Gays In The Military

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ERose said:
The special rights that they will have is the opportunity to be placed in a environment of captive individuals that they have a sexual attraction for and these individuals with have no choice but to expose themselves to the potential and probable gauking. I don’t have that right. When I was in the military, they didn’t allow me to shower with the women, so why should they get that right. These men cannot just leave or quit if they don’t like it. No they will have to endure it. If the military says that they will segregate the gay soldier from the others to protect their rights then the gay soldier will most probably have his own room and shower, which none of the other soldiers will have.

What if one of the gay men are attracted to one of their fellow soldiers they have the full right to go up and hit on the soldier. What happens when the soldier says no? Probably most of the time nothing else will happen, but what if the gay man gets angry and wants to get some payback? All he has to do is go to his 1st Sgt and tell him that the straight guy is harassing him about being gay and that straight soldier’s career is toast. Because in the military I can garantee you that that straight soldier will be guilty until provened innocent, which means he will be guilty and loose either rank or worse case be given a dishonorable discharge if the brass want to make an example.

If you don’t think that will happen, then you are wrong. Back in the late 90s when sexual harrassment became such a big issue in the military there were women that where using that as a tool for advancement and to get even. It got to the point that we were told to not even talk to a female Marine. Heck you could get a lose of pay if you were even talking to a female Marine and had no professional reason to do so.

These will be their special rights.
Click to expand...
There are several problems with the assumptions and thinking in this post. I must leave it for later. I will get back to this. But there are decent, sincere questions here, and I appreciate them.

So you know, I see no reason why the military should be exempt from the harassment laws that guide my workplace. I work with several very attractive women. Attractive women are harassed through life endlessly, and, in the environment of a job (livelihood on the line) they should at least have some legal protection from sexual coercion and harassment. I see no legal or moral reason to exempt military women from this same protection. And, yes, men and women should be protected from homosexual advances as well. THAT is what would be equal and just.

More later…
 
ERose said:
What a stupid question. Yes the President as the commander in chief has the right to set military policy. But a president that does this without the advice of his military commanders is an idiot and purely political driven. Which is what he and Congress are obviously doing since they are not waiting for the report back from the Military. The only reason why this has recently come up is because the President is loosing his base and this was bone thrown out there to satisfy at least part of his electoral base.

Are you a communist? Just curious since obviously you do not believe in the freedom of speech and dissent which is still protected by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
“stupid” ??

nice

NO PRESIDENT EVER MAKES THIS KIND OF DECISION WITHOUT CONSULTING THE PENTAGON AND HIS MILITARY BRASS. Nor is Obama, and no one was suggesting so here. You are just venting and whining.

And you are wrong to say “that the only reason this has come up is to satisfy at least part of his electoral base.”
 
ERose said:
What a stupid question. Yes the President as the commander in chief has the right to set military policy. But a president that does this without the advice of his military commanders is an idiot and purely political driven. Which is what he and Congress are obviously doing since they are not waiting for the report back from the Military. The only reason why this has recently come up is because the President is loosing his base and this was bone thrown out there to satisfy at least part of his electoral base.

Are you a communist? Just curious since obviously you do not believe in the freedom of speech and dissent which is still protected by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Oh, I missed the “communist” question.

And you called mine “stupid”??? I “don’t believe in freedom of speech”? This post is wack.
 
I disagree with homosexuals in the military a lot. It is religiously based and I use is Sodom and Gomorrah as my religious example. Plain and simply put, God has showed us time and again that He disagrees with homosexuality. Also 1150 officers including 50 4 star generals signed a petition asking Obama not to repeal don’t ask don’t tell. If you really want to see a great witness account of the issue look up Col. John Ripley’s testimony to the Senate and House of Representatives in 1993 on the issue. It is amazing. He was Vietnam’s most decorated hero.
 
Bernard8791 said:
I disagree with homosexuals in the military a lot. It is religiously based and I use is Sodom and Gomorrah as my religious example. Plain and simply put, God has showed us time and again that He disagrees with homosexuality. Also 1150 officers including 50 4 star generals signed a petition asking Obama not to repeal don’t ask don’t tell. If you really want to see a great witness account of the issue look up Col. John Ripley’s testimony to the Senate and House of Representatives in 1993 on the issue. It is amazing. He was Vietnam’s most decorated hero.
Click to expand...
Gays have always served in the military. What has God had to do with this in the past?
 
larkin31 said:
Oh, I missed the “communist” question.

And you called mine “stupid”??? I “don’t believe in freedom of speech”? This post is wack.
Click to expand...
i replied to a stupid question with one of my own. It is called sarcasm.
 
larkin31 said:
“stupid” ??

nice

NO PRESIDENT EVER MAKES THIS KIND OF DECISION WITHOUT CONSULTING THE PENTAGON AND HIS MILITARY BRASS. Nor is Obama, and no one was suggesting so here. You are just venting and whining.

And you are wrong to say “that the only reason this has come up is to satisfy at least part of his electoral base.”
Click to expand...
maybe you were not paying attention to the news when this thread started, but that was exactly what congress was going to do before they started getting heat.
 
ERose said:
maybe you were not paying attention to the news when this thread started, but that was exactly what congress was going to do before they started getting heat.
Click to expand...
yeah, I know. Congress doesn’t care about the military. And none of the members have served, either. And all of those who have served are of the same opinion on this topic, are they not?

:rolleyes:
 
Wooly_Wolf said:
Not openly in the USA.
Click to expand...
even the servicemen here on CA have said that they fully knew in many cases. “Openly” is just a formal term meaning, “We used to engage in a wink and allow gays to wear a mask that we all recognized for what it was.”

Gays are simply asking that the hypocrisy and requirement of deceit end.
 
larkin31 said:
then it is time for you to ask a serious question.
Click to expand...
I did. Are you communist? Since you don’t seem to believe I have the right to feedom of speech, which I, not you, and others who have posted here, signed up to defend. I recognise your right and would defend your right yet you don’t show the same courtesy to me.
 
larkin31 said:
yeah, I know. Congress doesn’t care about the military. And none of the members have served, either. And all of those who have served are of the same opinion on this topic, are they not?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Lets see. Who is over congress at this time? Humm
 
ERose said:
I did. Are you communist? Since you don’t seem to believe I have the right to feedom of speech, which I, not you, and others who have posted here, signed up to defend. I recognise your right and would defend your right yet you don’t show the same courtesy to me.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you could possibly be referring to here. When have I ever argued against your right to post your opinion here?

Where do we “sign up” at CA to “defend” the “right to freedom of speech”? I missed that signup list, but I would like to join!
 
larkin31 said:
I have no idea what you could possibly be referring to here. When have I ever argued against your right to post your opinion here?

Where do we “sign up” at CA to “defend” the “right to freedom of speech”? I missed that signup list, but I would like to join!
Click to expand...
From your post: ***Are you against the Constitution *and the role of the President as Commander-in-Chief? Just curious if you think that both the House and the President can set military policy (as the Constitution grants them the power to do).

You asked me if I was against the Constitution, because of my opinion. I pointed out that I have the right under that same Constitution to voice me opinion which you where implying that I was going against the Constitution to do so.

Also where you you sign up? It is at the military recruitment office and you swear on the Bible to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. So go sign up and maybe you might gain a different perspective on this subject.🙂
 
ERose said:
From your post: ***Are you against the Constitution ***and the role of the President as Commander-in-Chief? Just curious if you think that both the House and the President can set military policy (as the Constitution grants them the power to do).

You asked me if I was against the Constitution, because of my opinion. I pointed out that I have the right under that same Constitution to voice me opinion which you where implying that I was going against the Constitution to do so.

Also where you you sign up? It is at the military recruitment office and you swear on the Bible to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. So go sign up and maybe you might gain a different perspective on this subject.🙂
Click to expand...
You really did not understand my point. My point was that you were saying that the soldiers ought to set the policy on gays, and I stated that this opinion was directly contrary to the Constitutional powers over the military invested in the Executive office and in Congress. I was stating common knowledge, not telling you to be quiet.
 
To be fair, the way the poll is worded, it sounds as if the OP is asking if the individual would let gays serve period, not if they would they let them serve openly. Nobody here has said gays have no place in the military, just that it would be preferred if the current policy (DADT) is kept.
 
Wooly_Wolf said:
To be fair, the way the poll is worded, it sounds as if the OP is asking if the individual would let gays serve period, not if they would they let them serve openly. Nobody here has said gays have no place in the military, just that it would be preferred if the current policy (DADT) is kept.
Click to expand...
True, but several posters here have argued that gays have no place in the military, that their presence in combat units is objectionable. I have repeated several times that gays have always been a part of our military in combat units, and that service men (and now women) have very frequently been fully aware of their presence.
 
I think it should also be pointed out that serving in the military is not a right but a priviledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top