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

[Rich_Olszewski]

Again there is a comparison only if one believes that engaging in sodomy and being black are morally equivalent.

My point was that the same arguments made against integration in 1948 are pretty much still being used today - it’s a horror to have them living together, showering together, eating together, etc., etc.

 

[constantseeker]

Hopefully you are not suggesting that there is any moral equivalency between the the plight of a race of people who were brought to this country in chains and held in servitude while being overworked ,raped, beaten and sold at will and a group of people whose only distinguishing characteristic is with whom and the manner they engage in sex.

One of the main problems with this issue is the attempt, once more , homosexual apologists to hijack this issue to advance their political agenda. There is absolutely is no comparison between the manner one engages in sex and one’s race, creed, gender or country of national origin.

The distinctive quality of being homosexual is not about how one has sex. Lots of heterosexual people engage in sodomy.

The distinct quality of being homosexual is which gender you are attracted to. There is, again, nothing immoral about being homosexual. Engaging is sex with someone of the same gender is immoral, as are many many sex acts that heterosexual people engage in.

Even ones in the military.

Homosexuality is not a behavior. It is an identity. You do not have to actively do anything to be gay.

When is the last time a heterosexual man or woman was booted out of the army for bragging about engaging in sodomy with their partner?

Or even just some random person they met in a bar?

It’s not about sex.

 

[bbarrick8383]

If I’m not mistaken, officers and enlisted can be punished for having a relationship with each other.

Why aren’t we fighting for their civil rights or whatever this is, as well?

I could have dated a Captain, when I was a PFC but I refrained from doing so because of her career.

I think the military just should tell the public to go pound sand and ban anyone and everyone from openly discussing their personal behavior while on duty or in uniform. No more military balls, nothing. Someone needs to get some cahonas in this country.

Our military is losing all discipline.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

If I’m not mistaken, officers and enlisted can be punished for having a relationship with each other.

Why aren’t we fighting for their civil rights or whatever this is, as well?

I could have dated a Captain, when I was a PFC but I refrained from doing so because of her career.

I think the military just should tell the public to go pound sand and ban anyone and everyone from openly discussing their personal behavior while on duty or in uniform. No more military balls, nothing. Someone needs to get some cahonas in this country.

Our military is losing all discipline.

Sarcasm or Chicken Little? You decide. Story at 10.

Pax,
OA

 

[constantseeker]

If I’m not mistaken, officers and enlisted can be punished for having a relationship with each other.

Why aren’t we fighting for their civil rights or whatever this is, as well?

I could have dated a Captain, when I was a PFC but I refrained from doing so because of her career.

I think the military just should tell the public to go pound sand and ban anyone and everyone from openly discussing their personal behavior while on duty or in uniform. No more military balls, nothing. Someone needs to get some cahonas in this country.

Our military is losing all discipline.

Yeah, that would be great for morale. Ban guys/gals from talking to their unit members/best friends about their girlfriends/boyfriend. Ban military social engagements…

That would be incredibly stupid policy.

And, it doesn’t address the fact that gay soldiers can be booted for info they disclose while off-duty and not in uniform. Or, even, information they don’t mean to disclose but is found out. (The lesbian who was booted when another soldier saw her marriage certificate on her kitchen table when he was looking through her kitchen window.)

 

[bbarrick8383]

Yeah, that would be great for morale. Ban guys/gals from talking to their unit members/best friends about their girlfriends/boyfriend.

That would be incredible stupid policy.

I think DADT is stupid. Should they be able to serve, yes. But they should not be discussing homosexual behavior or openly showing their sexual preference while in uniform. They shouldn’t be banned for what they do or say off duty.

It’s one of those things imo, when children are fighting over something you take it away from all of them till they learn a lesson.

 

[constantseeker]

I think DADT is stupid. Should they be able to serve, yes. But they should not be discussing homosexual behavior or openly showing their sexual preference while in uniform. They shouldn’t be banned for what they do or say off duty.

It’s one of those things imo, when children are fighting over something you take it away from all of them till they learn a lesson.

There can’t be a double standard. You’re never going to be able to prevent heterosexual guys in their twenties from talking about their girlfriend while on duty. If they get to talk, so do their homosexual counterparts.

I mean, you could make a rule banning it, but Leavenworth would get pretty crowded.

 

[bbarrick8383]

There can’t be a double standard. You’re never going to be able to prevent heterosexual guys in their twenties from talking about their girlfriend while on duty. If they get to talk, so do their homosexual counterparts.

I mean, you could make a rule banning it, but Leavenworth would get pretty crowded.

When you sign the dotted line, you are supposed to cater to the branch you join. Not the other way around.

Discipline use to be a priority in the military, it’s taking a back seat to political correctness now.

I never said throw them in Leavenworth.

Wonder what’s going to happen to the first open American homosexual soldier serving in a country where it is illegal to be homosexual shows his lack of discipline in front of the wrong crowd.

 

[estesbob]

Yeah, that would be great for morale. Ban guys/gals from talking to their unit members/best friends about their girlfriends/boyfriend. Ban military social engagements…

That would be incredibly stupid policy.

And, it doesn’t address the fact that gay soldiers can be booted for info they disclose while off-duty and not in uniform. Or, even, information they don’t mean to disclose but is found out. (The lesbian who was booted when another soldier saw her marriage certificate on her kitchen table when he was looking through her kitchen window.)

The purpose of the military is not give people an opportunity to us talk about friends girlfriends, etc. I know it sounds very inclusive and politically correct to talk about how everybody in the military must just get along and be great friends BUT anyone who denies that having open homosexuals in the close confinements of the military could not potential be a problem is fooling themselves.

The military is not a jobs program nor is it a social experiment. Whatever works best in defending this country is what they should do. And please let’s not have any more racist comparisons of African-Americans to those who engage in homosexual behavior.

 

[estesbob]

When you sign the dotted line, you are supposed to cater to the branch you join. Not the other way around.

Discipline use to be a priority in the military, it’s taking a back seat to political correctness now.

I never said throw them in Leavenworth.

Wonder what’s going to happen to the first open American homosexual soldier serving in a country where it is illegal to be homosexual shows his lack of discipline in front of the wrong crowd.

Sexual misconduct is already an offense in the military. I wonder how long it would be after open homosexuals are allowed to serve that they will be demanding that homosexual behavior be excluded from the list of sexual misconduct. I wonder how long will be until the first soldier runs to the media complaining that he was denied a promotion because of his announced homosexuality. Which again begs the question what is the purpose of the military? To empower people based on their sexual behavior or defend the country?

 

[constantseeker]

Sexual misconduct is already an offense in the military. I wonder how long it would be after open homosexuals are allowed to serve that they will be demanding that homosexual behavior be excluded from the list of sexual misconduct. I wonder how long will be until the first soldier runs to the media complaining that he was denied a promotion because of his announced homosexuality. Which again begs the question what is the purpose of the military? To empower people based on their sexual behavior or defend the country?

Homosexuals aren’t asking for anything that heterosexuals can’t already do. They are not asking for sexual misconduct rules to be changed.

 

[constantseeker]

When you sign the dotted line, you are supposed to cater to the branch you join. Not the other way around.

Discipline use to be a priority in the military, it’s taking a back seat to political correctness now.

I never said throw them in Leavenworth.

Wonder what’s going to happen to the first open American homosexual soldier serving in a country where it is illegal to be homosexual shows his lack of discipline in front of the wrong crowd.

Women in the military deal with different standards in countries where women aren’t permitted the same rights as men.

I expect gay soldiers to act exactly the same way.

You’re judging them for things they haven’t even done yet.

 

[estesbob]

Homosexuals aren’t asking for anything that heterosexuals can’t already do. They are not asking for sexual misconduct rules to be changed.

Yes they are. They’re asking that the prohibition against homosexual behavior be lifted.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Sexual misconduct is already an offense in the military. I wonder how long it would be after open homosexuals are allowed to serve that they will be demanding that homosexual behavior be excluded from the list of sexual misconduct. I wonder how long will be until the first soldier runs to the media complaining that he was denied a promotion because of his announced homosexuality. Which again begs the question what is the purpose of the military? To empower people based on their sexual behavior or defend the country?

I wasn’t really talking about conduct.

A slip tongue in the wrong crowd could have some bad results.

 

[estesbob]

I wasn’t really talking about conduct.

A slip tongue in the wrong crowd could have some bad results.

Yes it could. At which point I am sure they would drag the whole unit into sensitivity training while homosexual apologists demanded affirmative action for homosexuals claiming that only when homosexuals are in top leadership positions can homosexuals be safe Keeping the country safewill be secondary to making sure that nobody feels offended or marginalized.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The purpose of the military is not give people an opportunity to us talk about friends girlfriends, etc. I know it sounds very inclusive and politically correct to talk about how everybody in the military must just get along and be great friends BUT anyone who denies that having open homosexuals in the close confinements of the military could not potential be a problem is fooling themselves.

The military is not a jobs program nor is it a social experiment. Whatever works best in defending this country is what they should do. And please let’s not have any more racist comparisons of African-Americans to those who engage in homosexual behavior.

The purpose of repealing DADT is simply to have the government equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. The military will have to accept open expression of it and homosexual relationships on an even footing with heterosexual relationships. And, it will not be able to avoid the homosexual community using its elevated status in the military to promote equivalency in the society as a whole.

This is the same sort of thing as the movement for gay “marriage”, teaching children that it’s normal for “Heather” to “have two mommies” or the programs in some schools to encourage youngsters to “celebrate their gayness” while they’re forming their sexual identities.

An increasingly corrupt civil society may ultimately be fine with all of that, but it’s still, from the Church’s point of view, grossly immoral and scandalous. It’s obvious that homosexuality has its apologists; some of whom have gathered in this thread. But official government endorsement of homosexuality, or any other form of immorality, is not, in my opinion, what the government ought to be doing. And if one opposes, as I do, official government sanctioning of homosexual activity and recognizes its full expression in word and act as a “right”, the person has (for now) a right as a citizen, to oppose it. As a Catholic, one has a moral obligation to oppose it regardless of how accepting the society may be of it.

One supposes that the same people who so greatly favor official governmental endorsement of homosexual expression and activity, would oppose overt immorality of other sorts. Most particularly, one would expect Catholics to do that. Pedophilia, sadism, adultery, fornication, polygamy. People would not want the government to endorse those things or declare that they are, in all important respects, to be viewed as equivalent to, say, marriage, and to be protected in the military for what they are. There is really no reason why a secular society should oppose governmental endorsement of those things as long as they do not adversely affect military efficiency. But people wouldn’t favor their official acceptance by the government.

It is only because homosexuality is a “politically correct” cause that people are willing to accept “in your face” immorality of expression and activity, and not other things that are in no way less immoral.

Nor does anyone really know how the military will be affected. Earlier on there was a poster who cited some poll indicating that 10-15% of the present military would quit if DADT is repealed. One would not be speculating overmuch to think, then, that at least that many would not join the military at all because of it. The very title of this thread began with the proposition that repealing DADT bears “low risk” to the military. Well, how low? What is “low”? A 20% decline in personnel? Is that “low”? A few violent encounters here and there when the inevitable solicitations occur? Is that acceptably “low”? We all know the Marine Corps Commandant opposes repeal, as, for the present do the Joint Chiefs.

But the reaction of the pro-homosexualists here to such things is “Let them quit!” “They don’t belong anyway!” “We don’t want (opponents) in the military anyway!”

In short, those favoring the repeal of DADT are willing to gamble the safety of the nation for the benefit of what cannot be more than 5% of enlistees and potential enlistees. And not so they can serve, which they can now, but so they can tell their fellows they’re homosexual, bring their same gender partners to social events, wear their uniforms in gay pride parades, appear in the media in uniform with their partners, or (almost certainly) in schools.

And, one assumes, these results are part of the “low risk”, meaning to proponents of repeal that those things are worth it if only homosexuals can present their sexuality as “just a variant of normal” in that and other venues.

DADT will be repealed. Of that I have no doubt. But certainly, as the consequences develop, those who favor its repeal will need to accept that such scandal as occurs is their responsibility.
But then, in this society, who really cares about scandal? Well, the Church does, but why pay any attention to it?

 

[constantseeker]

Yes they are. They’re asking that the prohibition against homosexual behavior be lifted.

No, they’re asking that they not be booted for openly admitting that they’re gay. People aren’t booted for sex acts, they’re booted for admission of being gay.

The same sexual rules would apply to them that apply to non-gay soldiers.

There is no rule against engaging in sodomy in private as a soldier.

 

[constantseeker]

Yes it could. At which point I am sure they would drag the whole unit into sensitivity training while homosexual apologists demanded affirmative action for homosexuals claiming that only when homosexuals are in top leadership positions can homosexuals be safe Keeping the country safewill be secondary to making sure that nobody feels offended or marginalized.

Wow, really?

The military managed to integrate women without this being a problem.

 

[estesbob]

No, they’re asking that they not be booted for openly admitting that they’re gay. People aren’t booted for sex acts, they’re booted for admission of being gay.

The same sexual rules would apply to them that apply to non-gay soldiers.

There is no rule against engaging in sodomy in private as a soldier.

Homosexual behavior is an offense under the uniform code of military Justice. Why would a person admit to engaging in homosexual acts if they did not?

 

[estesbob]

Wow, really?

The military managed to integrate women without this being a problem.

They have? Are women allowed to serve in combat postions? Are women enlisted personell allowed on Submarines?