Gays In The Military

[phoenixrrt62]

***I am worried about the workplace and the school house and the Exchange, Ball and Homecoming and all the other events in life. This will CHANGE how a military family can raise their children. Graduation Balls on base will be same sex couple so my kids would not go. ***You can say that is a choice and I will say you are right, but that will change the military…

I’m a bit perplexed about the things you mention…then again, I didn’t live on post, and I didn’t have anything to do with the life beyond the duty day, really.

(unless we were in the field, and needless to say, we weren’t having any military balls or knocking back any shots in the field. We were guarding the perimeter or in the ER treating causalities (mock) and REAL patients who were injured during training.)

I suppose I could understand your concern. Me, see, it wouldn’t matter to me, not at all. My kid knows about gays, lesbians, bi, transgendered, bi curious, and does he really care? No.
Know what my kid thinks about? What new video game’s out. What’s going on in the tech world. He thinks Bill Gates is awesome, and Stephen Hawking’s amazing…he loves astronomy…loves to play on his computer. He would give his eye teeth to go to a great school that taught physics and astronomy, oh and computer graphics.
(he’s 12, will be 13).
I would steer my son away from the military, however, for vastly different reasons…but it’s political, so…

I suppose what I’m trying to say (and probably not too terribly well) is that there seems to be a double standard.
Seems as if you are straight, it’s ok to be immoral, well, unless the CO or your platoon sergeant or squad leader wants to make an example of you…(and yeah, I’ve seen that happen, too)…so, if they want to start becoming all moral and righteous, hum, perhaps they might start with all the straight people committing adultery, all the upper NCO’s and CO’s who attempt to sexually harass women, etc…yeah.

Let them start there…then perhaps they can start working on how immoral the gays are.

I can really understand the chaplain’s frustration. He was already muzzled. The earth religions, pantheism, Wiccians, etc. HAD by law to be given acknowledgment, and if they wanted to worship, the chaplain had to accommodate them.
Did he have to perform the service? NO. He did have to give them a place TO worship, though, no matter what he personally felt.

That bothered him. He thought it was of the devil. Me, I disagreed, but…well…I could see why he was upset.
I recall showing him and the chaplain’s assistant the place in one of the manuals that stated the religion and what it consisted of, and, yes, the government saw it as a religion.

I couldn’t begin to say how he felt about gays and lesbians. I haven’t a clue. I’d imagine. he wasn’t too thrilled with the idea.

Now, mind, this was the Protestant chaplain, the Catholic chaplain I rarely saw. He really never asked me to do much of anything for him save for having the list of Catholic soldiers in hospital, was all.
He seemed pretty laid back and approachable, though. I’d venture to say he’d be on his way out the door, anyhow. He’d been in the service a while, far as I could recall. He was a major.

Thing is, if you are a military chaplain, I’d venture to say that you would be taught as a matter of course that you had to at least accommodate all religious beliefs, and, well, you’d be told to be accepting of different sexual orientation/practice, right? If you disagreed, well, guess you aren’t going to serve as a US chaplain, hum?

Wonder what they would do with the chaplains already in the service? Hum.

 

[sedonaman]

"What started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a (Leftist) demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.” – Lawrence Auster

 

[larkin31]

I ran my school’s prom this year. Probably 30% of the kids who attended came solo. Of the rest, probably 6-8 couples were boys bringing boys or girls bringing girls. Most of these were not couples, but rather friends bringing friends. We do not disallow this. Boys dance with boys, girls dance with girls, and boys dance with girls. Kids dance in large groups. No one cares since nearly all of it is just friends having fun with friends. The kids all know what behavior we expect (no obscene dancing, no heavy kissing, etc.) and this applies to all couples. We have gay students who dance with each other, but they do it in the same way that friends do–without fanfare. We have gay students who bring “dates” of the opposite sex. It really is no big deal because the level of decorum that we expect applies to all and makes it comfortable for everyone. I had two couples that I had to speak to about their behavior, and they both were hetero and immediately stopped the grinding.

 

[jbowler]

“The Church is most correct when she says that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered”, which is a polite way of saying that it is twisted and unnatural.”

Like most people who join the military, I did it for a variety of reasons, mostly personal, but one thing I am quite certain I was serving in defense of is a country where I don’t have to live MY life in accordance with the strictures of YOUR religion.

 

[Wooly_Wolf]

Being gay is against natural order as well. It serves NO evolutionary purpose.

Since the civilian government is intent on pushing this through, I hope they at a minimum keep open gays out of combat arms.

 

[larkin31]

Being gay is against natural order as well. It serves NO evolutionary purpose.

Since the civilian government is intent on pushing this through, I hope they at a minimum keep open gays out of combat arms.

Being gay fully serves evolution as much as anything else.

Gays can’t aim? What is your point with THAT remark? Gays are cowards?

 

[larkin31]

I am surprised that on a socially and religiously conservative website, the yeas are still leading the nays. I am surprised that nays aren’t mopping up!

 

[Wooly_Wolf]

Being gay fully serves evolution as much as anything else.

Gays can’t aim? What is your point with THAT remark? Gays are cowards?

Of course not, gays have and will continue to serve our nation honorably in combat. But MOST people in combat arms are very uncomfortable around gays. Its simple fact, you ask any infantryman if he’d serve with an open gay guy, and the majority of the time they’re gonna say no. Why add anything else to already difficult task they have?

As far as the evolution remark, I was merely responding to jbowler’s comments about how she doesn’t want someone’s religious beliefs forced on her. I believed being gay was unnatural long before I believed in a god of any kind, and so did alot of other soldiers I met while in the service.

 

[larkin31]

Of course not, gays have and will continue to serve our nation honorably in combat. But MOST people in combat arms are very uncomfortable around gays. Its simple fact, you ask any infantryman if he’d serve with an open gay guy, and the majority of the time they’re gonna say no. Why add anything else to already difficult task they have?

As far as the evolution remark, I was merely responding to jbowler’s comments about how she doesn’t want someone’s religious beliefs forced on her. I believed being gay was unnatural long before I believed in a god of any kind, and so did alot of other soldiers I met while in the service.

being gay is entirely “natural”

no more “unnatural” than being a red-head

what’s the problem with being around a gay? Will somebody please explain? All of us live and work with them and always have.

 

[soldier88]

…Its simple fact, you ask any infantryman if he’d serve with an open gay guy, and the majority of the time they’re gonna say no. Why add anything else to already difficult task they have?
.

I am a member of the US military in a combat arms position. I can’t speak on behalf of the military or anything like that, but this is my opinion…overall the feedback about this, from my MOS (job in the military-combat engineer, similar to infantry but with demolitions) is a solid no. In our line of work you have to have a very close line of trust with your fellow soldiers that they’ve got your back…with this…its more of…is he watching my back or watching my back.

When I was in basic training I could identify a few individuals who were of that…persuasion. It was extremely awkward showering with them but due to the original “dont ask dont tell” it wasn’t as awkward as it could be. Now that that’s going to be revoked…

Personally I dont care about gays, lesbians, etc as long as I am not bothered or left alone, in the civilian world. The military is different, everyone is in a very close operating environment. Should they be able to serve their country? Fine, but not in a combat arms position, and if they are in a combat arms position, keep them segregated I dont want to work with them in a line unit.

I’m sure thats going to sound horrible to people but I have very strong opinions on this matter.

 

[PatriceA]

I am a member of the US military in a combat arms position. I can’t speak on behalf of the military or anything like that, but this is my opinion…overall the feedback about this, from my MOS (job in the military-combat engineer, similar to infantry but with demolitions) is a solid no. In our line of work you have to have a very close line of trust with your fellow soldiers that they’ve got your back…with this…its more of…is he watching my back or watching my back.

When I was in basic training I could identify a few individuals who were of that…persuasion. It was extremely awkward showering with them but due to the original “dont ask dont tell” it wasn’t as awkward as it could be. Now that that’s going to be revoked…

Personally I dont care about gays, lesbians, etc as long as I am not bothered or left alone, in the civilian world. The military is different, everyone is in a very close operating environment. Should they be able to serve their country? Fine, but not in a combat arms position, and if they are in a combat arms position, keep them segregated I dont want to work with them in a line unit.

I’m sure thats going to sound horrible to people but I have very strong opinions on this matter.

This is the exact position my husband has as former infantry. There are certain MOS that having an openly gay soldier would compromise the misssion of the unit. There are other MOS in the miltitary that it would never be an issue. A lot of the civilian world just doens’t get that.

 

[larkin31]

I am a member of the US military in a combat arms position. I can’t speak on behalf of the military or anything like that, but this is my opinion…overall the feedback about this, from my MOS (job in the military-combat engineer, similar to infantry but with demolitions) is a solid no. In our line of work you have to have a very close line of trust with your fellow soldiers that they’ve got your back…with this…its more of…is he watching my back or watching my back…

so, you don’t trust gays to be careful, loyal, responsible.

 

[bmadamsberry]

being gay is entirely “natural”

no more “unnatural” than being a red-head

It is unnatural, from a purely scientific standpoint, because they can’t reproduce. Most evolutionists believe that the “goal” most humans unknowingly shoot for is to “live forever”. This is done through continuing ones genes. Homosexuals, then, could be counted as failures. No matter what, though, homosexuality is scientifically unnatural.

 

[larkin31]

It is unnatural, from a purely scientific standpoint, because they can’t reproduce. Most evolutionists believe that the “goal” most humans unknowingly shoot for is to “live forever”. This is done through continuing ones genes. Homosexuals, then, could be counted as failures. No matter what, though, homosexuality is scientifically unnatural.

homosexuals have reproduced for millenia. Homosexuals most CERTAINLY can and do reproduce.

your argument is like saying that cancer is “unnatural”, or leukemia, or Tay Sachs. No scientist would ever say such a thing. Mortality and infertility are as “natural” as living and reproduction.

 

[bmadamsberry]

homosexuals have reproduced for millenia. Homosexuals most CERTAINLY can and do reproduce.

your argument is like saying that cancer is “unnatural”, or leukemia, or Tay Sachs. No scientist would ever say such a thing. Mortality and infertility are as “natural” as living and reproduction.

They are unnatural not because they CAN’T reproduce (obviously they could mate with a female), but beacuse they have a chemical and mental attraction to people that they cannot reproduce with.
Many scientists WOULD say that a homosexual that “doesn’t choose” homosexuality (some people that are gay do choose to be gay) have a chemical or genetic messup or quirk. Furthermore, because homosexuals number about 4% they aren’t the “norm” or natural (something that is natural happens or occurs more often then something that is unnatural). They are unnatural and unnormal.

However, the cancer itself, or the leukemia itself, IS unnatural. All scientists would agree with that because cancer is, in layman’s terms, rogue cells that continue to reproduce and refuse to die.

Your arguments continue to ignore the POINT. You add red herrings up the wall, continue to miss what people are actually saying, and your arguments just suck. I showed these posts to one of my (atheist) philosophy professors at my college. He laughed at you.

 

[larkin31]

They are unnatural not because they CAN’T reproduce (obviously they could mate with a female), but beacuse they have a chemical and mental attraction to people that they cannot reproduce with.
Many scientists WOULD say that a homosexual that “doesn’t choose” homosexuality (some people that are gay do choose to be gay) have a chemical or genetic messup or quirk. Furthermore, because homosexuals number about 4% they aren’t the “norm” or natural (something that is natural happens or occurs more often then something that is unnatural). They are unnatural and unnormal.

However, the cancer itself, or the leukemia itself, IS unnatural. All scientists would agree with that because cancer is, in layman’s terms, rogue cells that continue to reproduce and refuse to die.

Your arguments continue to ignore the POINT. You add red herrings up the wall, continue to miss what people are actually saying, and your arguments just suck. I showed these posts to one of my (atheist) philosophy professors at my college. He laughed at you.

I am not ignoring your point at all. I am showing you that you don’t understand the terms that you are using.

That something is RARE in nature in no way means that it is UNNATURAL. That something is infertile or diseased or mortal in NO WAY means that it is UNNATURAL. Death is NATURAL.

You simply want to smear homosexuals with lazy, pseudo-scientific terms. You, like many others, want to use terms like “abnormal” and “unnatural” (others use “deviant” the same way) in order to blur the lines between slander and science so that your mud will stick. Well, have at it. But don’t expect to be able to be lazy with your thinking or aspersions here and get away with it. It is only right that you should actually demonstrate some sophistication of understanding of the complexity of sexuality and fertility and evolution (which is a term for species) before anyone take you seriously.

ps: my goldfish laughed at your professor!

 

[bmadamsberry]

I am not ignoring your point at all. I am showing you that you don’t understand the terms that you are using.

That something is RARE in nature in no way means that it is UNNATURAL. That something is infertile or diseased or mortal in NO WAY means that it is UNNATURAL. Death is NATURAL.

You simply want to smear homosexuals with lazy, pseudo-scientific terms. You, like many others, want to use terms like “abnormal” and “unnatural” (others use “deviant” the same way) in order to blur the lines between slander and science so that your mud will stick. Well, have at it. But don’t expect to be able to be lazy with your thinking or aspersions here and get away with it. It is only right that you should actually demonstrate some sophistication of understanding of the complexity of sexuality and fertility and evolution (which is a term for species) before anyone take you seriously.

ps: my goldfish laughed at your professor!

Fine. Whatever. But all I see in your post is… oh yeah, simply calling something A and therefore trying to make it A. Just because you call it unscientific, doesn’t make it so. One simply has to look at (credible) scientific studies that easily show my point.

But I wouldn’t expect you to do research.

 

[larkin31]

Fine. Whatever. But all I see in your post is… oh yeah, simply calling something A and therefore trying to make it A. Just because you call it unscientific, doesn’t make it so. One simply has to look at (credible) scientific studies that easily show my point.

But I wouldn’t expect you to do research.

We all admit that homosexuality is not the statistical norm, and we all know that it is defined by a primary erotic and romantic attraction to the same gender (and is therefore less likely to result in offspring).

What “studies” are you even talking about? I think that you are full of hot air.

 

[bmadamsberry]

We all admit that homosexuality is not the statistical norm, and we all know that it is defined by a primary erotic and romantic attraction to the same gender (and is therefore less likely to result in offspring).

What “studies” are you even talking about? I think that you are full of hot air.

1. Well, something is either normal or unnormal, isn’t it? Or is there a third option? If there is I’ll take back what I said in regards to homosexuals being unnormal (if they fit this third category).
2. If a homosexual does not produce an offspring, in a purely Darwin outlook the homosexual person would be a failure (I don’t totally agree with Darwin, but I’m trying to show that it’s not just a religious debate).
3. At religioustolerance.org/ you can find some studies. I chose to give you this website mainly because it favors homosexuality more than anti-gay. Therefore I figure you will be more receptive to it. There are many other websites that have studies, a simple attempt to look for them would have shown you that.

I think it’s funny that I am trying to argue something that most liberals would LOVE! And that is that a lot of homosexuals are homosexual by nature, not by choice. This nature is a quirk, granted, but nevertheless many homosexuals are gay by nature not nurture.

P.S. Nice hot air comment. What’s sad is that you attack me without actually attacking the position. I have not seen you cite ANYTHING to prove your point. I haven’t either, because I thought we were dealing with each other on a different level. Guess not…

 

[larkin31]

1. Well, something is either normal or unnormal, isn’t it? Or is there a third option? If there is I’ll take back what I said in regards to homosexuals being unnormal (if they fit this third category).
2. If a homosexual does not produce an offspring, in a purely Darwin outlook the homosexual person would be a failure (I don’t totally agree with Darwin, but I’m trying to show that it’s not just a religious debate).
3. At religioustolerance.org/ you can find some studies. I chose to give you this website mainly because it favors homosexuality more than anti-gay. Therefore I figure you will be more receptive to it. There are many other websites that have studies, a simple attempt to look for them would have shown you that.

I think it’s funny that I am trying to argue something that most liberals would LOVE! And that is that a lot of homosexuals are homosexual by nature, not by choice. This nature is a quirk, granted, but nevertheless many homosexuals are gay by nature not nurture.

P.S. Nice hot air comment. What’s sad is that you attack me without actually attacking the position. I have not seen you cite ANYTHING to prove your point. I haven’t either, because I thought we were dealing with each other on a different level. Guess not…

You don’t even know my point. What do I have to cite to tell you that you are using the terms “abnormal” and “unnatural” as slurs? What, a dictionary?

Don’t pull any holier-than thou stuff with me after that “I-showed-your-post-to-my-professor” ****. That was a silly thing to do and to mention. But I forgive your youth. It was also kind of funny trying to picture it.

ps: “unnormal” is not a word

pps: I am very familiar with religioustolerance.org. I have no idea why you are referring to that site. My point has been that you do not understand all the “natural” processes that go into population growth and evolution. You don’t need “studies”; you need a textbook on population dynamics. As a starter, you should understand that disease, death, infertility are all “natural” parts of population growth dynamics. To call infertility “unnatural” is to misuse the term. THAT is my repeated point here.