Gays In The Military

[Desertsailor]

Actually the military is a great place to run social experiments.

Peace

Even though it destroys morale and costs lives?

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Even though it destroys morale and costs lives?

The Army is not a sociological laboratory; to be effective it must be organized and trained according to the principles which will insure success. Experiments to meet the wishes and demands of the champions of every race and creed for the solution of their problems are a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat.

• Col Eugene Householder

Of course, he said it on December 8th, 1941, addressing a gathering of Negro Editors and Publishers the day after Pearl Harbor, to tell them why the Army couldn’t Integrate now.

We’ve heard this Bravo Sierra before.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Submarines have not been that much of a problem, but that is about to change as it is my understanding that women are going to be allowed to serve on subs. Idiocy in the government knows no bounds.

Female Civilian Contractors have been aboard submarines since the 1980’s. Women serve on subs of a number of nations - including Australia, whose boats do patrols of the same length as in the USN.

All women deploying in “harsh conditions” have to have Depo shots to prevent the sanitary issues from menstruation. Just as scientists deploying to Antarctica have to have their appendices removed.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

I feel DADT is an excellent policy, that allows patriotic gays to serve their country honorably, without causing any discomfort to their heterosexual counterparts.

Jene Newsome played by the rules as an Air Force sergeant: She never told anyone in the military she was a lesbian.

The 28-year-old’s honorable discharge under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy came only after police officers in Rapid City, S.D., saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home (it was visible through a window) and told the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base.

In the complaint filed last month with the department, ACLU South Dakota said police had no legal reason to tell the military Newsome was a lesbian and that officers knew if they did, it would jeopardize her military career…

Currently, if a commander has reason to suspect that one of his or her subordinates is lesbian - say as the result of an anonymous unsigned letter, or a remark by a noncom of the opposite sex that the victim didn’t respond to sexual advances so “might” be gay, that is sufficient reason to start investigation and interrogation of the suspect.

Typically, being seen in the company of a member of the same sex - a brother or sister perhaps - is enough. It is important that those of the same sex not be allowed to wave goodbye to each other when one is being deployed, many have been caught that way. Visits by anyone of the same sex to military hospitals where the suspect is recovering from wounds will also trigger investigation.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Why was Homosexuality removed from the Diagnostic and and Statistical Manual in 1973? Anybody?

Because it no more met the criteria for a mental illness than Catholicism does.

Hooker administered three projective tests (the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test [TAT], and Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test) to 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited through community organizations. The two groups were matched for age, IQ, and education. None of the men were in therapy at the time of the study.

Unaware of each subject’s sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men’s overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals, the experts could not distinguish respondents’ sexual orientation at a level better than chance.

A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate the psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach responses, the adjustment ratings of the homosexuals and heterosexuals did not differ significantly.

Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality is not a clinical entity and that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology.

Hooker’s findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker’s basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker.

Although some investigations published since Hooker’s study have claimed to support the view of homosexuality as pathological, they have been methodologically weak. Many used only clinical or incarcerated samples, for example, from which generalizations to the population at large are not possible. Others failed to safeguard the data collection procedures from possible biases by the investigators – for example, a man’s psychological functioning would be evaluated by his own psychoanalyst, who was simultaneously treating him for his homosexuality.
…
In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that “Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality” (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).

Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s.

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association’s membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board’s decision was ratified.

psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

 

[markbrumbaugh]

I voted yes, because I would expect any gays to be discreet and keep their thoughts and actions to themselves. Don’t ask, Don’t tell actually works for me just fine. Gay parades don’t work at all.

If the question were “allow openly gay behaviour” them my answer would change.

 

[ForeverGrace]

It’s amazing to read some of the things I’m seeing here. Let’s see we are comparing blacks to homosexuals? Who knew that being black was a sexual behavior? That’s a load of garbage. Homosexuality is a behavior. It’s a behavior the Bible says is a detestible sin.

Then I see all these so-called scholarly studies that come from some of the most liberal colleges/universities on the planet. You really cannot make this stuff up. I recommend that these folks take themselves over to Amsterdam and smoke some legal drugs. After all, you are a bigot if you call sin a sin. It’s better to just accept it until it kills off your society.

We should care about what other countries do in their armed services… why? There is virtually nothing left of Europe and in their zeal to be so inclusive, they now are facing almost outright extinction. Their cultures lost in the veil of Islam. Same thing for Canada. The thought police are out to legislate your speech and your sacredly held religious views if you are a Christian. But it’s perfectly okay to shout epithets AT Christians. ** Anyone remember Elton John coming to our country for his birthday party and defiling the altar at St. John the Divine? **

But… what I really don’t understand is how people who profess to be Christians excuse the sin of homosexuality. Would you excuse stealing, lying, pedophilia or adultery? I think not. I do understand that we are to show love and dignity to the natural worth of man created in God’s image, but Jesus told us to remove these people from our midst! I Corinthians 5:1-2 “It is actually reported that there is sexually immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his fathers wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be **removed from among you.” **

We are not called to behave like those vipers from the Westboro Baptist Abomination, but neither are we called to accept as Godly that which is not.

I know most of you hold the Bible and faith as your first priority. I admire so many of your comments here. I’m just not gettin’ why anyone would come to a Forum for Catholics and start attacking the faithful for … well… being faithful.

I am glad that I’m now retired from the Navy.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Homosexuality is a behavior.

Er no, it’s a sexual orientation. One can be celibate, completely so, but Homosexual.

Would you excuse stealing, lying, pedophilia or adultery? I think not.

How about divorce? That’s just as great a sin, is it not? Even more so, from scripture. Do you wish to exclude divorcees from the military, or is it that you just don’t like Gays?

I am glad that I’m now retired from the Navy.

Thank you for your service.
Skimmer, I suppose?

(submerging, running silent, rig for depth charge)

Zoe

 

[hosemonkey]

It’s amazing to read some of the things I’m seeing here. Let’s see we are comparing blacks to homosexuals? Who knew that being black was a sexual behavior? That’s a load of garbage. Homosexuality is a behavior. It’s a behavior the Bible says is a detestible sin.

Then I see all these so-called scholarly studies that come from some of the most liberal colleges/universities on the planet. You really cannot make this stuff up. I recommend that these folks take themselves over to Amsterdam and smoke some legal drugs. After all, you are a bigot if you call sin a sin. It’s better to just accept it until it kills off your society.

Well said! Black has become white, evil has become good, our sense of outrage has departed and filth is the norm. This kind of garbage was not tolerated in my Navy, not once in 22 years of service did I ever personally encounter a homosexual. Either they were not there, or they concealed it very well. Homos are just another special interest group that are whining to be accomodated. Much more trouble than they are worth and destructive to the organization.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 5:1[/BIBLEDRB]

And what has incest with one’s stepmother got to do with homosexuality?

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 5:9-12[/BIBLEDRB]
If you think that the Navy has no fornicators in… your leaves must have been unique in the annals of military history. Do you really wish to expel all those guilty of that from the armed services?

Please be consistent. I understand your viewpoint. The Magisterium has said that Homosexuality is Objectively Disordered, and that’s that as far as any Catholic is concerned. The matter is closed, not up for debate. I “accept” that - but only in the same way that I “accept” that the sun rises in the east, it’s a fact, not a judgement on what should or should not be. It is. That’s all there is to it.

But it’s also said that divorce is forbidden. Fornication too. It seems to me that there’s a double-standard here, that you come down in righteous wrath against one particular sin, while nodding at others. The very thing 1 Corinthians 5 warns against in one sense. Moreover, you judge those who are not Catholics, who are not brothers, those “without”, the other thing this verse warns against.

So many people “know” what scripture says, they don’t actually bother reading it.

 

[hosemonkey]

Er no, it’s a sexual orientation. One can be celibate, completely so, but Homosexual.

Agreed

 

[Zoe_Brain]

For heterosexuals to divorce is tragic, but within the realm of normal. The sexual acts that homosexuals perform with one another are abnormal and disgusting.

So it’s not the aspect of sin you object to, it’s that they personally disgust you. Or rather, you object to the sin too, just as you object to divorce, but that’s not the real reason, the instinctive revulsion is.

You’re not alone in that view, I share it myself to some degree. I just don’t see that my personal views should be a criterion for military service, or civil rights. Any more than someone’s personal discomfort about being around someone with a different skin colour should be taken into account.

I consider your views quite normal, by the way, nothing to be ashamed of. It’s only when you search for reasons in scripture or otherwise to justify persecution which you wish to engage in anyway that there’s a problem.

By the way, I am myself “abnormal” in a way that makes homosexuality look positively prosaic and humdrum. A congenital medical condition that most people find extremely discomforting. I’m not too keen on it myself. It’s a bit like this one. (male pseudohermaphroditism). Mine’s the much rarer female version.

It’s not something I’m proud of. Nor ashamed of. Just embarrassed, really. I suspect your reaction to it might be more akin to a mixture of nausea and disbelief. If so - I don’t blame you.

 

[ForeverGrace]

Equal rights and civil rights??? You must have missed the part in the BlueJackets Manual that made it quite clear that you have NO constitutional RIGHT to serve in the Armed Forces. Did you also miss the part about what the military finds as unacceptable to serve? How about giving up some of your Constitutional rights when you raised your right hand and said the oath?

You have no right to join the Armed Forces. It is a priviledge to serve and it is not granted to everyone. Some for moral reasons, some for medical or health reasons. They can throw you out if you are anorexic, bulimic, sleep-walk or even having too many dependents. The idea is to minimize disruptions not create more.

Divorce… yep God hates it, but allowed for it. It is certainly not the ideal, but it doesn’t necessary lend itself to any sexual deviancy.

I accept that due to the fall, the genetic code has become corrupted and all manner of irregularities occur. But that does not account for acting sinfully. Yep, the military is full of liars, just look at some of our most beloved Catholic and Protestant Senators? But if you lie about anything having to do with national security, they are discharged. The issue is not if one sin is worse than another, the issue is the nature of the sin. God made us men and women for a reason and he never intended for us to cross those lines. In the service you often live where you work. This is yet another burden we do not need. Despite the fact that women are serving well onboard ships, there is no avoiding the fact that their mere presence has added significantly more problems.

You are aware that the Vatican has granted medical personnel, serving on the battle ground, the priviledge to provide the last rites of the church if there is no clergy available. Should we allow that to continue if we are certain that a dying member is living in a homosexual relationship? I don’t think in good conscience I could do that.

It’s not about anyone’s rights. It’s all about the nature of the job and all of the intracacies that are involved.

 

[hosemonkey]

So it’s not the aspect of sin you object to, it’s that they personally disgust you. Or rather, you object to the sin too, just as you object to divorce, but that’s not the real reason, the instinctive revulsion is.

You’re not alone in that view, I share it myself to some degree. I just don’t see that my personal views should be a criterion for military service, or civil rights. Any more than someone’s personal discomfort about being around someone with a different skin colour should be taken into account.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

You are aware that the Vatican has granted medical personnel, serving on the battle ground, the priviledge to provide the last rites of the church if there is no clergy available. Should we allow that to continue if we are certain that a dying member is living in a homosexual relationship? I don’t think in good conscience I could do that.

I feel sorry for you then. That you feel that this particular sin is unforgiveable. I think your belief is contrary to Church teaching too. May I suggest that you contact a priest about it?

 

[Zoe_Brain]

One’s skin color is something that one has no control over, one’s sexual practices are a matter of choice and can be controlled.

So you choose to be straight? You feel an attraction to the same sex, but do not act on it? Are you bisexual, but act straight because you find gay behaviour disgusting?

Or is that something unimaginable to you? You were born straight, and could not be attracted to other men to save your life? That you have no more choice over who you’re attracted to - as opposed to how you behave - than you have over breathing?

I find that those who claim that it’s a choice for others vehemently deny that it’s a choice for themselves. Perhaps you will be the first exception. But if not - what makes you think that a completely Gay man has any more of a choice about who they’re attracted to than you do? Behaviour is a different matter of course. There’s many straight men in the priesthood who are celibate.

 

[Wooly_Wolf]

I would say without a doubt, my political and religious views clash far less with a black soldier than with a gay one. Considering how important these two views are to an individual, having too large of a difference between comrades will cause clashes in close living environments, directly effecting morale and unit cohesion. And there are way more “homophobes” in the military than in the civilian worlds. I would say a good 30% of my BCT company showered with their underwear on so dudes wouldn’t look at their privates. What do you think is going to happen when you let OPENLY gay people in? I sure wouldn’t feel comfortable showering in the nude with them, and I would wager most young, heterosexual males wouldn’t feel comfortable about it either.

As I said previously, I think CS and CSS units could be integrated fairly easily, but not Combat Arms. If Congress does decide to force this upon the military, I hope that they don’t let the gays in CA MOS’s.

Also why is that the people who are the most vocal about letting gays in the military seem to be ones who haven’t raised their right hands? Considering that many in our all volunteer military tend to have more conservative leanings, is it as surprise that we feel this way? If anything, the liberals should blame themselves for this current situation, since they too cowardly to serve our nation in great enough numbers to influence change from the inside.

 

[Lypher]

Even though it destroys morale and costs lives?

More often than not those that want to get rid of DADT have never served and care very little to the costs for the majority of those that do. They are concerned with a few that want to change the many…

 

[hosemonkey]

So you choose

to be straight? You feel an attraction to the same sex, but do not act on it? Are you bisexual, but act straight because you find gay behaviour disgusting?

Or is that something unimaginable to you? You were born straight, and could not be attracted to other men to save your life? That you have no more choice over who you’re attracted to - as opposed to how you behave - than you have over breathing?

I find that those who claim that it’s a choice for others vehemently deny that it’s a choice for themselves. Perhaps you will be the first exception. But if not - what makes you think that a completely Gay man has any more of a choice about who they’re attracted to than you do? Behaviour is a different matter of course. There’s many straight men in the priesthood who are celibate.

Read the post again. I said one’s sexual PRACTICES are a matter of choice and can be controlled. I did not say “one’s sexual attractions”. What goes on inside your head is known to no one but yourself. If you do not blab the fact that you find Henry Kissinger maddenly sexy, no one will know.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

If you do not blab the fact that you find Henry Kissinger maddenly sexy, no one will know.

You guessed my guilty secret! Darn!

Also why is that the people who are the most vocal about letting gays in the military seem to be ones who haven’t raised their right hands? Considering that many in our all volunteer military tend to have more conservative leanings, is it as surprise that we feel this way? If anything, the liberals should blame themselves for this current situation, since they too cowardly to serve our nation in great enough numbers to influence change from the inside.

It’s not cowardice as such, it’s worse than that. A disdain for all things patriotic. An attitude that the military is ipso facto bad, bigoted, ignorant and evil. “Duty, Honor, Country” means nothing to them.

Yes, I blame “liberals”, “progressives” or what-have-you, especially in academe, for their constant denigration of the military, so much so that many going into West Point are home-schooled Flat-Earth Young Earth Creationists, well versed in the King James Bible, but with woeful ignorance about the world in general. I think this is most unhealthy for the Republic.

I think also that the US armed forces, and the officer corps in particular, will have an uncomfortably large proportion of Dominionists in the next 20 years. Those who put God’s Law above Man’s, and if given the choice between defending the Bible or the Constitution, will defend the former, and destroy the latter.

I place the blame not on them. I place it squarely on the shoulders of those who prefer politically correct moral purity, sanctimony, over practical measures to help. The same kind of attitude that let the Fascist regimes grow in the 1930s, with effects we’re all aware of. Having a POTUS that is openly contemptuous of the Military doesn’t help either. It’s no accident that the callsign of the Secretary of State’s helo was “Broomstick One” either.

Too many on the Left are like those wanting to eat meat - but contemptuous of butchers for killing animals. Hypocrites.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
George Orwell

I’ll get off my soapbox now. Sorry, this is a sore point with me.:banghead: