Gays in the military

  • Thread starter Thread starter Riley259
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Look, I did go to college and showered in the same shower area on the male dorms. I never hit upon any other guy and wouldn’t do it if I were in the military. I had a sense that there were also guys with SSA there but it didn’t bother me. Why does it bother anyone else? It denotes an underlying insecurity on the part of some.
That’s very the point Schwarzkopf and others have made over and over! It doesn’t matter WHY it is an issue. Let psychologists ponder that. The fact that it could or has been a cohesion issue is a matter of fact. Like it or not, that’s the way it is. Now we can complain, and try to mandate feelings, which has never worked throughout history, and effectively lessen the military’s ability to effectively to their job, or we can stop trying to make them a social expiriment and do whatever is necessary to allow them to be the best at what they do.
 
I think the biggest reason against having gays in the military is the one about how it infringes on the bond between military members (“unit cohesion”) who have to serve effectivley as a unit. Gays now have to keep themselves in check, that is repress their attractions to fellow members. That is a stress. Those who are straight may feel their privacy is infringed upon in some situations, sleeping arrangements, showering. Would any straight man or woman ever feel comfortable dressing and showering in the company of the opposite sex? The problems with male/female sexual harassment in the military so often involve a more senior person taking advantage of a junior person. That same problem would extend to gays. It already does. There has been many a court-martial involving a more senior person getting a junior person drunk and taking advantage or him/her. I was a military JAG officer and have seen the records of trial. When that happens it’s a huge disruption to the unit, causes fear, resentment in others, makes the compliant gay people feel more in the closet than ever. Then there’s the emotional/social problems of gay sex shared between service members. Some may be seen to be getting favors, or simply getting some when the straight folks are left out. That’s how young men think. An how about the disrespect some service members feel toward a superior who is gay due to their own legitamate religious beliefs? When there are homosexual breakups, there’s more resentment, rumors in the unit, more disrespect for the person who caused the breakup. Young gays I think are more immature and apt to go wild with their homosexuality just as young straight men go wild when they become sexually active. These all contribute to a constant social problem with undercurrent fears, resentments, infringes on privacy, repression of homosexuals’ desires. That’s the unit cohesion problem. It’s big. Also there is a huge fear that open gays in the military would turn into what looks like a San Francisco gay parade. This is so hard to communicate to people because it’s nebulous but it is real. It causes emotional tension int he whole unit. Yes, there’s a significant decrease in social prejudice but the feelings I’ve discussed are still there. Just as the unspeakable sadness young college women especially feel after “hookups”; just use and move on. There is a lot of societal guilt behind the push to have gays become “equal” to heterosexuals. The lobbyists have found an effective tool. But the reality of seeing how cramped quarters people live on a submarine or ship at sea, for example day in and day out leave one with a thought that perhaps it makes sense to have don’t ask dont’ tell. It is NOT just a job. There are many problems still with women on ships for example that no one ever hears about because it isn’t PC. Women get pregnant by the dozens on purpose to get out of sea duty, they get involved with men on ships and it causes the same kind of problems I’m talking about. But the sexuality of young gay men, especially, openly practicing would be unbelievably detrimental. Many others who might have come into the military would just stay out --as many have done with the priesthood, afraid of not being left alone in the seminary. This is not bigotry; it is real pragmatism.
Thanks…that’s the best answer I’ve heard to this question.
 
One thing I haven’t seen brought up yet is that recruiting is now getting so difficult that they are now allowing convicted criminals to join.

How can unit cohesion be an issue when you have acknowledged criminals within the unit? That certainly cannot be great for it either. How is a convicted felon somehow not a disruption to the unit, but someone being gay is?

Edit: Some sources on recruiting people with criminal records
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/01/ING42LCIGK1.DTL
nytimes.com/2007/02/14/us/14military.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/W/Weight
iht.com/articles/2007/07/13/america/13recruits.php
boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/13/more_entering_army_with_criminal_records/
npr.org/blogs/news/2007/07/more_new_us_troops_have_crimin.html
armytimes.com/news/2007/11/military_criminals_071108w/
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300996,00.html
 
One thing I haven’t seen brought up yet is that recruiting is now getting so difficult that they are now allowing convicted criminals to join.

How can unit cohesion be an issue when you have acknowledged criminals within the unit? That certainly cannot be great for it either.
Citation please.
 
One thing I haven’t seen brought up yet is that recruiting is now getting so difficult that they are now allowing convicted criminals to join.

How can unit cohesion be an issue when you have acknowledged criminals within the unit? That certainly cannot be great for it either. How is a convicted felon somehow not a disruption to the unit, but someone being gay is?

Edit: Some sources on recruiting people with criminal records
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/01/ING42LCIGK1.DTL
nytimes.com/2007/02/14/us/14military.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/W/Weight
iht.com/articles/2007/07/13/america/13recruits.php
boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/13/more_entering_army_with_criminal_records/
npr.org/blogs/news/2007/07/more_new_us_troops_have_crimin.html
armytimes.com/news/2007/11/military_criminals_071108w/
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300996,00.html
Check this out as well:

youtube.com/watch?v=jt8OvA3RqQU

😛

(for those of you who don’t know, The Onion is a parody news source. Thought maybe someone could appreciate this…🤷 )
 
Check this out as well:

youtube.com/watch?v=jt8OvA3RqQU

😛

(for those of you who don’t know, The Onion is a parody news source. Thought maybe someone could appreciate this…🤷 )
:rotfl:
Thanks! I didn’t know they did videos.

I like the ticker at the bottom: “…Dennis Kucinich raises $10,000 at $10,000 per plate fundraiser…Boring man dies…Environmentalists harness nervous energy…” 😛
 
:rotfl:
Thanks! I didn’t know they did videos.

I like the ticker at the bottom: “…Dennis Kucinich raises $10,000 at $10,000 per plate fundraiser…Boring man dies…Environmentalists harness nervous energy…” 😛
They aren’t afraid of offending anyone- actually, I think that’s the whole point!😛
 
How can unit cohesion be an issue when you have acknowledged criminals within the unit? That certainly cannot be great for it either. How is a convicted felon somehow not a disruption to the unit, but someone being gay is?
sounds like you never served in the military. i can tell you that it will destroy unit cohesion. most of the people i worked with were opposed to gays in the military. it doesn’t fit with the military culture. many people will not serve and it will make the military retarded.

i personally couldn’t stomach a openly gay military officer or general. they would be a disgrace to the uniform. they will get no respect except from careerists, and we have enough of them already.

a criminal record may be a sign of poor judgement but may also indicate a personality that likes to take risks. are you trying to say that people can’t make a mistake when they are a teenager, and that we should only welcome sheltered nerds into the military?
 
If it is true that former criminals are being accepted in the military this should stop as well. Are we now to trust them with weapons?
 
sounds like you never served in the military. i can tell you that it will destroy unit cohesion. most of the people i worked with were opposed to gays in the military. it doesn’t fit with the military culture. many people will not serve and it will make the military retarded.

i personally couldn’t stomach a openly gay military officer or general. they would be a disgrace to the uniform. they will get no respect except from careerists, and we have enough of them already.

a criminal record may be a sign of poor judgement but may also indicate a personality that likes to take risks. are you trying to say that people can’t make a mistake when they are a teenager, and that we should only welcome sheltered nerds into the military?
I’m not allowed to serve in the military due to my congenital birth defects and the disorders related that follow me through life due to them. It is perfectly logical for me to not serve, because it is impossible for me to be in a reliable enough shape to have someone dependent on my performance. For one I am asthmatic and I am functionally dependent on my inhaler, also I am dependent on hormones, without it I become brittle boned and weak.

Obviously I cannot serve because especially in wartime the reliability of getting those medications to me always is in doubt, I would rapidly become a burden. I do not see how being gay causes an undue burden, well over half of my friends are in the military. Why? Because my fiance is in Iraq right now. Neither he, nor his buddies over there have any problem with gay people, in fact there is one in his unit. Everyone knows, no one cares, no one is bothered by him.

We are not talking about people with misdemeanors, read those articles. They are allowing people in with FELONIES. There is a big difference between misdemeanor lawbreaking and felony assault or robbery etc. We are talking about people who are legally forbidden to own weaponry, yet then they can be in the military? How does that make any logical sense.

Please don’t put words in my mouth, I don’t even know what the rest of your post means, nerds, retarded? I don’t know what you mean, could please you be more clear in your meaning with those statements?
 
sounds like you never served in the military. i can tell you that it will destroy unit cohesion. most of the people i worked with were opposed to gays in the military. it doesn’t fit with the military culture. many people will not serve and it will make the military retarded.
This type of bigotted rubbish is simply sad. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force now openly advertise in the British gay press for recuits and it is NOT an issue. (And our forces serve alongside American forces.)
 
I studied Greek and Latin and know how the word homophobia was constructed. Words in English are not based on their etymology but on usage - and homophobia means an IRRATIONAL fear or hatred of homosexuality. This is what I detect all too often in these columns.
You mean folks understand propaganda when they read it.
 
{quote]

This type of bigotted rubbish is simply sad. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force now openly advertise in the British gay press for recuits and it is NOT an issue. (And our forces serve alongside American forces.)

Exactly the same arguments against gays in the military shown in the responses here were used for may years about gays in our military too. Now if it becomes an issue then appropriate disciplinary action is taken.

I studied Greek and Latin and know how the word homophobia was constructed. Words in English are not based on their etymology but on usage - and homophobia means an IRRATIONAL fear or hatred of homosexuality. This is what I detect all too often in these columns.

Given their poor performance in the gulf(one of their boats surrendered without firing a shot and the British have now fled Basra with their tails between their legs) I would not be holding up their military as an example to emulate. The modern British military is incapable of fighting even in a small conflict more or less a large one. Perhaps if the British people had concentrated on building an effective military rather than using the military for social engineering this would not be the case.

It simply is no comparison between this glorified militia and the United States military.
 
This type of bigotted rubbish is simply sad. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force now openly advertise in the British gay press for recuits and it is NOT an issue. (And our forces serve alongside American forces.)

Exactly the same arguments against gays in the military shown in the responses here were used for may years about gays in our military too. Now if it becomes an issue then appropriate disciplinary action is taken.

I studied Greek and Latin and know how the word homophobia was constructed. Words in English are not based on their etymology but on usage - and homophobia means an IRRATIONAL fear or hatred of homosexuality. This is what I detect all too often in these columns.

May the God of love preserve us from such attitudes.
Why do you insist on comparing the world’s most effective military force to ANY other country’s? We don’t bend to the standards of those that already aren’t as effective. Obviously, the US has been doing something right…
 
Why do you insist on comparing the world’s most effective military force to ANY other country’s? We don’t bend to the standards of those that already aren’t as effective. Obviously, the US has been doing something right…
agreed. The reason that the British military and the European militaries can get away with all this social engineering is that they know that no matter how ineffective that makes their military the United States will always be there to bail them out.
 
I was on submarines for 20 years. The few individuals that were known to be sodomites by the crew made us extremely distressed, especially those who acted on it. Homosexuality is incompatable with military service. It destroys trust, and good order and discipline. As someone posted already, but I’ll also confirm, it makes one susceptible to blackmail by enemies seeking classified information.

There are also the health consequences. The homosexual lifestyle is rife with diseases, which cuts down on unit effectiveness and readiness. The loss of even one individual in a unit to injury or illness is detrimental to the successful completion of the mission. On a submarine especially so, because we are always down to bare minimum personnel to begin with. It would take me a long time to explain why, because of how submarines operate at sea, so just trust me that what I say is true.

On a more flip note, why should homosexuals be so privileged to be able to engage is sex, when the rest of us have to do without?
 
{quote]

This type of bigotted rubbish is simply sad. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force now openly advertise in the British gay press for recuits and it is NOT an issue. (And our forces serve alongside American forces.)

Exactly the same arguments against gays in the military shown in the responses here were used for may years about gays in our military too. Now if it becomes an issue then appropriate disciplinary action is taken.

I studied Greek and Latin and know how the word homophobia was constructed. Words in English are not based on their etymology but on usage - and homophobia means an IRRATIONAL fear or hatred of homosexuality. This is what I detect all too often in these columns.
Given their poor performance in the gulf(one of their boats surrendered without firing a shot and the British have now fled Basra with their tails between their legs) I would not be holding up their military as an example to emulate. The modern British military is incapable of fighting even in a small conflict more or less a large one. Perhaps if the British people had concentrated on building an effective military rather than using the military for social engineering this would not be the case.

It simply is no comparison between this glorified militia and the United States military.

The Britians have done a good job and if you want to start comparing military’s proudest moments. What about Abu Ghraib? Please do not start telling me of the moral superiority of the US Army and that being the source of its strength. The British at least considers their opponents people with human rights regardless if they are citizens of their country or not end dont end up rotting in Cuba or worse yet disappearing in third world countries.
 
The Britians have done a good job and if you want to start comparing military’s proudest moments. What about Abu Ghraib? Please do not start telling me of the moral superiority of the US Army and that being the source of its strength. The British at least considers their opponents people with human rights regardless if they are citizens of their country or not end dont end up rotting in Cuba or worse yet disappearing in third world countries.
Then usual baseless accusations againt the US are noted. But dont worry-when you run out of places to hide the US will be there, as always, to bail you out.

The United States Military is the best in the World becuase it worries about being effective rather than being a job fair for every so called opressed group who wants the military to conform to their idea of what it should be.It is telling that the nicest thing you can say about the Royal Navy is that it has become a haven for homosexauls. ill bet that makes people feel secure. I guess Churchhill was right when he commented that the most sacred tradiotions of the Royal Navy were " Rum, buggery, and the Lash"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top