Sun May 31, 2009 2:12 am
Aren't gays already serving, bleeding and even dying for our country?
That alone, that willingness to serve and even die for the country, should be the only requisite IMHO.
Sexual orientation is a non-issue for those who are sure about their own sexual orientation.
Many probably have been in the same barracks with gays, without knowing, and have had them as squad mates, if not as friends.
Just my two cents.
Saludos,
Tulio
That alone, that willingness to serve and even die for the country, should be the only requisite IMHO.
Sexual orientation is a non-issue for those who are sure about their own sexual orientation.
Many probably have been in the same barracks with gays, without knowing, and have had them as squad mates, if not as friends.
Just my two cents.
Saludos,
Tulio
Last edited by Tulio on Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sun May 31, 2009 3:07 am
Will this debate change the rules in the military? If not, then why are we having it?
Sun May 31, 2009 9:38 am
Because Ignorance is the most expensive commodity we pay for in America.-Rush
Sun May 31, 2009 11:38 am
Tulio wrote:Aren't gays already serving, bleeding and even dying for our country?
That alone, that willingness to serve and even die for the country, should be the only requisite IMHO.
Sexual orientation is a non-issue for those who are sure about their own sexual orientation.
Many probable have been in the same barracks with gays, without knowing, and have had them as squad mates, if not as friends.
Just my two cents.
Saludos,
Tulio
Priceless.
Military Matters
Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:19 am
When I was at a certain course at a certain US Army post, there was a sharpie marking on the latrine wall which basically said, "First Gay Man passed through the ______ course." This was detected the first day of the course, obviously put there by a previous graduate of the course. Everybody in the course had to use the latrine, and every person in the course, including the people who eventually failed the course, got to see the sharpie mark on the latrine wall. In a class of 294 soldiers, I'd estimate that about 10 people were pretty vocal about it, saying it was a disgrace, and making a report of it to the cadre of the course. The cadre said nothing about it, but with the cadre activity around the latrine, I am sure there was an investigation about it. Since many of us had sharpie markers to mark our equipment, I doubt they ever found out who wrote the remark. But there was a huge stink about it that definitely detracted from the training we were undergoiing at the time.
At the time, I think I payed more attention to it than I would today, but in the early 1990's, at the end of the Bush Administration, this was a hot topic that was debated extensively. I think at the time, you could have heard from most servicemen that gays were not welcome. But I also think that is what most people thought they were supposed to say. In my service as an NCO and later as a DOD civilian, I only ever encountered one person who was openly homosexual, and it didn't seem to effect his service.
I think the time has come for a more rational approach than Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I think that policy has probably put more people in jeopardy of becoming a security risk than the previous policy of no homosexuals allowed. I also believe that the DOD needs to take a hard look at how to make gay integration a reality, and if it is a possiblity to do so. There might not be a tolerant enough demographic in the services to really make it happen now- I realize that by saying that, I probably sound like the people who said the same thing about African American Soldiers in WWII, and who were later disproved by the performance of the soldiers in Black units and the integrated combat units put together at the end of WWII due to the replacement crisis. But I would respond to that criticism by saying that there is no social policy that I want to see implemented in the services which jeopardizes our national defense or loses us a war, and we happen to be in one right now. Perhaps we should leave it up to soldiers and airmen to anonymously indicate that they are willing to serve with homosexual cohorts, and allow the homosexuals to anonymously identify themselves for placement with tolerant personnel. That sounds complicated, but the complexities of integrating African American and female soldiers have taken nearly a century to work themselves out.
Bottom line is, it's a multi-layered, multi-disciplined problem and needs to be solved by the DOD. I wouldn't want to be the one making the decisions, as at this point in our hstory, there are no easy solutions. But I will say this- when we celebrate Memoral Day in the US, I am absolutely certain due to demographics that some of the people we are honoring were gay- the research tells us that. Is their devotion to duty and final sacrifice for this country any less important or honorable because of their sexual orientation? You decide.
At the time, I think I payed more attention to it than I would today, but in the early 1990's, at the end of the Bush Administration, this was a hot topic that was debated extensively. I think at the time, you could have heard from most servicemen that gays were not welcome. But I also think that is what most people thought they were supposed to say. In my service as an NCO and later as a DOD civilian, I only ever encountered one person who was openly homosexual, and it didn't seem to effect his service.
I think the time has come for a more rational approach than Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I think that policy has probably put more people in jeopardy of becoming a security risk than the previous policy of no homosexuals allowed. I also believe that the DOD needs to take a hard look at how to make gay integration a reality, and if it is a possiblity to do so. There might not be a tolerant enough demographic in the services to really make it happen now- I realize that by saying that, I probably sound like the people who said the same thing about African American Soldiers in WWII, and who were later disproved by the performance of the soldiers in Black units and the integrated combat units put together at the end of WWII due to the replacement crisis. But I would respond to that criticism by saying that there is no social policy that I want to see implemented in the services which jeopardizes our national defense or loses us a war, and we happen to be in one right now. Perhaps we should leave it up to soldiers and airmen to anonymously indicate that they are willing to serve with homosexual cohorts, and allow the homosexuals to anonymously identify themselves for placement with tolerant personnel. That sounds complicated, but the complexities of integrating African American and female soldiers have taken nearly a century to work themselves out.
Bottom line is, it's a multi-layered, multi-disciplined problem and needs to be solved by the DOD. I wouldn't want to be the one making the decisions, as at this point in our hstory, there are no easy solutions. But I will say this- when we celebrate Memoral Day in the US, I am absolutely certain due to demographics that some of the people we are honoring were gay- the research tells us that. Is their devotion to duty and final sacrifice for this country any less important or honorable because of their sexual orientation? You decide.
Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:42 am
The alternative would be to put all names based on rank into a hat and then draw roommates (male and female togeather). Would you stand for your daughter being assigned a male roomate in a one room dorm with bunkbeds? How about communal toilets/showers?
Many universities already do this for their campus residences.... and yet daddies still keep sending their daughters to school...
Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:26 pm
Does anyone know how European countries treat gays in their military services?
Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:25 am
michaelharadon wrote:Does anyone know how European countries treat gays in their military services?
No problem here. We even had a commando marry his longtime boyfriend a few years ago.
Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:04 am
Michael - Wiki:
The page goes into more detail below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_ori ... ry_service
The case outlined under the Australia heading, relating to created issues that should be a non-issue in the US military is of interest - I wasn't aware of it before.
As ever, IMHO, the issue is a prejudice by some that people cannot perform professionally and ethically in their job based on their own preferences. It seems a non-issue to me that in the same way I don't mind if someone is a fundamentalist Christian (for instance) as long as they don't bother others with it in the workplace - fine by me.
Generally the gays I've worked with have been a d@mn sight less presumptive of others rights and integrities than those who'd legislate for us all. I've never been patronised or harassed or insulted (or sexually threatened) by any gay people - generally because of the weight of prejudice they tend to be better behaved than others. Frankly I'd prefer to restrict some of the revolting heterosexual attitudes expressed and acted on in workplaces. Just because I'm a man doesn't mean I use a small brain between my legs.
Given the frankly dubious (often conflicted sexual) behaviour of many groups in the military (I'm not pointing a finger, just noting the stuff covered by 'harmless high spirits' through to hazing and bullying) gays are the least of the issues.
Just my (civilian, i.e. military client) view.
The militaries of the world have a variety of responses to gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Most Western military forces have now removed policies excluding sexual minority members; of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 20 permit open lesbians, gays, or bisexuals to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, two (United Kingdom and France) do so. The other three generally do not: China bans gays and lesbians outright, Russia excludes all gays and lesbians during peacetime but allows some gay men to serve in wartime (see below), and the United States (see Don't ask, don't tell) technically permits gays and lesbians to serve, but only in secrecy and celibacy.
The page goes into more detail below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_ori ... ry_service
The case outlined under the Australia heading, relating to created issues that should be a non-issue in the US military is of interest - I wasn't aware of it before.
As ever, IMHO, the issue is a prejudice by some that people cannot perform professionally and ethically in their job based on their own preferences. It seems a non-issue to me that in the same way I don't mind if someone is a fundamentalist Christian (for instance) as long as they don't bother others with it in the workplace - fine by me.
Generally the gays I've worked with have been a d@mn sight less presumptive of others rights and integrities than those who'd legislate for us all. I've never been patronised or harassed or insulted (or sexually threatened) by any gay people - generally because of the weight of prejudice they tend to be better behaved than others. Frankly I'd prefer to restrict some of the revolting heterosexual attitudes expressed and acted on in workplaces. Just because I'm a man doesn't mean I use a small brain between my legs.
Given the frankly dubious (often conflicted sexual) behaviour of many groups in the military (I'm not pointing a finger, just noting the stuff covered by 'harmless high spirits' through to hazing and bullying) gays are the least of the issues.
Just my (civilian, i.e. military client) view.
Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:12 am
Shoot, I used to wory about getting blown "out" of my foxhole.
Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:21 pm
Thanks, JD, and merci, Fouga.
It amazes me that the same country that had a large enough vision for mankind to produce the men of Torpedo Squadron 8, the soldiers who walked to work across Omaha Beach on June 6, the bomber crews who were never turned back, also produces citizens of such narrow minded bigotry and insecurity that they don't have anything better to do than worry about who is going to bed with whom. Those NATO countries are showing us that it doesn't have to be this way, and, IMHO, we'll all be a lot better off when it stops.
It amazes me that the same country that had a large enough vision for mankind to produce the men of Torpedo Squadron 8, the soldiers who walked to work across Omaha Beach on June 6, the bomber crews who were never turned back, also produces citizens of such narrow minded bigotry and insecurity that they don't have anything better to do than worry about who is going to bed with whom. Those NATO countries are showing us that it doesn't have to be this way, and, IMHO, we'll all be a lot better off when it stops.
Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:17 pm
Well said!
Tue Jun 02, 2009 7:28 pm
any man or woman who is gay or lesbian is as much of a patriot as a hetrosexual. putting on the uniform & defending the country is what it's all about. sure, i don't want to be exposed to it but who am i to dictate sombody's life style. there is alot of old style old guard miltary harrhumph attitude that needs to be pitched to be fair to all who put there lives on the line for the majority who don't, & that goes for all nations.
Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:05 pm
Like it or not guys, it is a moral issue. Obviously, for most of those commenting here they have made a moral decision that there is nothing "wrong" with the "lifestyle." However, it seems most of you also think it is "wrong" - a statement of morality - that some of us still believe it to be perversion and a moral crime. All I ask is that you support your moral belief with a reasonable standard that can be consistently applied.
I base my thoughts on the subject on what I consider to be the ultimate standard of morality - the Creator (God) who endowed men with certain "unalienable rights" - who sets the standard for what is morally acceptable or not in Holy Scripture.
At a bare minimum, I would ask you to show those of us who believe as I do that it is "wrong" the same "tolerance" you want us to show them. Otherwise, the First Amendment means nothing.
Ryan
I base my thoughts on the subject on what I consider to be the ultimate standard of morality - the Creator (God) who endowed men with certain "unalienable rights" - who sets the standard for what is morally acceptable or not in Holy Scripture.
At a bare minimum, I would ask you to show those of us who believe as I do that it is "wrong" the same "tolerance" you want us to show them. Otherwise, the First Amendment means nothing.
Ryan
Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:38 pm
Dear Ryan,
I respect your right to your views and beliefs, both moral and religious. However, I don't accept them as universal nor are they good enough for me; and you have no right to demand (rather than to try and convince) others to adhere to your position. There are fundamental issues with all religion, including Christianity, starting with the demand for faith over proof, which I'm sure we don't need to argue here as we aren't going to agree. Generally I've found the gay people I've worked with a lot less of a PITA (intended)than some Christians, and it's the Christians (among other religious and 'social police' groups) who feel mandated to tell others how to behave - not a gay position, IMHO.
The US has an enshrined break between the church and the state - the UK, for instance does not, having a state religion and has a much more pragmatic and tolerant approach to gays in the military. On that argument the US is lagging there in social progress. Harassing people and exposing them to blackmail for what you believe and I don't is a 'moral' position is counter productive.
If you wish people like me to tolerate your views, then it's reasonable to expect you to return the favour. Frankly I don't care what people get up to in their private lives as long as it doesn't hurt others - and they act professionally in their workplaces.
In other words, mind your own.
The military of any country have to have licence to break some of the the most basic social and often religiously enforced tenants - starting with 'thou shalt not kill'. We ask them to undertake a morally compromising position for us, and on that basis, I see arguments over sexual preferences as, frankly, trivial.
Some of my best friends are religious, btw.
Just a factually based morally-tested position, able, unlike all religious ones, to pass logical, factual testing.
Regards,
I respect your right to your views and beliefs, both moral and religious. However, I don't accept them as universal nor are they good enough for me; and you have no right to demand (rather than to try and convince) others to adhere to your position. There are fundamental issues with all religion, including Christianity, starting with the demand for faith over proof, which I'm sure we don't need to argue here as we aren't going to agree. Generally I've found the gay people I've worked with a lot less of a PITA (intended)than some Christians, and it's the Christians (among other religious and 'social police' groups) who feel mandated to tell others how to behave - not a gay position, IMHO.
The US has an enshrined break between the church and the state - the UK, for instance does not, having a state religion and has a much more pragmatic and tolerant approach to gays in the military. On that argument the US is lagging there in social progress. Harassing people and exposing them to blackmail for what you believe and I don't is a 'moral' position is counter productive.
If you wish people like me to tolerate your views, then it's reasonable to expect you to return the favour. Frankly I don't care what people get up to in their private lives as long as it doesn't hurt others - and they act professionally in their workplaces.
In other words, mind your own.
The military of any country have to have licence to break some of the the most basic social and often religiously enforced tenants - starting with 'thou shalt not kill'. We ask them to undertake a morally compromising position for us, and on that basis, I see arguments over sexual preferences as, frankly, trivial.
Some of my best friends are religious, btw.
Just a factually based morally-tested position, able, unlike all religious ones, to pass logical, factual testing.
Regards,