Gays in military?

the original purpose of sex is procreation.
Click to expand...

I think the main purpose of sex is pro-creation, but I wouldn't label it as the original purpose.

we must recognize that it is a disability
Click to expand...

I'm curious; how is being gay or lesbian a disability? Personally I define a "disability" as something that obviously constricts a person's level of functioning. However, being gay or lesbian is a sexual orientation. I don't see how it impairs a person?

Anyways, if it is indeed a disability, should all gays and lesbians be permitted to apply for disability pensions? ;)

RE: Gays and lesbians and sex. It seems that one of the implications here is that being homosexual = promiscuous. IMO I think that is a rather outdated stereotype, albeit an enduring one.

Personally, I don't see how sexual urges between gay/straight males, or gay/straight females would be any different. Besides, if people are easily distracted by their urges, then I would seriously doubt they are fit for service.

To the best of my understanding, being in the military means being professional - which means you leave personal feelings at the door when on duty. Sexual orientation doesn't matter.
 
Ramjet said:
Personally, I don't see how sexual urges between gay/straight males, or gay/straight females would be any different. Besides, if people are easily distracted by their urges, then I would seriously doubt they are fit for service.

To the best of my understanding, being in the military means being professional - which means you leave personal feelings at the door when on duty. Sexual orientation doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I couldn't possibly shower with the Swedish Bikini Team without some unprofessional feelings. That is a distraction. After such an activity, it would be tough for me to perform a touchy military action because men are made that way. Women are more in touch with how they feel about a mate and Men are visually attracted to a mate to begin with, then an attachment will form. I don't think it would be any different with gays, except reversed.
Click to expand...
 
I don't have anything against a gay or lesbian person. Its the idea that I don't like. Same with premarital sex, stealing, lying, cheating. They are all one in the same to me. Doesn't mean that I won't be there friend....I don't discuss their sexual preference most of the time...and if he asks my opinion I will tell him straight up. Doesn't make me hate them....but it is disturbing. just my 2 cents
 
Missileer said:
I couldn't possibly shower with the Swedish Bikini Team without some unprofessional feelings.
Click to expand...

:lol: Well maybe your airforce guys are a bunch of pretty boys but I ain't thinking Bikini Team is an apt metaphore for grunts and marines. Ever wonder why the army doesn't put out a swimsuit calander? :lol:
 
Whispering Death said:
:lol: Well maybe your airforce guys are a bunch of pretty boys but I ain't thinking Bikini Team is an apt metaphore for grunts and marines.
Click to expand...
Artillery, artillery, see avatar.
Whispering Death said:
Ever wonder why the army doesn't put out a swimsuit calander? :lol:
Click to expand...

God, no! :shock: Now I'll have nightmares.
 
There is no reason to not accept homosexuals in the military. But what's not cool is abusing the don't ask, don't tell policy to either leave the service or to get someone kicked out.

My ex-boyfriend had a problem with this issue. I'm not exactly sure if he sent out the fake e-mail himself or if someone else did it.

So that's my $.02.
 
Excellent article JAS, cheers for posting it. They make a VERY effective argument. I only wish they had provided links to data for the claims they make, I don't doubt them but it would make a stronger case.
 
Not to take sides in this discussion but to clarify the policy in the US, I post the following for consideration.

The 1993 law, which has been upheld as constitutional several times, is conduct based. It does not rely on amorphous concepts such as sexual orientation or vague preferences.

WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS

In a series of statutory findings, Congress affirmed that:

· "There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces;"

· "Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life;"

· "There are "numerous restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian life;"

· Conditions are often "spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy;"

· Standards of conduct apply to members of the armed forces "at all times...whether the member is on base or off base…on duty or off duty;"

· "The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons...who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, [which] would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order, and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."
Link
The Law
 
Thanks for that Top.

See the affirmation of the very last paragraph posted here is refuted by the evidence from our allies and other armed forces that allow gays to serve openly with no deleterious effects.
 
Wow I had totally forgotten about this topic until I saw a new thread started about it.

bulldogg said:
Thanks for that Top.

See the affirmation of the very last paragraph posted here is refuted by the evidence from our allies and other armed forces that allow gays to serve openly with no deleterious effects.
Click to expand...

was your response to

DTop said:
"The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons...who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, [which] would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order, and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."
Click to expand...

bulldogg there is something you have to keep in mind when speaking of the different military services, I will put it in two words: Cultural differences. Same as the subject of legalization of whatever kinds of drugs. What works in one society may not or will not work in another.

I am in the Marine Corps, I have worked side by side with people that are gay and they are just as apt as a straight person to do very well or very poorly.

I feel that many of my arguments posted for or against are valid arguments. However you may see them, be it weak or strong, is of course a matter of opinion. I still stand by this as the strongest point for my argument: A man can not be a practicing homosexual in the military without putting himself at risk of a courts-martial and subsequent penalties and punishments. My reasoning is thus:

Article 125—Sodomy
Text.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.

(I agree when you say it is worded one way but seems that it is used another.)

As it may apply to others who are not gay, yet engage in sodomy, the below sentence sums things up and gives the Court a loophole to use if a punishment for a heterosexual is not the same as for a homosexual:

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”



bulldogg you stated:
bulldogg said:
If the wording came right out and said that it was specifically against sodomy between same sex individuals, underaged persons or Wile E Coyote I would have no beef with it.
Click to expand...

Paragraph (a) states this fairly clearly I thought, with the exception of underage sex. This is covered under article 134 as it is stated in the lesser uncluded offenses, paragraph 1 (b). Article 125 only applies to underage sex if it involves sodomy. Otherwise Article 134 applies.

I am not sure if you understood the article in it's entirety or just got a little wrapped around the axle on parts of it. I mean no disrespect. I had to read it a couple times to be sure of what was meant when they listed the lesser offenses.


They go on in a later part of the article for explanation of what is considered carnal copulation:

Explanation.

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or **** the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or **** of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.


On another note here is an article you all may find interesting that speaks directly with the subject of Artcile 125 of the UCMJ http://www.metrog.com/interact/jmcgowan/050426_sodomy.html


I have no strong opinion one way or the other in regards to gays serving in the military. I can take it or leave it and be happy either way. All I am saying is that the law needs to be rewritten IF they decide to set aside the "dont ask dont tell" policy and allow gays into the military openly. Otherwise they are setting people up for failure.
 
Last edited:
Darcia said:
I see no reason to ban them, despite what some Politicians (*CoughMaineCough*) there is no so called 'gay-gene' that would stop them from doing thier duties.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what if they scratch they fingernail during combat?

Just kiddin. After all, this would pose the same problem to a metrosexual :D

I don't see a problem with battymen being in the military at all.

Whispering Death said:
As research into the history of homosexuality has come to light we've found much homosexuality in the ancient armies such as the Theban Sacred Band who where the Army Rangers of their city-state and was composed of 150 pairs of male lovers.

So there is no historical evidence to suggest that homosexuals are any less capable of warfighting, only cultural perceptionary problems.
Click to expand...

Yeah, apparently homosexuality was prevalent among the troops of ancient Sparta. And they kicked all of Greece's asses and even conquered Athens!

Not to mention Alexander of Macedonia.
 
Last edited:
Life is a funny old thing, it all sounds so easy to come up with right answers but it is not. Now as we are all different how people approach this thing is again totally different and what works for one person does not work for another. Personally I feel what they do off the camp is one thing but what they on it should be another. there was a case last year where a sergeant in the British Army had a sex change and went from being a bloke to being a woman. Now when he turned up to take a parade all the soldiers came out on parade in drag with full make up and carrying handbags. The Sergeant complained to his CO who fell of his chair laughing so he took them to a tribunal for sexually harassment as the CO had failed to support him and the complaint later died a death. Well what I am getting at there are some things you can do and some things that people will not accept so just who is wrong.
 
When I was in the service, we were held to a standard while off duty as well as on duty. A member of an armed force is considered on duty (recall) for the length of their service. An officer is held to a standard such that their career depends on their following a strict regimen of behavior becoming an officer. In most services, there are also "codes" of conduct even within a Company that are unwritten but just as important as regulations or the UCMJ. I think that preferences of how a CO wants the people under him, from the 1st Sgt down to platoon Sgts, to behave and perform, naturally reflects some amount of personal pride and expectations of them. If a crooked gig line will get a trooper's pass pulled, I can just imagine how deviant behavior of any kind would affect a soldier's standing in a company of people different from him in such an important decision as sexual preference. I saw a man kicked out of Basic because he sat on his bunk and cried at night. I believe the poor guy couldn't help it because he certainly gave it a try. The more he was screamed at or threatened, the worse he got. At first, the rest of us tried to support him as much as possible and then, that concern turned to dislike because he just couldn't fit in. But, then, no one told us that life in the Army was fair.
 
LeEinfield I think the distinction should be stated that gays and transvestites are two completely seperate issues as far as psychiatry is concerned. I would be in favor of my armed forces booting out any dude that gets his junk lopped off.
 
Whispering Death said:
LeEinfield I think the distinction should be stated that gays and transvestites are two completely seperate issues as far as psychiatry is concerned. I would be in favor of my armed forces booting out any dude that gets his junk lopped off.
Click to expand...

I think that would be a transexual, not a transvestite, but I see where you are coming from.
 
BUMP... here ya go Senior Chief and Prince... have a read over the previous 8 pages of this post and then feel free to let er fly ON TOPIC. ;)
 
bulldogg said:
This is not a post to deal in any way shape or form the political aspect of this issue. Rather, in light of NFL players "coming out of the closet" and other such "manly" types admitting to be homosexual I want to pose this question to those who are in uniform now or have worn the uniform in the past. Politics aside...

Is there a solid martial reason for the banning of homosexuals in the military?
Click to expand...


If we are going to allow homosexuals on ships that will mean that we now have meat peekers in my showers. The ladies will have whatever peekers in their showers. Gay boys like men, lesbian women like women. If they are going to be allowed to get their jollies checking out each other I think I want to shower with the women on my ship, I like women!

Sounds fair to me, they get to see what turns them on and I get to see what turns me on. I"ll be taking a lot of showers, I just hope I'm on a good ship with plenty of water and no water hours!!
 
Gays in Uniform?

There is already a solution, its the "dont ask, dont tell" policy,

Works every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top