Gays In The Military

[RHC]

This is not true. You CAN and must explain. It is your obligation in terms of defending policy. Leaders MUST and DO explain. If you can’t, then find someone who can.

This has been done, over and over, in this thread. I refer you to my post #256 for a start to some of the problems this will cause. You will also see some further down on that page by Lypher.

 

[PatriceA]

This is not true. You CAN and must explain. It is your obligation in terms of defending policy. Leaders MUST and DO explain. If you can’t, then find someone who can.

I can’t, because I’m not that articulate. I do know someone who can, my husband, but hey he’s off training military people right now so he’ll get back to you as soon as he can.

Still you avoid the question of whether you’ve ever served or been at a job that was just as dangerous.

And by the way, I don’t need a police officer to explain to me all the dangers of his job before I get the idea that I may not fully understand his job and can’t say what would or would not put his life more in danger. I would have to listen to his opinion and take it into consideration.

 

[RHC]

surrounded by 40 or so gays? No, I don’t. Soldiers don’t either. Soldiers can’t handle sleeping, cleaning, and fighting next to gays in a ratio of, say, 3 out of every 100? That seems ridiculous to me. I want to hear WHY NOT. What is this really about? Are gays not trusted to fight well, defend their country? Take a bullet for their squadmate?

The grammar clearly indicated “co-workers,” not “gays,” was the noun referenced by that pronoun. Clearly it was meant to show that you cannot equate office work with military combat.

You are intent on repeating the same talking points, over and over. It has already been proven that gays can and are trusted to defend their country.

Frankly, I am done with discussing this with you. You are presenting circular arguments that do not address any substantive data, are disregarding the voices of experience, and are clearly intent on pushing your argument that to oppose DADT is homophobic.

 

[ERose]

surrounded by 40 or so gays? No, I don’t. Soldiers don’t either. Soldiers can’t handle sleeping, cleaning, and fighting next to gays in a ratio of, say, 3 out of every 100? That seems ridiculous to me. I want to hear WHY NOT. What is this really about? Are gays not trusted to fight well, defend their country? Take a bullet for their squadmate?

You might as well make it co-ed. Your same arguments apply. You want us to give you a good argument but I have not seen a good argument from you yet except for why not? Give me an argument for why that makes since. Anybody can be a nay-sayer.

 

[ERose]

The grammar clearly indicated “co-workers,” not “gays,” was the noun referenced by that pronoun. Clearly it was meant to show that you cannot equate office work with military combat.

You are intent on repeating the same talking points, over and over. It has already been proven that gays can and are trusted to defend their country.

Frankly, I am done with discussing this with you. You are presenting circular arguments that do not address any substantive data, are disregarding the voices of experience, and are clearly intent on pushing your argument that to oppose DADT is homophobic.

I agree. I think I am done as well with this poster. He does not bring anything new to the discussion.

 

[hosemonkey]

Again, we have people who have opinions on everything and expertise on nothing commenting on issues that they have never and will never experience. I have lived in spaces the size of your bathroom, literally, with 12 other men, aboard ship. I lived in a space the size of your living room, literally, with 150 other men. Sailors on some submarines used to “hot-bunk”, sharing a bunk. While one man was on watch, the other slept in the bunk. Not enough space for each man to have his own bed. I spent a year with 4 other sailors on a 32 foot boat, 24/7. mostly half-naked in the heat and humidity of Vietnam, sharing everything, including our blood and our last dry cigarette. Gays can not be a part of that. It is the place of the military to decide these issues, not some Liberal with a shaky sense of morals and honor to stuff a repugnant group of people down our throats and expect us to meekly accept it. Serving in the military is not a civil right, it is a duty and an honor for those who are not afflicted by a disgusting abnormality.

 

[anns82]

I agree. And each president that has looked into this has consulted the leaders of the military. This is not in question.

Yet they don’t want to wait until the study on the military effects of this issue is completed in Dec.

I look forward to this thread resuming when that is published.

 

[jbowler]

Again, we have people who have opinions on everything and expertise on nothing commenting on issues that they have never and will never experience. I have lived in spaces the size of your bathroom, literally, with 12 other men, aboard ship. I lived in a space the size of your living room, literally, with 150 other men. Sailors on some submarines used to “hot-bunk”, sharing a bunk. While one man was on watch, the other slept in the bunk. Not enough space for each man to have his own bed. I spent a year with 4 other sailors on a 32 foot boat, 24/7. mostly naked in the heat and humidity of Vietnam, sharing everything, including our blood and our last dry cigarette. Gays can not be a part of that. It is the place of the military to decide these issues, not some Liberal with a shaky sense of morals and honor to stuff a repugnant group of people down our throats and expect us to meekly accept it. Serving in the military is not a civil right, it is a duty and an honor for those who are not afflicted by a disgusting abnormality.

I also was in the US Navy for 10 years. 7-1/2 of them on ships. I know exactly what the conditions are. Gays not only can be part of that, lots and lots and lots of them have been and are now and will continue to be. One thing I am damned certain of is that if the US ever gets into or is threatened with another major war and the decision is taken to reinstitute the draft, no one is going to get out of it simply by saying they’re gay.

 

[ERose]

I also was in the US Navy for 10 years. 7-1/2 of them on ships. I know exactly what the conditions are. Gays not only can be part of that, lots and lots and lots of them have been and are now and will continue to be. One thing I am damned certain of is that if the US ever gets into or is threatened with another major war and the decision is taken to reinstitute the draft, no one is going to get out of it simply by saying they’re gay.

I remember one year when we were about to deploy on a West Pack and the deployment was delayed by a day due to finding two squids (what us marines call you sailors) in one of the ammo rooms going at it. That is the type of behavior and discipline that the military wants in its combat arms? I do not think so.

 

[jbowler]

I remember one year when we were about to deploy on a West Pack and the deployment was delayed by a day due to finding two squids (what us marines call you sailors) in one of the ammo rooms going at it. That is the type of behavior and discipline that the military wants in its combat arms? I do not think so.

I am quite aware that having sex (hetero or homo) on a ship is against the regulations, although I am rather sceptical if two heteros caught in flagrante delicto would be summarily discharged. By the way, I knew a number of gay jarheads (what us sailors call you marines) when I was in.

 

[PatriceA]

I am quite aware that having sex (hetero or homo) on a ship is against the regulations, although I am rather sceptical if two heteros caught in flagrante delicto would be summarily discharged. By the way, I knew a number of gay jarheads (what us sailors call you marines) when I was in.

Two heterosexual soldiers in my husband unit were not allowed to deploy with his unit when they were sent to Iraq last year because they were having a relationship.

 

[jbowler]

Two heterosexual soldiers in my husband unit were not allowed to deploy with his unit when they were sent to Iraq last year because they were having a relationship.

Were they discharged? I think that getting sexually or emotionally involved with someone in your unit is at best unprofessional, and I think against the regulations if they are in your chain-of-command.

 

[PatriceA]

Were they discharged? I think that getting sexually or emotionally involved with someone in your unit is at best unprofessional, and I think against the regulations if they are in your chain-of-command.

I am not sure to be honest. Our focus, me and my husband’s, became about the deployment and not what was happening here stateside.

 

[jbowler]

I am not sure to be honest. Our focus, me and my husband’s, became about the deployment and not what was happening here stateside.

That sounds very much like the military I was in. Concentrate on the job at hand and don’t worry too much about the things you can’t do anything about anyway.

 

[Lypher]

I agree with ERose, I would like to know what those who are in the military think.

Thank you…for caring…Please read my posts and you will have ther perspectives of at least one member.

Take care,

 

[larkin31]

I can’t, because I’m not that articulate. I do know someone who can, my husband, but hey he’s off training military people right now so he’ll get back to you as soon as he can.

Still you avoid the question of whether you’ve ever served or been at a job that was just as dangerous.

And by the way, I don’t need a police officer to explain to me all the dangers of his job before I get the idea that I may not fully understand his job and can’t say what would or would not put his life more in danger. I would have to listen to his opinion and take it into consideration.

No, I have not.

But there are service personnel here who agree with me. And service personnel in advisory roles to the president who agree with me.

Only one person here is even trying to argue WHY gays can’t be in the military and his only argument is that gays are not deserving of the honor and would, basically, degrade the squad.

And there you have it. Homophobic disgust.

The only other argument given here has been “uncomfortableness” of bathrooms and showers.

 

[larkin31]

I also was in the US Navy for 10 years. 7-1/2 of them on ships. I know exactly what the conditions are. Gays not only can be part of that, lots and lots and lots of them have been and are now and will continue to be. One thing I am damned certain of is that if the US ever gets into or is threatened with another major war and the decision is taken to reinstitute the draft, no one is going to get out of it simply by saying they’re gay.

This makes sense, and although I have not been in any of the armed services, we all know through the testimony of others that many many have served dutifully and honorably and were understood to be gay by other service men and women and who were easily tolerated because there was no sexual activity between them that was not beyond the typical banter between adults.

 

[PatriceA]

No, I have not.

But there are service personnel here who agree with me. And service personnel in advisory roles to the president who agree with me.

Only one person here is even trying to argue WHY gays can’t be in the military and his only argument is that gays are not deserving of the honor and would, basically, degrade the squad.

And there you have it. Homophobic disgust.

The only other argument given here has been “uncomfortableness” of bathrooms and showers.

Only one?? You sure have a funny way of keeping count.

 

[larkin31]

I am not sure to be honest. Our focus, me and my husband’s, became about the deployment and not what was happening here stateside.

This is reasonable too, as in any job: be professional, be dutiful, and avoid sexual misconduct of any kind.

 

[larkin31]

Only one?? You sure have a funny way of keeping count.