Pentagon Study: Low Risk to Ending 'Don't Ask'

[edwest2]

That said, I have no argument against your position and respect it, though mine is the opposite. We often have to live with government actions that we may not personally approve of.

Rich,

What government actions? The voters just tossed a bunch of the “government” recently. The government is run by human beings, and with this issue, it is apparent, based on the frequency with which this is mentioned by the media, that a certain special interest group wants action on this immediately. How can the average citizen compete with Lobbyists, Rich? Do you know how many lobbyists there are in D.C.?

So when the government acts in a way we don’t approve of or does not act in the national interest, we vote them out.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The calendar myth. The date on the calendar has nothing to do with anything.

As a black woman said, “I know people who used to be gay but I don’t know anyone who used to be black.”

There are some who might claim that a very famous late singer/entertainer used to be black. No offense intended to anyone living or dead.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

So when the government acts in a way we don’t approve of or does not act in the national interest, we vote them out.

Not as a rule, but often, yes.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

People keep on saying well the Commandant of the Marine Corps is against the repel I would like to point out so were the higher ups in the 1940s.

I will also point out a lot of the same arguments from the 1940s are being used today.

**YES I KNOW THESE ARE DIFFERENT ISSUES!!! **But the same arguments are being used can we put them in the same barracks, can they shower together and what about the moral woe is me?

The President needs to do what Truman did just give the order he’s the CINC.

 

[Ridgerunner]

People keep on saying well the Commandant of the Marine Corps is against the repel I would like to point out so were the higher ups in the 1940s.

I will also point out a lot of the same arguments from the 1940s are being used today.

**YES I KNOW THESE ARE DIFFERENT ISSUES!!! **But the same arguments are being used can we put them in the same barracks, can they shower together and what about the moral woe is me?

The President needs to do what Truman did just give the order he’s the CINC.

There is no comparison whatever. It would have been wrong of a Catholic in the 1940s to have opposed racial integration in the military, because segregation was in conflict with Catholic teachings. The Catholic Church, however, considers homosexual activity to be gravely immoral and, therefore, overt homosexual activity is scandalous, just as overt fornication is scandalous. The Catholic Church opposes equating homosexuality with heterosexual unions.

If, as it appears, it is important to you to have overt homosexuality enshrined in the military, and to have the government officially equate it with heterosexual relationships, then that is a secular judgment on your part, and nothing more.

But as a strictly secular decision, you are gambling that overt homosexuality in the military will not harm it as a secular institution. Possibly you’re right and possibly the Marine Corps Commandant, who disagrees with you, is right. But nobody truly knows the future, and you, as well as others, are willing to gamble the nation’s security based on your perceived experience.

But regardless of moral issues, nobody has yet made a case for the proposition that the nation’s military NEEDS the repeal of DADT or that any critical national purpose would justify gambling with the military to achieve a social goal of a tiny minority of the population.

 

[edwest2]

The only apparent need involved is to get Mr. and Mr. Smith, the married gay couple, into the military.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

If, as it appears, it is important to you to have overt homosexuality enshrined in the military, and to have the government officially equate it with heterosexual relationships, then that is a secular judgment on your part, and nothing more.

The Armed Forces aren’t talking about heterosexual or homosexual relationships, they are talking about men and women following orders and doing their jobs. Their off-duty relationships have nothing to do with the military decision.

you, as well as others, are willing to gamble the nation’s security based on your perceived experience.

No gambling - personal experience as well as the proven record of homosexual men and women carrying out their duties professionally, and the proven record of other armies where homosexuals have served their countries honorably.

But regardless of moral issues, nobody has yet made a case for the proposition that the nation’s military NEEDS the repeal of DADT or that any critical national purpose would justify gambling with the military to achieve a social goal of a tiny minority of the population.

No gambling - there’s a track record. And, you’re right, “moral” isses ought to be aside. The aim is not the ordination of priests, but to fill the ranks of our armed services with the best people we can get to do what the military services do.

I am totally for such integration into our Armed Services. The sooner the better.

Feel free to disagree.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Armed Forces aren’t talking about heterosexual or homosexual relationships, they are talking about men and women following orders and doing their jobs. Their off-duty relationships have nothing to do with the military decision.

No gambling - personal experience as well as the proven record of homosexual men and women carrying out their duties professionally, and the proven record of other armies where homosexuals have served their countries honorably.

No gambling - there’s a track record. And, you’re right, “moral” isses ought to be aside. The aim is not the ordination of priests, but to fill the ranks of our armed services with the best people we can get to do what the military services do.

I am totally for such integration into our Armed Services. The sooner the better.

Feel free to disagree.

First of all, this isn’t about their “off duty” activities. They can engage in those now. Repeal of DADT is about their being able to tell their fellow soldiers about those activities, bring their same-gender partners onto base, engage in military social events with the “partner”, etc. In other words, to engage in homosexuality by word and overt deed.

That has nothing to do with your experience in homosexuals’ carrying out their duties. The military itself has no experience with officially sanctioned open homosexuality.

Oh, I didn’t say moral issues should be set aside. No sireee. As a Catholic I cannot do that, and, as a Catholic, neither can you. I only recognized that some do.

Nor has anyone yet made a remotely persuasive case for the proposition that somehow repealing DADT and officially sanctioning overt homosexuality will benefit the military at all.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

There is no comparison whatever. It would have been wrong of a Catholic in the 1940s to have opposed racial integration in the military, because segregation was in conflict with Catholic teachings. The Catholic Church, however, considers homosexual activity to be gravely immoral and, therefore, overt homosexual activity is scandalous, just as overt fornication is scandalous. The Catholic Church opposes equating homosexuality with heterosexual unions.

If, as it appears, it is important to you to have overt homosexuality enshrined in the military, and to have the government officially equate it with heterosexual relationships, then that is a secular judgment on your part, and nothing more.

But as a strictly secular decision, you are gambling that overt homosexuality in the military will not harm it as a secular institution. Possibly you’re right and possibly the Marine Corps Commandant, who disagrees with you, is right. But nobody truly knows the future, and you, as well as others, are willing to gamble the nation’s security based on your perceived experience.

But regardless of moral issues, nobody has yet made a case for the proposition that the nation’s military NEEDS the repeal of DADT or that any critical national purpose would justify gambling with the military to achieve a social goal of a tiny minority of the population.

Catechism Of The Catholic Church

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, **if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. **

It’s seems you keep hinting on sexual misconduct this is not about sexual misconduct it’s about homosexuals serving in the armed forces.

It is not a sin to be a homosexual.

Just as it was wrong to discriminate in the 1940s it is wrong to discriminate today.

Denying persons the privilege of serving in our armed forces just because they happen to have this condition of homosexually is unjust discrimination.

Clearly the Church teaches this should be avoided.

What is important to me is to have professional soldiers in my family; The United States Army that can go out and kill the enemy and I do know that homosexuals can kill the enemy just as good as heterosexuals that’s all it is for me kill the enemy so more of our troops can come home standing up.

I agree with Churches teachings and I’m against homosexual marriage.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I agree with Churches teachings and I’m against homosexual marriage.

I do, too. Serving in the military and homosexual marriage are two entirely different matters! Even for heterosexuals, serving and being married are two different things.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I believe what they mean by low risk is there would be low risk in esprit de corps.

The reason is that most people in the military really don’t care as long as you accomplish the mission.

I was at the Marine Corps Ball last week. Many people brought their kids with them. If they don’t think that seeing two male Marines dancing and smooching on the dance floor will not impact morale, the brass of the military has gotten softer and more PC than I thought.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

First of all, this isn’t about their “off duty” activities. They can engage in those now. Repeal of DADT is about their being able to tell their fellow soldiers about those activities, bring their same-gender partners onto base, engage in military social events with the “partner”, etc. In other words, to engage in homosexuality by word and overt deed.

That has nothing to do with your experience in homosexuals’ carrying out their duties. The military itself has no experience with officially sanctioned open homosexuality.

Oh, I didn’t say moral issues should be set aside. No sireee. As a Catholic I cannot do that, and, as a Catholic, neither can you. I only recognized that some do.

Nor has anyone yet made a remotely persuasive case for the proposition that somehow repealing DADT and officially sanctioning overt homosexuality will benefit the military at all.

Bingo. Like I said in a prior post, I recently went to the Marine Corps Birthday Ball and if there were same sex couples at that event, it would be the last time I would be. There were hetero couple there smooching on the dance floor, which is tacky enough. But to have a female couple or male couple dancing and smooching on the dance floor changes the whole dynamic of the event.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I was at the Marine Corps Ball last week. Many people brought their kids with them. If they don’t think that seeing two male Marines dancing and smooching on the dance floor will not impact morale, the brass of the military has gotten softer and more PC than I thought.

It also impacted morale for some Marines if they saw an inter-racial couple dancing at the Marine Corps Ball back in the 1950s.

And, God forbid if it was a black male and a white female!!!

 

[TMC]

It also impacted morale for some Marines if they saw an inter-racial couple dancing at the Marine Corps Ball back in the 1950s.

And, God forbid if it was a black male and a white female!!!

As a bit of an aside, it amazes me how quickly our societal opinion on race has changed, and how quickly people have reinvented our history on the topic. Today I hear many people claiming that “nobody” thought there was something wrong with being black back in the day and that “nobody” thought it would be immoral to integrate the races, etc. I suppose its the quick and total change in opinion (and embarrasment over what was said and done in the past) that leads people to deny our history. But the truth is that anyone that lived through that time, and anyone else that has seriously investigated it, knows that there were plenty of people claiming that there was something inherently inferior about being black, plenty of people claiming that race-mixing was immoral, plenty of people saying that race-mixing would destroy the nation, and plenty saying things that were even worse. I can deal with people arguing that today’s gay issues are different than the race issues of the 40s, 50s and 60s - but please let’s not deny the truth of our history. Doing so is both offensive and dangerous.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

I was at the Marine Corps Ball last week. Many people brought their kids with them. If they don’t think that seeing two male Marines dancing and smooching on the dance floor will not impact morale, the brass of the military has gotten softer and more PC than I thought.

I’ve been to many Army Officer/NCO balls and I never seen anyone smooching on the dance floor is that what Marines do at their parties?

I noticed you said two male Marines?

What about two female Marines is that ok?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I’ve been to many Army Officer/NCO balls and I never seen anyone smooching on the dance floor is that what Marines do at their parties?

I noticed you said two male Marines?

What about two female Marines is that ok?

LOL! I’ve never seen smooching at the few Air Force Balls I’ve been to, either, and I’m talking about heterosexuals. Maybe Marines are more romantically inclined than the rest of us!

 

[edwest2]

Catechism Of The Catholic Church

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, **if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. **

It’s seems you keep hinting on sexual misconduct this is not about sexual misconduct it’s about homosexuals serving in the armed forces.

It is not a sin to be a homosexual.

Just as it was wrong to discriminate in the 1940s it is wrong to discriminate today.

Denying persons the privilege of serving in our armed forces just because they happen to have this condition of homosexually is unjust discrimination.

Clearly the Church teaches this should be avoided.

What is important to me is to have professional soldiers in my family; The United States Army that can go out and kill the enemy and I do know that homosexuals can kill the enemy just as good as heterosexuals that’s all it is for me kill the enemy so more of our troops can come home standing up.

I agree with Churches teachings and I’m against homosexual marriage.

You’re against homosexual marriage? Don’t you get it? Once gay people distort the institution of marriage, the next target will be distorting the institution of military service.

Husband and husband will serve together, get awards together and appear on TV as married. This is all part of the normalization pattern.

Just like some firefighters who were forced - forced - to participate in a gay pride parade.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/court-sides-with-california-firefighters-forced-to-participate-in-gay-pride-parade/

Gay people can do whatever they want right now.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

As a bit of an aside, it amazes me how quickly our societal opinion on race has changed, and how quickly people have reinvented our history on the topic. Today I hear many people claiming that “nobody” thought there was something wrong with being black back in the day and that “nobody” thought it would be immoral to integrate the races, etc. I suppose its the quick and total change in opinion (and embarrasment over what was said and done in the past) that leads people to deny our history. But the truth is that anyone that lived through that time, and anyone else that has seriously investigated it, knows that there were plenty of people claiming that there was something inherently inferior about being black, plenty of people claiming that race-mixing was immoral, plenty of people saying that race-mixing would destroy the nation, and plenty saying things that were even worse. I can deal with people arguing that today’s gay issues are different than the race issues of the 40s, 50s and 60s - but please let’s not deny the truth of our history. Doing so is both offensive and dangerous.

Offensive and dangerous? Look up the reason homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statiscal Manual in 1973.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ridgerunner]

Catechism Of The Catholic Church

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, **if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. **

It’s seems you keep hinting on sexual misconduct this is not about sexual misconduct it’s about homosexuals serving in the armed forces.

It is not a sin to be a homosexual.

Just as it was wrong to discriminate in the 1940s it is wrong to discriminate today.

Denying persons the privilege of serving in our armed forces just because they happen to have this condition of homosexually is unjust discrimination.

Clearly the Church teaches this should be avoided.

What is important to me is to have professional soldiers in my family; The United States Army that can go out and kill the enemy and I do know that homosexuals can kill the enemy just as good as heterosexuals that’s all it is for me kill the enemy so more of our troops can come home standing up.

I agree with Churches teachings and I’m against homosexual marriage.

Except, of course, that homosexuals are not discriminated against when it comes to joining and serving in the military. So the citation is not applicable. They are “discriminated against” only as regards their wearing their active homosexuality on their sleeves. Now, would I favor the military officially endorsing other forms of advertising gross immorality? No I would not. In fact, while the military is not consistent with it, it does, indeed “discriminate” against people whose lifestyles are grossly immoral in other ways.

In any event, is it truly “unjust” to have rules, let’s say, in corporate society that I cannot have sex with co-workers? I don’t think the Church would say it is. Nor do I think the Church would say it is “unjust” if homosexuals are expected to refrain from committing scandal by their words or actions.

And it’s quite possible there are child molesters or necrophiliacs presently in the military who are good soldiers. Does that mean, then, that the government should endorse pedophilia or necrophilia? No, it doesn’t.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Except, of course, that homosexuals are not discriminated against when it comes to joining and serving in the military. So the citation is not applicable. They are “discriminated against” only as regards their wearing their active homosexuality on their sleeves. Now, would I favor the military officially endorsing other forms of advertising gross immorality? No I would not. In fact, while the military is not consistent with it, it does, indeed “discriminate” against people whose lifestyles are grossly immoral in other ways.

What if you’re in the military for 18 years and you didn’t flash you’re a homosexual but it’s found out.

You’re total professional in your duties however you have a commander that hates homosexuals you get a bad efficiency report you’re not going to get promoted or that commander is going make your life miserable.

Or tries to kick you out for being homosexual—that’s not right man.

I know some of this stuff is complicated and some of it is over my head when it comes to politics—I just know the men and woman I serve with over the years had my back and I had theirs—they would put their lives on the line to defend another trooper that’s what’s it’s all about.

They deserve better.

And it’s quite possible there are child molesters or necrophiliacs presently in the military who are good soldiers. Does that mean, then, that the government should endorse pedophilia or necrophilia? No, it doesn’t.

Come on comparing homosexuals to criminals now. That’s what the LSM did to all the Catholic Priests in the United Staes and that was low.