Gays In The Military

[larkin31]

In an earlier post, I accused liberals of using homosexuals to weaken the U.S. military in order to weaken the whole country vis-à-vis the world. But what about homosexuals themselves? What do they gain? Over forty years have passed since the infamous Stonewall riots of 1969 in New York, the Lexington and Concord of the homosexual liberation movement. During that time, homosexuals have carved out for themselves public spaces in every major American city, and many of the minor ones as well. They have had the chance to create whatever they wanted in those spaces, and what have they created? New spaces for locating sex partners. The military will be another one of those spaces. Imagine if heterosexuals joined the military for the main purpose of locating sex partners, and you can see how undisciplined it would be. And why is discipline so important? As Rush says, “the military exists to break things and kill people.” But what things and what people loom large in this mission, for there is a thing called the Law of Armed Conflict [LOAC], the aim of which is to limit death and destruction as much as possible, especially to non-combatants and non-war related property. The U.S. has agreed to this treaty; and in addition, every time a stray American bullet so much as chips a piece of plaster off the dome of some holy rock or other, the press has a field day. When and where to start “breaking things and killing people” has to be commenced after careful planning, as does when to stop. Coincidentally, the LOAC requires legitimate combatants to be under a responsible chain of command. None of this would work if the effort were charged to people whose main purpose is to locate their next sex partner, heterosexual or otherwise.

This issue is also not about their so-called “rights” or “fairness” either. Whether military service is a “right” in the usual sense of a negative right is one thing, but what is meant here is that homosexuals want your very soul. It’s not something I dreamed up, but it is what they have finally admitted.
Paraphrasing what has been observed about another social issue:

This post isn’t about the topic of gays in the military at all. But nice rant.

 

[larkin31]

Then I guess you are a proponent of having both men and women mixed in the squad bays, barracks, showers, etc.

the topic is “gays in the military”

 

[anns82]

Life has its challenges. Service is voluntary.

Yes, service is voluntary. If someone believes public acknowledgment of their sexuality is more important than an efficient and effective military, then joining the military is not the job/life for that person. Life has it’s challenges. Service is voluntary.

 

[larkin31]

Yes, service is voluntary. If someone believes public acknowledgment of their sexuality is more important than an efficient and effective military, then joining the military is not the job/life for that person. Life has it’s challenges. Service is voluntary.

Just tell heteros the same thing: they can never mention a girlfriend, never discuss a hot female soldier, never reveal a picture of a wife.

Well, only if you think that overt references to sexuality have no place in the military because they might make another soldier uncomfortable in the shower. Or mess. Or barracks. Or base. Or wherever.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Life has its challenges. Service is voluntary.

Now you have led us to this: less people will join the military. Less will join because they will not shower with people that find them attractive. Therefore, should military policy consider this?

I would also like to add that the near occasion of sin is an issue from a moral point of view.

 

[larkin31]

Now you have led us to this: less people will join the military. Less will join because they will not shower with people that find them attractive. Therefore, should military policy consider this?

That’s a stupid reason not to serve. Good riddance.

 

[bmadamsberry]

That’s a stupid reason not to serve. Good riddance.

HA HA HA. Sinking to simply stating that an idea is stupid.

 

[ERose]

the topic is “gays in the military”

The same applies. Tell me what is the difference if you place heteosexual women in an environment with heteosexual men, where either frequently or infrequently there will be moments where some level of nudity is required such as showering, using the toilet, changing cloths, etc. than if you place openly homosexual men with heteosexual men? Absolutely no difference. So from your arguments I have to assume that either would be fine with you.

 

[larkin31]

HA HA HA. Sinking to simply stating that an idea is stupid.

What’s wrong with it? You gave no reason other than “uncomfortable.” The military gives little accommodation for “uncomfortable.” So good riddance.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Just tell heteros the same thing: they can never mention a girlfriend, never discuss a hot female soldier, never reveal a picture of a wife.

Well, only if you think that overt references to sexuality have no place in the military because they might make another soldier uncomfortable in the shower. Or mess. Or barracks. Or base. Or wherever.

You… just… don’t… get it.

Would YOU join a club, orgainization, or anything else if it ment being put in a situation where you had to shower with someone that would look at your naked body and possibley lustfully and/or in a sexual way?

 

[bmadamsberry]

What’s wrong with it? You gave no reason other than “uncomfortable.” The military gives little accommodation for “uncomfortable.” So good riddance.

I thought we had talked about where this kind of uncomfortableness leads… but wait, you must just not have been paying attention. Let me remind you, then: it’s the matter that I would not, and many other would not, join something if I had to be exposed to situations like that one. Furthermore, I have a right if I’m working in the job to not be put in that situation (showering with someone that finds me attractive sexually).

 

[larkin31]

The same applies. Tell me what is the difference if you place heteosexual women in an environment with heteosexual men, where either frequently or infrequently there will be moments where some level of nudity is required such as showering, using the toilet, changing cloths, etc. than if you place openly homosexual men with heteosexual men? Absolutely no difference.

I already stated the difference above. No one has claimed what is wrong in what I stated.

straights are attracted to straights

gays to gays

if you are claiming that no one can share a bathroom with someone that they find attractive and you know that they have no interest in you, then I want to know just how you think that people act on impressions of attractiveness. I work with all sorts of people whom I find attractive. I have shared hot tubs with them. I would never say a word or gesture of inappropriateness with them, because I would be fired. Why can’t the military do the same thing? I have worked with gays. I could not care less what they personally think of my physical attractiveness. Who does? Why would anyone, who has any maturity, care or worry about that? You do your business, you get out, you go about your work. Just like a family.

 

[hosemonkey]

Does anyone remember that homosexuality is ABNORMAL and that heterosexuality is NORMAL? Why must normal people co-exist with abnormal people in the military context? All this talk about normal men having to not show pictures of spouses or girlfriends or post pin-ups etc is nonsense. They are simply exibiting normal behavior. Male or female homosexuals oogling one another or pictures of same-sex people are exibiting normal behavior for them, but abnormal behavior for everyone else. Homos have always been in society and certainly in the military. Again I say, keep it very private and nobody knows, fine. Start acting like a fairy, go to the brig and get kicked out, your choice. Don’t inflict your perversion on normal people and don’t whine for special treatment.

 

[larkin31]

I thought we had talked about where this kind of uncomfortableness leads… but wait, you must just not have been paying attention. Let me remind you, then: it’s the matter that I would not, and many other would not, join something if I had to be exposed to situations like that one. Furthermore, I have a right if I’m working in the job to not be put in that situation (showering with someone that finds me attractive sexually).

Which “right” is that?

 

[larkin31]

Does anyone remember that homosexuality is ABNORMAL and that heterosexuality is NORMAL? Why must normal people co-exist with abnormal people in the military context? All this talk about normal men having to not show pictures of spouses or girlfriends or post pin-ups etc is nonsense. They are simply exibiting normal behavior. Male or female homosexuals oogling one another or pictures of same-sex people are exibiting normal behavior for them, but abnormal behavior for everyone else. Homos have always been in society and certainly in the military. Again I say, keep it very private and nobody knows, fine. Start acting like a fairy, go to the brig and get kicked out, your choice. Don’t inflict your perversion on normal people and don’t whine for special treatment.

Sounds fine. Just hold heteros to the same standards and stop making excuses for behavior equally as bad.

 

[anns82]

Just tell heteros the same thing: they can never mention a girlfriend, never discuss a hot female soldier, never reveal a picture of a wife.

Well, only if you think that overt references to sexuality have no place in the military because they might make another soldier uncomfortable in the shower. Or mess. Or barracks. Or base. Or wherever.

Heterosexual relationships do not effect the efficiency or the effectiveness of the military. A portion of the military being openly gay would effect things such as living quarters, showering, etc, let alone the “sensitivity courses” in order to see these changes through. The paranoia of someone wondering if their sexuality, whether gay or straight, has an effect on the persons treatment by others (as is the case of women in the military) would open up a door to division through discrimination accusations.

To say nothing would be different is sticking your head in the sand to the reality of human nature.

Making decisions on DADT before the studies are completed and a full understanding of it’s effects is wrong to force on the military community.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Sounds fine. Just hold heteros to the same standards and stop making excuses for behavior equally as bad.

I do… as I have continously stated

 

[bmadamsberry]

Which “right” is that?

The right not to have my nude body viewed in a sexual way. A right to dignity.

 

[RHC]

This is what southern whites said about the northern opposition to slavery: “You don’t know us, you don’t know our economy, you don’t know blacks.”

What a completely unrelated post! This had to do with gays being open in the military because…?? Can we say, “Red herring”?

Of course, when all else fails, bring racism/slavery in. Even if it’s completely unrelated to the topic at hand, it’s the trump card. As I have stated above, sexual orientation is not the same as race/ethnicity. This is comparing apples to potatoes.

A serious question, Larkin31 - have you ever served in the military?

 

[ERose]

I already stated the difference above. No one has claimed what is wrong in what I stated.

straights are attracted to straights

gays to gays

if you are claiming that no one can share a bathroom with someone that they find attractive and you know that they have no interest in you, then I want to know just how you think that people act on impressions of attractiveness. I work with all sorts of people whom I find attractive. I have shared hot tubs with them. I would never say a word or gesture of inappropriateness with them, because I would be fired. Why can’t the military do the same thing? I have worked with gays. I could not care less what they personally think of my physical attractiveness. Who does? Why would anyone, who has any maturity, care or worry about that? You do your business, you get out, you go about your work. Just like a family.

I disagree with you on the above concept that gays are attracted to only gays and straights are attacted to only straights anyway. That makes absolutely no since. If I see a very good looking gay woman I am going to be attacted to her. Same way gay men or women can be attacted to straight men and women. Personally I do not care about the attractiveness argument. What I care about is it appropiate? The answer is no.