have the freedom to tell them that it is unacceptable behavior and not acceptable. If the military embraces this what moral authority will I speak to? The Chaplain will not be able to preach that it is a sin. We will be forced to teach them it is OK and it is NOT.

 

[OraLabora]

What does this have to do with Catholicism? It seems to me it’s a political issue, not an issue of faith or morals.

 

[Brendan]

What does this have to do with Catholicism? It seems to me it’s a political issue, not an issue of faith or morals.

It IS an issue of morals

It affects the issue of sexual modesty. A person should not be forced to live in close quarters with a class of persons who have a sexual attraction for them.

We don’t expect our military women to share showers and dorms with men, as that is an offense against the Virtue of Modesty.

Likewise, Catholics should not ask our military men to live in close quarters with homosexuals, because it too would be an offense against the Virtue of Modesty.

 

[camerong]

It IS an issue of morals

It affects the issue of sexual modesty. A person should not be forced to live in close quarters with a class of persons who have a sexual attraction for them.

We don’t expect our military women to share showers and dorms with men, as that is an offense against the Virtue of Modesty.

Likewise, Catholics should not ask our military men to live in close quarters with homosexuals, because it too would be an offense against the Virtue of Modesty.

Doesn’t the same result occur with the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, although perhaps to a lesser extent?

 

[OraLabora]

It IS an issue of morals

It affects the issue of sexual modesty. A person should not be forced to live in close quarters with a class of persons who have a sexual attraction for them.

We don’t expect our military women to share showers and dorms with men, as that is an offense against the Virtue of Modesty.

Likewise, Catholics should not ask our military men to live in close quarters with homosexuals, because it too would be an offense against the Virtue of Modesty.

The US military is so far removed from the jurisdiction of the Church as to make the point moot. And the Church says only one things about homosexuals outside of sexual activity: they are not to be subjected to discrimination.

Last I heard, there are also women living on US military bases. Perhaps not in the same barracks, but certainly not far away, when living many times thousands of miles from their spouses.

I am sure the military could deal gays like they would that issue when there are misdeeds, through severe disciplinary measures if you can’t keep it in your pants.

 

[Brendan]

Doesn’t the same result occur with the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, although perhaps to a lesser extent?

It is a possibility, in much the same way as a man coulld accidentally walk into the woman’s shower.

And, under the current situation, morale is unaffected as the soliders are not aware that a particular man on in the barracks is gay.

If it becomes know, then yes, morale will suffer, and along with it, unit readiness.

Either way, it’s not a reason for institutionalizing the violation.

 

[manualman]

I suppose I’m not allowed to have an opinion since I’m not actually a vet. But I’ve gots loads of Navy family, so perhaps I can share some of what I’ve picked up over the years. I’ve also designed and built BEQ facilities at Great Lakes, so I know a little bit about typical housing arrangements.

During peacetime or minor conflict, you could make this work. But I still vote NO. My reasoning is that we’re idiots to believe that we will forever be the overwhelming superpower beneath whom all others are like gnats. Even relatively low contest conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan strip away the false veneer of civility and order that builds up during peacetime.

When the poop hits the fan and life or death are microscopically apart, I want as few distractions and problems for my guys as I can get.

Another poster hit it head on an nobody has an answer for him yet. Forget the DAUGHTERS for a second, would you want your SON in a half baked combat zone barracks having to sleep and shower with female soldiers? That’s a distraction NONE of them need in an environment potentially already fatally stressed. To argue that it is any different with a homosexual amongst heteros is to deny human nature.

Great, so the Aussies do it. Ooorahh. When’s the last time their country fought an “Oh crip, we could actually lose this thing” war? Before the policy, I bet. Not that gay soldiers will make you lose the war, but I suspect the additional loss of unit cohesion would result in more causualties. You won’t know until it happens.

Activists say that it is the same thing as the racial integration of the military. No it isn’t. Skin color has absolutely nothing to do with behavior. Homosexuality does. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason to allow gays to put their inclination on display in front of their comrades and there IS compelling reason to keep it a non-issue.

 

[Brendan]

The US military is so far removed from the jurisdiction of the Church as to make the point moot.

But we are Catholics and voters, it is our obligation to stand up for a society, and armed forces, that

And the Church says only one things about homosexuals outside of sexual activity: they are not to be subjected to discrimination.

Actually, it says that homosexuals should not be exposed to "unjust discrimination’. (CCC 2358) Violations of sexual modesty are not part of ‘Justice’.

I’m sure we all agree that the blind should not be objected to unjust discrimination, or tall guys.

It is no more unjust to exclude them from the military than it would be to exclude a blind man from being a fighter pilot or a tall guy from being a tanker ( I only made the cut off myself). . But sometimes discrimination is a matter of Justice.

Last I heard, there are also women living on US military bases. Perhaps not in the same barracks, but certainly not far away, when living many times thousands of miles from their spouses.

And…? Are these women being forced to expose their bodies to others who might find them attractive? If not, why ask the same of men?

I am sure the military could deal gays like they would that issue when there are misdeeds, through severe disciplinary measures if you can’t keep it in your pants.

But it is not a matter of ‘misdeeds’. Would having your daughter be forced to shower with a man be OK, as long as there were no misdeeds?

It does not matter if the person in question was a model of restraint, it is a matter of the a human understanding of sexual modesty.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

All,

I just noticed this thread and wanted to add my :twocents:. I see it this way if we allow gay members to serve openly here is what would happen.

1. Medical care and all benefits would have to be extended for partners.
2. Partners would be allowed to join all base organizations and openly espouse their beliefs.
3. Tradtion of the return of loved ones. i.e. the ship coming to the pier would include the embrace and open mouth kissing of same sex couples in uniform the same as occurs now with married and dating couples. This tradition would cease to exists or become a private affair and FAMILIES and children would suffer by not being able to participate or by having their children exposed to this behavior in a forum that would OPENLY condone it by the US Military.
4. If a conservative man or women in uniform found any of this objectionable they would have to leave the service, accept it, or be prosecuted for any statements that painted this behavior in a negative light.
5. Children and spouses would be required to accept this behavior or face expulsion from the bases.

As an Officer in the Military I would enforce these beliefs, which I do not agree with, and it would hurt all people of faith. This is just a plain fact of life. You would have to accept this behavior of leave. Their would be NO middle ground because any negative comments or discrimination by members or family would be considered hate speech. I mean ANY.

The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy works very well accept for those with an agenda and want to push their lifestyle on to others and make them accept it.

It will truly be a sad day if or when this open policy is adopted. I would NEVER want my children to have to see military members of the same sex kiss in uniform at an any time, let alone an officially sanctioned event, such as a home coming.

This would be the end of the military family. Many spouses that support our troops are VERY conservative and donate many hours of their time in support of troops. I would venture to bet that if they had to accept, and they would lawfully have to accept openly practicing homesexuals in to their organizations, they would abandon them. I would STRONGLY discourage my wife from involvement with the spouses organizations.

This is a terrible idea and more social engineering that will not help the organization.

These are of course are only my personal opinions and observations, but I really believe the second and third order effects of this decision would be horrible on the families that would be forced to accept these beliefs. I am currently actively recommending against military service to my children due to all the changes that have been forced upon me since I started my career in 1986. Serving my country during the Cold war, Tanker War, Gulf War, Balkens, and OIF and OEF have all been worthwhile, but the social engineering is terrible. I have served on four ships with five different cruises each of at least 6 months in duration, for a total time on the water of over 8.5 years. I have lived the last two years away from my family on remote locations and won’t be reunited until after March of this year, IF I a lucky to get the right orders and IF I am not deployed. These family sacrafices go with the job, but forcing this lifestyle on my children goes against why I wanted to defend this country. I would lose my freedo and this is too much. After 24 years it will be time to pack it up and look for a place to retire.

I live in the Keys near Key West and my children are exposed to this alternative lifestyle, but I currently have the freedom to tell them that it is unacceptable behavior and not acceptable. If the military embraces this what moral authority will I speak to? The Chaplain will not be able to preach that it is a sin. We will be forced to teach them it is OK and it is NOT.

I was about to type out some arguments very similar to this, but this is so well put together and stated I’ll just repost it. I agree 100%, and thank you for serving our country! It’s interesting too that no one has come up with a response to this.

 

[lynx]

I’m glad this elicited so many responses. The numbers were, sadly, about as I figured

I just noticed this thread and wanted to add my :twocents:. I see it this way if we allow gay members to serve openly here is what would happen.

1. Medical care and all benefits would have to be extended for partners.

Do gay couples not deserve the rights and benefits as straight couples?

1. Partners would be allowed to join all base organizations and openly espouse their beliefs.

What is wrong voicing your beliefs and ideas, even in the US military? Is not everyone entitled to express their beliefs equally in the US military? Currently I guess not, but morally, should people be given the same rights to voice their beliefs as anyone else while on active duty?

1. Tradtion of the return of loved ones. i.e. the ship coming to the pier would include the embrace and open mouth kissing of same sex couples in uniform the same as occurs now with married and dating couples. This tradition would cease to exists or become a private affair and FAMILIES and children would suffer by not being able to participate or by having their children exposed to this behavior in a forum that would OPENLY condone it by the US Military.

There are things in society which are viewed as gross or perverse. If these actions are not prohibited by law then we always have the option to look away. There is no need to infringe upon the rights of others and their expressions granted to them by the law of the land.

1. If a conservative man or women in uniform found any of this objectionable they would have to leave the service, accept it, or be prosecuted for any statements that painted this behavior in a negative light.

Everyone has the right to their opinion, even in the military. I suspect you may be able to disagree, but causing a disturbance would be another issue entirely.

1. Children and spouses would be required to accept this behavior or face expulsion from the bases.

Perhaps not accept so much as tolerate.

As an Officer in the Military I would enforce these beliefs, which I do not agree with, and it would hurt all people of faith.

Then again, is this any better openly discriminating against gays; men and women in the service who would die for your right to post anti-gay military material on this forum?

This is just a plain fact of life. You would have to accept this behavior of leave. Their would be NO middle ground because any negative comments or discrimination by members or family would be considered hate speech. I mean ANY.

Well, that might be unfortunate, not being able to express your belief about how much you hate gays in the military, but should the trade off be to then remove gays from the military; men and women in the service who place their lives on the line so people can freely express how much they hate gays in the military?

The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy works very well accept for those with an agenda and want to push their lifestyle on to others and make them accept it.

The stigma and homophobia the DADT policy weakens the image of the US Military IMO. We “supposedly” have the military in the world, but throw in some gay people and it crumbles? That doesn’t sound like strength to me. As well, I have no intention of forcing anyone to accept gays, but I would ask that you tolerate their existence and freedoms, a sort of golden rule of you will.

It will truly be a sad day if or when this open policy is adopted. I would NEVER want my children to have to see military members of the same sex kiss in uniform at an any time, let alone an officially sanctioned event, such as a home coming.

I’m not a fan of the logic here. Because you personally find something perverse it should be done away with. What if overnight the nation became overwhelmingly gay, for whatever reason, should they then have the right to prohibit separate sex kissing?

This would be the end of the military family. Many spouses that support our troops are VERY conservative and donate many hours of their time in support of troops. I would venture to bet that if they had to accept, and they would lawfully have to accept openly practicing homesexuals in to their organizations, they would abandon them. I would STRONGLY discourage my wife from involvement with the spouses organizations.

I feel this would be one of the saddest days in American history. While I disagree with how you think, I will forever defend your right to think it. Thanks for the years of service

 

[Lypher]

What does this have to do with Catholicism? It seems to me it’s a political issue, not an issue of faith or morals.

I would venture to bet that Catholic Priest would no longer serve in the Chaplain Corps. How could they? They would not be able to preach Morals and might be either punished for saying that homosexuality is a sin or pressured into acceptance. aybe they would serve, but it would be very hard when any statement might be taken as hate speech by a senior officer. Might not be, but then again we were promised that our Social Security Numbers would never be used in the way it is now being used.

 

[DPMartin]

I’m a solider in army, thank you “genius” for giving me a quick crash-course. Funnily enough I still recall the first lesson in the army, it was a lecture, it was titled “Discrimination and Harassment” - it talked about gender, race, and sexual orientation.

So if I were you, I’d take a step back.

I agree with everything you’re saying there, this has nothing to do with homosexuality though does it? So what exactly are you trying to get at?

I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say here. I don’t think you do either.

I think the major reason is because it’s non-sensical English, fix it up before you post, so that others don’t have to guess what you’re trying to say

In either case I think I’ve covered everything I’ve had to say in the topic so far, so read through the topic before coming in all red-faced and giving us an irrelevant rant.

Those who meet the agreement despite what ever there personal issues and problems, and sacrifices may be are the ones who deserve the honor and respect for they are persons of honor and respect, Which is what a solder is hopefully formed to be, not the whiners.

Suspicious Mind
thanks for the reply

I did my time when it was OD green or OD green or OD green, before don’t look, don’t see, don’t tell, and I don’t want to know. So I have the right to say as I please about the U.S. Army. I am now free to do so, get it. And no your not me, I won’t step back.

At that time it was quite obvious what was what, and who was who in such matters.

Armies have been dealing with this stuff thousands of years, even before the Roman armies. This is not new at all. I don’t see the need for change in policy reason being is it necessary for the military to make sure that what ever there is, does not interfere with soldering, they must remain in control as they see fit, in all matters in dealing with the solder.

anyways, as they say, “good luck with that”

hang in there.

 

[ManOnFire]

It is designed to weaken the military.

If you would have asked me 20 years ago as an 18 year old male if I wanted to join a group of physically fit, sexually active women, work with them, shower with them, bunk with them, and get paid for it, I think I would have jumped at the chance. It would have attracted me to the military for the wrong reasons.

The far left is selfishly ruining this country. If it implodes, then that will be all the more chance for them to legislate behavior, lure people into anti-life behavior, reduce the population, and weaken the country and the military.

 

[lynx]

When the poop hits the fan and life or death are microscopically apart, I want as few distractions and problems for my guys as I can get.

If our service men and women are more worried about gays than the enemy then we are assuredly in a poor position. If for some reason I was in a life or death situation in the military, I wouldn’t care who is next to me as long as they’re shooting at the other guy. I’m not about being too morally righteous about my support. I’ll reserve that freedom for when bullets aren’t hunting me down.

Another poster hit it head on an nobody has an answer for him yet. Forget the DAUGHTERS for a second, would you want your SON in a half baked combat zone barracks having to sleep and shower with female soldiers? That’s a distraction NONE of them need in an environment potentially already fatally stressed. To argue that it is any different with a homosexual amongst heteros is to deny human nature.

Well then here is that answer, if my son were in the military I wouldn’t care if he had to sleep and shower with female soldiers. He’s in the military which means he needs to grow up, move past his own desires, and do his job, and if he’s not fit to do that then I hope he never made it past basic. If you’re distracted in a war zone by a penis or vagina then i’d hate to see what happens if you see a dead body or a serviceman get shot. It sounds like that sort of person would just fall apart.

Great, so the Aussies do it. Ooorahh. When’s the last time their country fought an “Oh crip, we could actually lose this thing” war? Before the policy, I bet. Not that gay soldiers will make you lose the war, but I suspect the additional loss of unit cohesion would result in more causualties. You won’t know until it happens.

This sets a very important precedent though for gay rights in the military. In case you were wondering, since gays have been allowed in the Aussie military, the number of casualties of Australian forces have been 16 deaths awm.gov.au/research/infosheets/war_casualties.asp

Activists say that it is the same thing as the racial integration of the military. No it isn’t. Skin color has absolutely nothing to do with behavior. Homosexuality does.

The reason why these are compared is because in both cases the trait, whether biological or behavioral, is outside the control of the individual and is therefore morally wrong to discriminate against.

Furthermore, there is no compelling reason to allow gays to put their inclination on display in front of their comrades and there IS compelling reason to keep it a non-issue.

I would agree with this so long as all service men and women display the same attitudes towards their own behavior.

But we are Catholics and voters, it is our obligation to stand up for a society, and armed forces, that

Actually, it says that homosexuals should not be exposed to "unjust discrimination’. (CCC 2358) Violations of sexual modesty are not part of ‘Justice’.

I’m sure we all agree that the blind should not be objected to unjust discrimination, or tall guys.

It is no more unjust to exclude them from the military than it would be to exclude a blind man from being a fighter pilot or a tall guy from being a tanker ( I only made the cut off myself). . But sometimes discrimination is a matter of Justice.

Unjustly deserved discrimination is never a matter of justice. In your examples, it is a physical attribute that inhibits the person from performing their function. What inhibits a gay man from serving in the military? Nothing. The fallacy of these examples in relation to the issue is that being gay does not inhibit your ability to perform on the battlefield.

It does not matter if the person in question was a model of restraint, it is a matter of the a human understanding of sexual modesty.

While I understand the desire for modesty, when you are a professional, and if part of your job is to shower, then you need to get over it and do your job. I’m sure if you had a very small penis or some disfiguration of your genitalia then you might feel embarrassed when you have to shower with other people. But, we don’t make special arrangements for people because they feel uncomfortable due to modesty in the US military, or at least we shouldn’t.

 

[lynx]

It is designed to weaken the military.

If you would have asked me 20 years ago as an 18 year old male if I wanted to join a group of physically fit, sexually active women, work with them, shower with them, bunk with them, and get paid for it, I think I would have jumped at the chance. It would have attracted me to the military for the wrong reasons.

If this is what gay men are thinking when joining the military then they will be sooooooo surprised come training Methinks this is an extremely unlikely position, unless you can support it.

The far left is selfishly ruining this country.

I would have thought with the more recent Catholic priest pedophile scandals one would have learned to not generally judge and label a group. Please lets try and stay on the topic.

 

[Lypher]

Do gay couples not deserve the rights and benefits as straight couples?

If Society says they do then they do. My point was that we currently are being told to cut costs in both personnel and medical expenses. In fact just today I booked passage at my own expense to fly to a location to get dental treatment because the base I am currently at wants to give me a bridge instead of a an implant. They did not want to send me someplace to get the implant. Rationed health care is a reality, we just have to suck it up.

What is wrong voicing your beliefs and ideas, even in the US military? Is not everyone entitled to express their beliefs equally in the US military? Currently I guess not, but morally, should people be given the same rights to voice their beliefs as anyone else while on active duty?

Members in uniform are NOT allowed to speak freely. We can talk to our elected officials and we can talk anonymously but we cannot have our uniform on or espouse any official position. You may think that we should have the moral right to speak freely but in fact I understand and agree with why it is not a good idea. We need to support our leaders when in uniform. Politics republican and democratic need to be avoided. We support and defend the Constitution and follow the legal orders of those elected officials without dissent. I agree with this policy. Currently the President is studying this issue. On the day that he says it is over I will back him 100% because he is the commander and chief.

There are things in society which are viewed as gross or perverse. If these actions are not prohibited by law then we always have the option to look away. There is no need to infringe upon the rights of others and their expressions granted to them by the law of the land.

Bringing your children to a homecoming should not be like taking them to the Porn store part of town. I agree with what you are saying and consequently this tradition will be lost as my kids and family would not come. I would not want to expose them to this. I would not have my spouse go to any of the balls as I would not want to put her in the awkward position of dancing with openly gay couples. We do not go to gay bars and if adopted new rules would require that this behavior be accepted. I would not want to be forced to accept it. What happens when the Commanding Officer wants his officers to participate in these events? The junior officer either accepts the behavior and forces his or her spouse to accept it, or he or she may be viewed as not supporting the CO and having his or her fitness reports marked down. Not fair…but fact.

Everyone has the right to their opinion, even in the military. I suspect you may be able to disagree, but causing a disturbance would be another issue entirely.

You have the right to an opinion, but once policy is set by the elected officials through the senior leadership you must not only remain silent you must embrace these orders as your very own and carry them out. You might be able to voice your opposition behind closed doors with your superior, but once ordered to carry them out then you carry them out. This may sound bizarre to some, but so long as these orders are lawful that is the way that it is, and in fact I agree with this 100% as any opposition voiced in the open destroys command integrity and raises doubt in your junior personnel.

Perhaps not accept so much as tolerate.

In the eyes of your children when parents cannot openly comment on moral conduct three things can happen. Either the child believes that the parent condones the behavior, or the child believes that the parent is weak and cannot act on something that is clearly wrong, or the the parent can take the middle ground and tells the child that although it is wrong we have to pretend it is ok… LIE… I don’t see much other wiggle room do you?

 

[Lypher]

Then again, is this any better openly discriminating against gays; men and women in the service who would die for your right to post anti-gay military material on this forum?

I am not anti-gay. I don’t want to have to accept their culture or educate my children that it is an acceptable life style, because according to my beliefs it is not. Do I hate gays NO, do I pray for them YES, do I want to associate with them with my children NO, Do I work well with them YES. I just don’t believe that it is acceptable to offer up the beliefs of the majority to not only appease the minority but force the majority to live the lie that it is ok. We must allow for equal opportunity in the work place. Not everywhere else, but this policy would run deep into the military family support system and it is already stressed due to deployments.

Well, that might be unfortunate, not being able to express your belief about how much you hate gays in the military, but should the trade off be to then remove gays from the military; men and women in the service who place their lives on the line so people can freely express how much they hate gays in the military?

I do not hate Gays in the military. I think that gays should be allowed to serve, just not openly as it forces their lifestyle onto my family. I NEVER said we should remove them. I LIKE and APPRECIATE the current policy.

The stigma and homophobia the DADT policy weakens the image of the US Military IMO. We “supposedly” have the military in the world, but throw in some gay people and it crumbles? That doesn’t sound like strength to me. As well, I have no intention of forcing anyone to accept gays, but I would ask that you tolerate their existence and freedoms, a sort of golden rule of you will.

You have not lived in close quarters I have and we had a gay person in my berthing compartment. He was an extremely nice person and VERY competent. I would serve with him again. That being said although I was uncomfortable at times I can accept being a little uncomfortable in the showers for his service to the country, what I cannot accept is that my family has to accept his life style. I don’t want to force this on my kids.

I’m not a fan of the logic here. Because you personally find something perverse it should be done away with. What if overnight the nation became overwhelmingly gay, for whatever reason, should they then have the right to prohibit separate sex kissing?

You can take you logic to all kinds of perversions, because our country allows certain things does not mean other cultures do. This is a Pandora’s box that is just best left the way it is. By changing this policy we will be hurting families and for that it makes me say that it cannot be good.

I would finally say that typically we have pretty conservative males that join the services and usually liberal women. I wish we had more liberal men and conservative women, but it just does not work out that way. I guess it is because most liberal men do not find military service attractive and neither do most conservative women. That being said we have a pool of humanity to draw from for the defense of this country. I truly respect any gay service member that serves and sacrifice their ability to have an open relationship when they come into the service. This sacrifice they make is very similar to that of ALL service members with regards to freedom of speech, but even closer to the sacrifice that Priest make through celibacy.

In any event I apologize if any of my earlier posts came off as if I hate Gay people as I do not. I just think that this change in policy is not only bad for the Navy but also bad for the Navy families

I feel this would be one of the saddest days in American history. While I disagree with how you think, I will forever defend your right to think it. Thanks for the years of service

I too think it will be one of the saddest days as we will lose a significant pool of talented people that are willing to serve to placate a group, that although serves with pride, is not as large and therefore cannot fill the void that will be left behind.

I too defend your right and once the boss decides I will enforce it.

I thank the country for allowing me to serve.

Take care…