RIROCKHOUND, maybe you're right that male bonding is more likely to be a problem that sexual attrac tion. But the sexual component DOES NOT HELP, it can only hurt, the only question is how much will it hurt.

And I also feel that if you are on a 13 month combat tour, living in close proximity to those you are attracted to, it's not that crazy to assume that things will happen. Look at all the stories of rape and harassment with women. If integrating women into the military has been one problem afetr another, why is letting gays in going to be any different?

Interesting conversation going on. While I don't have an issue with the basic premise of Gays / Lesbians serving there are going to be some real bad issues to resolve that will be done for reasons of equality or diversity and not for the effectiveness of a fighthing force - BTW the reason we have a military.

Even worse than the issues that are going to need be solved - we have significant forces engaged around the world that could use these resources - we will now how have yet another layer of bureaucracy to provide counceling to, opportunity for, and protection from.

From what I've read, the upper levels of the military are incapable of (or hindered from) focusing on what makes a military tick: people, leadership, gas, guns, and bullets but having to spend considerable time and effort on equality and diversity training. I'm all for equality and diversity, but we have ships and planes that don't get required maintenance becuase the personnel that would be performing that are conducting or receiving the diversity training. Now we're going to add more layer to that?

And now, the backlash will begin (has begun). People that were asked to provide their honest, professional, military opinion and did not support repeal will be labeled as homophobes, unfit or unworthy of the uniform. They will be the next boogeymen steamrolled by the diversity squads that thing that diversity in the military is far more important than the effectiveness of a military.

I don't care what race you are or if you are gay or straight. If you want to server your country, fine. If I were in the military and you were gay, I might sit down and have a beer with you and not have a problem with it, I probably wouldn't want to shower with you. I don't think that makes me homophobic.

DADT might have been the easier way to do this and might have been sufficient until there was some level of peace to work out the kinks.

Ehh, don't think I explained myself well enough, but I have to go to work...

Lets use the case of Ted Rubin a Medal of Honor recipient.(not gay)

His sargent was anti- Semite, Rubin is Jewish, he was a holocaust survivor, joined the U S military and fought in Korea. The sargent hated Jews and always gave Rubin dangeous asignments hoping he would be killed. The company was ordered to retreat and the sargent ordered only Rubin to stay behind and hold off the enemy, Rubin held off hundreds of the enemy and was finally wounded and taken prisoner.
Rubin was repeatedly nominated for various medals and awards, but was overlooked because of anti-Semitism by a superior: according to the Washington Post, "in affidavits filed in support of Rubin's nomination, fellow soldiers said their sergeant was an anti-Semite who gave Rubin dangerous assignments in hopes of getting him killed."

Ted Rubin was finally given the Medal of Honor in 2005


My point is that a anti-gay superior can put a gay military person in harms way.

This is a great post Sc ott, and gets to the heart of why I say liberalism is a mental disorder. Liberals will say that abstinence doesn't work, you can't stop people from having sex. Those same folks will then say, 5 minutes later, that having homosexuals in the military won't necessarily have any consequences, because those people can just put their sexuality aside. For a whole year, while living in close quarters with those you are attracted to, and under very trying, often lonely, circumstances. Right.

There is no debating these people, because their platform has no foundation of logic. Amazingly, they see no incostincies in those arguments.

I was an average combat commander, no better, no worse. I was very very glad I never had any girls under my command. I had enough problems to deal with.

JohnR summed it up very nicely

Jim: small nit to pick.

I enjoy discussion with you, and find it respectful and you have a good perspective having served... BUT... can you please stop saying that "I Say liberalism.." this... it is a Michael Savage Quote (and book title). I said it before, if you used this in public forums before him, sue that whack-job and get rich! :buds:



As far as the perspective of the inability to control ones sexuality.

Were you married when you were deployed? Did you manage to control your sexual impulses for a year and not have an affair with a female soldier? Hooker? I assume no as you seem like a stand-up guy.

I think assuming a gay soldier is going to be more prone to rape or assault another soldier is shaky ground.

hey John...I think Barney would like to shower with you :biglaugh:

Not allowing gay military personnel to shower with straight military peronnel would be “discrimination.” That’s the position of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), an openly gay member of Congress who is a proponent of banishing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Frank told CNSNews.com that the idea that people might be concerned over gays and straights showering together, and the possible disruption it could case, is a “silly issue”:

“To accept the principle that homosexuals can’t shower with other people is a degree of discrimination that goes far beyond this. We don’t get ourselves dry cleaned. We tend to take showers when we go to the gym; when we play sports,” Frank said.

WoW...imagine commanding a platoon of hookers? :uhuh:

When liberals stop supporting an insane agenda (murderers deserve to live, but not unborn babies), I'll be happy tp stop referring to it as a mental disorder. It is what it is.

To your other points, I got married on leave, during my service. No, I did not cheat on my wife. But you see, except for the rare day off, I had no opportunity, because I was surrounded by men, who I'm not attracted to. If I was gay, how could I not feel some sexual impulses toward some of the guys?

Your argument literally could not be weaker. A heterosexual soldier, while on duty, has no temptation for sexual distraction. A homosexual soldier would be surrounded by temptation.

Repeal Of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Paves Way For Gay Sex Right On Battlefield, Opponents Fantasize

I don't know, you remember that episode when George was visiting his mom in the hospital and the male nurse was giving the guy in the next bed a sponge bath and he said he felt a twinge...."not that there's anything wrong with that"

Please don't put ugly words in my mouth, hold me accountable for what I actually say, OK?

Homosexuals are not more likely to rape or assault, I never said any such thing. I do think they are just as likely to be distracted by sexuality towards those they are attracted to, as heterosexuals are. So why open up a messy can of worms when people are already dealing wityh life-and-death situations?

it's that mental disorder thing...:uhuh:

Just because they repealed DADT doesn't mean that all of a sudden there are going to be gays in the military...they've always been there....they've always fought side by side, showered w/ you, kicked back a few beers w/ you. Never had any issues before...but now that we aren't going to kick them out...its all of a sudden an issue. :huh:

As long as they are capable at doing the job they are tasked w/....its a non-issue.

No, not showering with Barney, nor will I have a beer with him.

So, if I base who I want to take my shower with by gender, I get to shower other men, but if I chose to shower with those of my preferred sexuality I get to shower with women, but since we know THAT won't happened I think I have just found a new consideration for the equality police. Who will protect my desires rights?

(disclaimer: that was an attempt at humor. No people, races, genders, possible genders, sexuality, multiple sexualities, multiple race/sexuality/gender/futuregender were intended to be offended).

Im getting lost here, are we talking golden showers?

Jonn, you are a white, heterosexual, middle-class, stable, successful, happy male. As such, the liberals have not anointed you with "victim" status, and therefore, their agenda doesn't include giving you whatever you want.

Very well put TDF. I seriously doubt that there are going to be hundreds of Carson Kressley types lining up at the local recruiting office to enlist because they can now openly serve.

(1) Under DADT, gays had to choose between coming out, or serving in the military. They could not do both. By repealing dadt, gays can come out and serve, so it stands to reason (to me) that more will enlist. Furthermore, today, if a soldier comes out, they are discharged. After dadt is repealed, coming out won't be grounds for discharge. Given those realities, how can we NOT expect more gays in the military.

(2) as far as changing the current reality. Under dadt, gays in the military cannot come out. Therefore, no one knows they are gay, and they cannot act gay, so all of the hypothetical problems I proposed are eliminated. Without dadt, gays can "be gay", and therefore all of my hypotheticals become more relevent.

If your point was valid, and it's not, then why bother repealing DADT? Every single argument I've eber heard in support of repealing DADT centered around the fact that openly gay folks can't serve. Remove that barrier, and please tell me why we won't see more gays enlisting. Please don't just say "no more gays will enlist", please tell me WHY more won't enlist.

how come I keep picturing Corporal Klinger in my head?

Again, there wasn't a problem w/ them being there before so who cares if more enlist...as long as they are capable of doing the job, welcome aboard.

How does one "Act Gay"...more Show Tunes in the Barracks?....pinup posters of Judy Garland? Navy changes there song from Anchors Aweigh to In The Navy by the Village People?

I really don't think anything will change....

Or I could be wrong and its already happening...:hihi:

YouTube - Monty Python Precision Drilling

well, Barry signed it...good riddance to another horrible George W. Bush policy...heh...heh

OK, I've been on the side lined reading this thread so I asked a good friend of mine who is in the Marine Corps about this. His response: "I was in a fox hole one time overnight and it was really cold. We huddled together to stay warm and used each others body heat basically by spooning to stay warm. The last thing I would want on my mind in that situation is if the guy in back of me was going to pop a woody". That is a true story and the answer he gave me. I'm not saying they shouldn't serve and to be honest, since I was never in the military, I don't even think I should have an opinion on it since the military knows better than civilians what impact this has. They are the ones who should decide. I feel that if it compromises moral or effectiveness the answer should be no. It's lives on the line that needs to be thought about, not inclusioon and making everyone happy. Let the military decide, give each soldier a vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A few other countries have handled this in their military and have openly gay people serving. It can be done. However, I am not so sure those other countries have the Politically Correct Police who could give a rat's buttocks about military effectiveness pulling the puppet strings.

I want the military of my country to be made up of warriors, scholars, and warrior scholars.

I do not want it to be made of nor directed by progressive thought police allocating based on race/religion/socio-economic background, and now sexual persuasion.

I'd like to think the military isn't driven by the PC Pissants.......I'd like to think a quick "Put that friggin thing away before I slug you" would suffice. :hihi:

I'd like to think that too, unfortunately it doesn't seem like that from some of what I have read attributed to Gates, Mullen, Roughhead, etc...

Unfortunately, a lot of the opposition to gays serving in the military is just the opposite, religious and political leadership who assert that the "gay lifestyle" is a choice that's detrimental so society.

In the business world you have similar situations and a professional (and often corporate regulations) knows there's an obligation to change the situation to avoid a conflict of interest.

All things considered the number of gay service men and women is still pretty small. I'd think the leadership capabilities of a professional military should be able to handle this pretty easily. It doesn't seem to be an issue in other countries, the vast majority of which allow gays to serve openly.

Social engineering has nothing to do with it. Gay people are already serving, and I'd wager for the most part their team know who they are. To be honest, the idea I had to trust someone who I thought might hiding something big might do a lot to erode unity of the team as well.

Social engineering is a talking point used by the religious right to push the idea of a gay lifestyle by choice.

Granted, I don't have your real world experience, but I would think that a lot of this would be taken care of by time. People know who the favorites are...

The situation of a gay service person with leadership responsibility over a lover is bound to be rare, and this coming to a head in a combat situation must be even more rare. A professional has the responsibility to remove themselves from the situation, and you don't set such a discriminatory policy based on something that's so unlikely to happen.

I certainly can see people uncomfortable with the shower situation...but they'll get over it. Remember, they're already showering with them now. It's quite insulting to say someone else needs to change because they offend you.

Repealing DADT was the right thing to do, and I applaud those like Scott Brown who didn't let the party politics influence their decision.

-spence

Dad, you're all over the place, and coming across as someone who won't admit he might be wrong.

First, you said no more would enlist. Now, you're saying who cares if more enlist, because they're already there.

You don't know what "act gay" means? Really? Under dadt, gays have to conceal the fact they are gay, and therefore, NO ONE KNOWS THEY ARE GAY. If you repeal dadt, then 2 generals could dance cheek to cheek at a military ball doing the tango, and tongue kiss, announcing their love to all the world.

If you repeal DADT, gays can come out, announce they are gay, and then, everyone knows they are gay.

If you don't see those 2 things as different (having to hide your gayness and being openly gay) we have nothing more to discuss. You keep dodging my points, and I keep re-stating them, and you keep dodging. It gets tiresome.