Gays In The Military

[Lypher]

Our chaplains walk a fine line right now. For example, if a Catholic priest/chaplain is approached by a Wiccan, and the Wiccan asks him to help with finding a Wiccan coven, the chaplain is bound to do that. Now, the priest/chaplain doesn’t have to perform Wiccan rites, but he cannot speak against them. .

Exactly

All faiths have the right to worship, but there are significant conflicts between some of them. When you start adding same-sex marriage in…well, no one knows what the parameters would be. Would it be an EO violation to refuse to marry a same-sex couple? Again, logistical nightmare…

Yep…In the Navy I think it will be…

No one said they cannot serve. In fact, my husband serves with people he knows are gay. No one talks about it; we don’t ask, and they don’t tell. They are good soldiers, and they do their jobs well. And they leave their sexual practices at home. And it works. .

**The same for me however under the new rules they will be allowed to bring them to work… what will a return home be like? Will you want your kids there to watch? **

If this were true, then DADT wouldn’t need to change. Currently, they can be gay. They can have partners. They can live off-post with their partners, if they want. This isn’t about that. This is about them having acceptance like married heterosexual people. They have failed to get general acceptance of gay marriage in the civilian world (most states don’t recognize gay marriage), so now they are pushing it in the military. .

My Previous points exactly…

It will be a problem if they make it an EO violation to say that homosexuality is wrong. What will our Catholic priests do? Or even the Protestant chaplains who don’t condone this? Will they be forbidden to tell their faithful that homosexuality is disordered? Will they be muzzled by “equal opportunity”? We don’t know…that’s the problem. No one knows how this will play out. .

**This is the biggest concern that I have. **

Where is it a right to trumpet your sexuality? Is that in the Bill of Rights, and I missed it? Why do they have to let EVERYONE know they are gay? Why can’t they just be what they are and not push it on the rest of us? No one said they can’t love someone of the same sex. No one said they can’t live with them (off-post). But that’s not enough. They want to push for marriage and being able to tell everyone, “I’m gay!” .

Your later point is why they must be allowed to trumpet this. It is all part of the overall plan to get states to accept it. What happens when a legally married Gay couple moves from one base to a base in a state that does not recognize it?

Furthermore, I suspect that the gay activists will use the military’s acceptance of gay marriage to push it on the states. Marriage will be redefined in their own image. Just watch. Today, the military. Tomorrow, the country…

Yep…

No matter what happens we will see a change. The questions should be:

---

**Is this the kind of experiment we want to make on the military? **
**Do we want to move conservatives out of the services? **
**Maybe we no longer want the type of military we currently have? **
What is the end state or desire of those pushing the changes?

---

We will see what happens. Hopefully those families that do not want to live near openly gay couples won’t have to, but I doubt it. I wonder what will happen when a neighbor kids says something. Will the military parent be forced to correct (Punish) the child or will the entire family be evicted?

 

[Booklover]

I voted NO on the poll. Serving in the military is a privilege and not a right. Today anything anyone wants to do or to have becomes a “right” to have or to do.

Why We Must Oppose the Homosexual Agenda for the Military

Statement of Col. John W. Ripley before the House Armed Services Committee

In 1987 gay-activist Michael Swift wrote in the Homosexual Manifesto:

“We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They shall be recast in our image. They will come to crave us and adore us.”

Can we allow those who think this way to “serve” in our military?

Vickie

 

[lynx]

IIn 1987 gay-activist Michael Swift wrote in the Homosexual Manifesto:

“We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They shall be recast in our image. They will come to crave us and adore us.”

Can we allow those who think this way to “serve” in our military?

Vickie

Wow. Do you honestly think this is how gay people think and behave? Have you ever talked to or met a homosexual? This nonsense is positively outrageous. For any rational person to see truth in this statement, and then apply it to all members of said group, blows my mind. This is just propaganda garbage of the worst kind

 

[Lypher]

Wow. Do you honestly think this is how gay people think and behave? Have you ever talked to or met a homosexual? This nonsense is positively outrageous. For any rational person to see truth in this statement, and then apply it to all members of said group, blows my mind. This is just propaganda garbage of the worst kind

You know you might have a point here…But if we could find a gay activist web site that was pushing this garbage do you suppose we should give it any more credence then those people that ignored the meandering trash in Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kempf after all when that manifesto came out nobody in their right mind believed such horrors could be done?

What if Hitler would have opened up his book with the lines…??

“This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.”

Because it was a fantasy would it lesson the horror of what could be…what might be…what was to be, after all for most sane people it was only a fantasy?

Oh…shoot…I found a Gay Activist site…that has this on it. It is a pretty “Mainstream” Gay rights group… the Rainbow Alliance…should we believe them when they publish these things?

rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/GayAgendaSwiftText.html

The Alliance says the Christian right never puts in the disclaimer that this is only the wishful thinkings of what could be done if given the power to do so…

They say the FAR right always leaves out the following lines…

“This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.”

As they say we need to remember this is only a dream, a fantasy of what could be if given the reality of the dream…

And yes…I realize not all Gays believe this dribble…neither did all Germans believe Adolf’s…But a few were enough to change the world…

 

[Monte_RCMS]

More: high incidence of AIDS:

aim.org/aim-column/saving-soldiers-from-gay-death/

 

[Booklover]

Wow. Do you honestly think this is how gay people think and behave? Have you ever talked to or met a homosexual? This nonsense is positively outrageous. For any rational person to see truth in this statement, and then apply it to all members of said group, blows my mind. This is just propaganda garbage of the worst kind

Yes, I’ve met and worked with homosexuals and they were not flaunting their homosexuality or going on about “gay pride” or any of those things, but times have changed and laws are being enacted that would force the “gay rights” agenda on all of us. The hate crimes bill is just the beginning. As I already mentioned, Chai Feldblum the original author of ENDA, thinks that sexual freedom trumps religious freedom. Is that just?

Vickie

 

[ERose]

Here is the problem with have open gays in the military. What will you do with them? When I was in the Marines there was a significant amount of time that we spent in shared squad bays, which was an open large room with bunks and lockers in them. You share showers and bathrooms with about 40-60 other men and that was how you lived. Personnally I would not have felt comfortable taking a shower next to an openly gay guy and neither would have been any other Marine. So you would have had to separate them from the rest of the platoon which definitely effects comradity. Whenever we here in barracks which was like living in apartments you still had to share a living space with up to 3 other Marines so you would still have the same problem. What are you going to do then? If you have one gay Marine are you going to give him his own room by himself? That would definitely isolate him from the rest of the unit.

I guess the best way to look at this is would you think that it would be appropiate to put both men and women in the same squad bays and barracks without concern of segragation? Men and women sharing the same showers, bathrooms, living space? Would any woman posting on this subject feel comfortable living with 40-50 men? Knowing that everytime she showers there are going to be young men getting a peepshow? I hate to say this but not every Marine or soldier is a saint.

Now throw a openly gay man in a squad bay with 40-50 straight young men. Will this gay man ever feel comfortable knowing that he never completely fit in with the rest of the platoon?

Now you say what it the difference. I am pretty sure that there one or two gay guys in our company, but we didn’t know. So if I am showering and a gay guy that I do not know is gay comes in to shower at the same time I do how will it effect my comfort or his? It doesn’t does it.

Just a view from someone who has been there.

 

[Eire]

The question was: Should gays be allowed in the military? However that started a diatribe on the sinfulness of homosexuality and lesbianism. Neither of these are sinful. A persons sexual preferences is not sinful. However, if that preference is acted out with sexual relations…that is an abomination and a serious sin! If a gay person is in the military and does not engage in sexual satisfaction then he or she can serve as well as anyone else.
Anyway, that’s the way I see it.

 

[sedonaman]

From “The Writings of George Washington From The Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799;” John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor:
“Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778: At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose” [emphasis in the original].

theamericanview.com/index.php?id=761

 

[John_Pascendi]

well lets see…that means that guys who are turned on sexually only by other guys may now live,and bathe and go to the latrine,side by side!..mmmm.and what of we ‘straights’ …golly,we get turned on by only females and now we are deprived for we cant have females living next to us in the same barracks…also going to the showers,latrine etc…where are my civil rights he asks??? Do hospitals still refuse blood from an admitted homosexual…why? When police have to police an obvious or advertised gay (luv that word) demo they wear gloves and masks etc…wonder why?..I know of a life guard who ,when having to do duty on a local homosexual beach here on Long Island,refuses to give mouth to mouth resusitation (spellin’) …wonder why…and what of that blood when one is wounded in battle…these questions I know are not allowed to be brought into this discussion,the usual buzz attack words are always used…but really,if I hear that now women will be allowed in the same barracks at we doughboys…where can I sign up sarg.?

 

[Sharpguard]

I’d definitely support it, I see no issue there, someone should be able to serve their country no matter what their sexual orientation.

 

[hosemonkey]

I’d definitely support it, I see no issue there, someone should be able to serve their country no matter what their sexual orientation.

Let the military services determine who will serve, not a bunch of civilians who have no idea of what life in the military is like. If you have never served in the military, shut up and let those who must deal with these questions every day decide. Limp-wristed liberals and armchair social engineers, BACK OFF! You are what is wrong with this country now. “Gays” keep it under your hat and in your pants, the normal folk do not need to know about your perversion.

 

[DOShea]

As everyone already knows, gays do serve in the military, so it’s not a question of if/not or can/should. They’re already there. The question is should they be allowed to openly declare themselves gay. My question to them is, why do you need to?

Like it or not, this is what will result from forcefully asserting the “right” to declare yourselves openly gay. Somewhere, sometime, someone who is gay is going to get bumped from being eligible for promotion because they don’t “fit” into a preconceived number of gays.

What am I talking about? I’m speaking about this trend our government and its bean-counters (including DoD and service manpower groups) that a statistic over here MUST NECESSARILY relate to something over there. For example, today in the news a US Government leader made the claim that the population of the US is 2% of the world, but we use 20% of the energy - and the claim was made as though there was something WRONG if we used anything but 2%. In other words, our energy use MUST match our population.

Well says who? WHY does that have to be so?

Back to the military: The same minds (or lack thereof) that produce statistical challenges like that are the same ones who right now demand that if X percent of a command is male, Y percent is female, then ALL performance must closely match that ratio. If you have a bunch of inept men, too bad, X percent of them will get the top evaluation and Y percent of females will. It doesn’t matter how well each performs. If CO’s do stray off these percentages, they are questioned and they better have a really good reason. Because of that, they don’t stray.

This already happens with male/female, white/black/hispanic/asian/other, and any other distinction that is made.

Now enter gays openly declared.

Now when fitness reports come due, we’ll need to know how many gays are in society as a whole. NOT just how many are attached to the unit, how many in society. If 10% (to use round numbers) is gay, then 10% of your top performers will be gays, whether they are top performers or not. Important to note here is that IF gays represent 50% of the top performers, still only 10% of them are going to get good grades. It’s because of the unsound assumed statistical relationship mentioned above.

Every time you add another category with which to “slice” up the pie, the same group of people get more and more divided. The real world doesn’t work like like the statistics of a census does, but it will be mandated to work that way, fair to gays or NOT fair to gays.

How were our promotions this year, General? What percent of gays were promoted? Did it match the percentage of gays in society? Well why not, General? No flag officer wants to get drawn into that conversation with any member of a congressional committee, so they will move heaven and earth to make sure the answer is always “yes, they matched almost exactly.”

I’ll leave it to the reader to try and figure out how that process is fair, and why we would want to add to the problems it already causes ONLY so a gay can stand up and say “I’m gay.”

 

[Wooly_Wolf]

I’d definitely support it, I see no issue there, someone should be able to serve their country no matter what their sexual orientation.

There are many other ways to serve ones country other than the military. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, and I, nor do any of my friends from my time in the Army, feel there is anything wrong with the current DADT policy. Letting gays serve openly serves NO purpose other than letting the liberals who have NOT SERVED feel better about themselves for furthering “equality”.

 

[joenjanel]

It’s my understanding that the Church views homosexuality as an illness. It’s is not natural or God’s plan. The don’t ask don’t tell policy handeled things in the most “PC” manner. It gave those with desire to serve their country the right to join and serve. It kept our service men and women’s mind and strength on their missions. I know personnally that there will be a struggle in military society if it becomes open. Straight men have no intention of sleeping and bathing with “homos”. The living conditions and reality of situations need to be the front of this issue. As a society, as God’s people, we should make it openly clear that homosexuality is not right or natural in His plan and not accept it just because todays society is puttig the pressure on. We should always be open to helping those suffering from homosexuality our full support to be healed.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

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

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

 

[bmadamsberry]

I said no, mainly because I’m thinking of the OTHER soldiers. As a man, I would find it awkward to do things such as shower with a women in the same room, simply because there is the good possibility that one or both of us would find the other attractive (in more of a lustful way).
In the same way, I would hate to shower in the same room as a homosexual man because he might find me attractive. I don’t want people looking at my body in that way. Other people would be forced into that situation if don’t ask, don’t tell was revoked. There are many other technical issues, like this one, that would have to be worked out (and I don’t see them being able to be worked out).

 

[sedonaman]

… If you have never served in the military, shut up and let those who must deal with these questions every day decide. …

Mega

 

[sedonaman]

… The same minds (or lack thereof) that produce statistical challenges like that are the same ones who right now demand that if X percent of a command is male, Y percent is female, then ALL performance must closely match that ratio. …

As a former supervisor, I’ve been to these sessions, and they always [with a straight face] tell you that performance evaluations will not fit pre-conceived results – after telling you they must!

 

[ERose]

I believe that only people that never served in the military voted yes in this poll . I am interested if there is a active or former military person who voted yes and why?