About Gays in military? Page 6
|September 15th, 2005||#51|
| || |
If you're going through hell . . . keep going.
|September 19th, 2005||#52|
| || |
According to the UCMJ of the US military not only would gays be in deep doo doo for having sex other than mutual masturbation or some "levi lovin" but so would any heterosexual who engaged in oral sex. What's that your wife gave you a blowjob... BAM! What did you say, you went down on your girlfriend... BAM! Its absurd.
The stuff about forced sex, underaged sex and gettin yer freak on with Mr Ed is understandable but otherwise wtf does any government agency have that empowers them to regulate what goes on in the bedrooms (or post golf courses at 2200 when youre in AIT hehehe) of consenting adults? Its an abomination that american "morality" is so specious.
"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." - John Steinbeck
|September 20th, 2005||#53|
| || |
This article in the UCMJ has been around for a number of years, it is nothing new.
As far as who does what in their bedroom and what business it is of the military, the majority of people do not take the appropriate precautions to prevent injury or infection.
This can lead to health problems that can take that service member from deployable status. This does hurt the military in general and over time it can hurt it as a whole.
Perhaps a servicemember (gay or otherwise) is extremely promiscuous and they engage in these practices. They have a higher chance of contracting a contagious disease or infection than a person that engages in "normal" sexual practices. They can spread this disease or infection that has a possibility of debilitating a whole platoon if it is contagious by means other than sexual intercourse. Example: Someone has an outbreak of oral herpes and wipes their mouth off after eating. They then shakes hands with someone else and that person happens to be smoking a cigarette, that person then goes home to his wife and kisses her, he does not know it but she has been cheating on him with the neighbor and now the neighbor has the potential to be infected as well. A bit farfetched? Yes, but still plausible.
My take on "Gays in the Military"
Aside from facing a Courts Martial. (A possibility of facing more than one charge and also possibly facing prison/jail time.)
The morale factor. There is a Marine that works at the Bn HQ. He is flambouayntly and openly gay. If asked he will tell you that he is, or so I have heard. It has been rumored that he is the replacement for one of the NCOs I work with. The general attitude is that they do not want this Marine working with us or among us. Why is this? I have no idea. This Marine, as far as I know is generally a good natured person and does his work as well as anyone else.
It is hard to say how this will affect the morale and overall unit cohesiveness of the Marines working here. It is hard to say how it will affect the Marine that may come to work here. When speaking of this particular matter you should look at both sides of the coin. How will that person feel and be treated and how will he in turn treat the people he works with.
(Apologies for using "he" and "him". It is just easier to apply in most cases than typing he/she all the time.)
|September 21st, 2005||#54|
| || |
The speciousness of this is the wording of the regulations and their actual application. 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. But there is a serious air of hypocrisy when the regulation is worded as to be against all forms of sodomy regardless of orientation when it is actually used only against homosexuals. I would prefer the UCMJ be written with a little more forthrightness and direct to the intent of the regulation not play this political mine field game which weakens it.
Second bad example with the herpes virus. I get your point but viruses are far less hardy than the majority of hypochondriacs and agoraphobes would have you to believe. There are other sections of the UCMJ which deal with adultery but in my experience these have only been used as a weapon to remove someone for other reasons, usually officers who cannot otherwise be touched. There is also one about damaging your body to the point where you are unable to do your duty resulting in UCMJ action for something as slight as a real bad sunburn. So the argument falls short.
In my opinion this is another instance of trying to legislate morality. Potty-training at gun-point if you will. Call an apple an apple don't mince words. I have no problem with gays serving. Nor do I have no problem with keeping gays out or banning something but do it fair and equitably and with a little intestinal fortitude don't sit on the fence ffs. My problem lies in the hypocrisy and false fronts and specious logic being used by some to defend either position.
Right now I am not in uniform so it is not my call to make. I believe this is a decision that should be decided not by voters, politicians or even senior ranking officers. In breaking with all things military I believe this is an issue that should be decided by the rank and file of those wearing the uniform, unit by unit.
Ancient military units handled things in this manner and so did units raised during the American civil war so there is a precedent for this action. Choose who sweats, bleeds and dies with you. Its about accountability and having to take responsibility by giving you the choice and taking away all the excuses and cow manure currrently in play.
|September 22nd, 2005||#55|
| || |
NO! I am a not going to say why or how I know this, but the issue of homosexuality and being in uniform has nothing to do with a person's ability to do their job. I believe that since a person is free to make thier own decisions, they have the right to serve in the military, no matter what their sexual orientation is. I am a firm advocate in the right to equal and fair treatment of everyone, whether they be homosexual or striaght, women or men. As long as they can keep their lives seperate from their work enviroment, then I think that should have the right to serve.
If flight were to be disallowed, I would die
Cheif of Spec. Ops
|October 3rd, 2005||#58|
| || |
Now someone did mention the chance that a person will risk their life to save that of their "lovers". Or go out of their way for a "lover".
I really think that is not a valid explanation.
Why? Because in the modern U.S. Military an Soldier or Marine will go down wounded and two of his/her comrades will die trying to save the wounded Solder/Marines life.
As for going out of their way, that happens all the time. If you want to dispute that, those of you who are/was in the military will know full well you have gone out of your way to help a member of your platoon for no reason other then he/she was your comrade and not a "lover".
Last having gays openly serve is akin to having women serve in the military. Yes you are going to have couples, and that will interfere with unit cohesion.
There is a simple way around that though. Instill the idea that the members of your unit are your brothers and sisters, and that sexual relations with them is/will be considered incest.
The above example was (and still) used when I was going through MSG school, where Marines of both sexes would live/work with each other in close proximity.
Last I ended up being good friends with a Marine who (after getting into some serious trouble by hijacking a bus full of people) was suspected to be gay because he had questionable reading material in his room. The result was a member of other Marines suspected I was too. I had to explain to them that the guy made no sexual advances towards me what so ever.
\"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don\'t have that problem\".
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States; 1985
|October 3rd, 2005||#59|
| || |
It has little to do with being gay but with being a sex object. How many times you have heard women grip about men treating them as sex objects. One of the reasons they have boys and girls bath rooms is there are places that sex should not be injected into. If freely open gays are allowed into the military, it interjects sex into a situation where it can only cause trouble.
Being gay in the military is fine as long as they are not open about it. It is this open ness that is the trouble. Men feel very uncomfortable being sexually pursued and that is what would happen in the hetro's mind.
My opinions of homosexuallity rest on the following. I think of it as a birth defect, much like blindness, downs syndrome, etc. The original purpose of sex is procreation. Sure it is fun and is used for other things but, when all the butter and jam is scrapped off the toast, that is what is left. If higher animals procreated differently, sex would not exist.
Therefore a man or woman who cannot have sexual relations with the opposite sex is physically handicapped. The proof is easy, male homosexuals brains are different than hetrosexuals, research (this was soon squashed by the gay community) has shown that the left/right brain connection is different and can be recognized.
Does this ean they should be discriminated against, of course not. Do you trip the blind man, do you keep the wheel chair bound from voting; no. but we must recognize that it is a disability
|October 3rd, 2005||#60|
| || |
Unfortunately, drinking alcohol is a favorite pastime in the services which lowers inhibitions. All you need is for one little word or touch from someone already under scrutiny by the other troops and something nasty will take place. I'd rather see that avoided if at all possible.
“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”
—John Stuart Mill