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?

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.

There isn't really any sound reason to keep gays out of the millitary. The one that is used is that it will be a moralle problem but give me a break, like integrating gays would be so much more difficult than integrating blacks, durring the korean war, while the KKK was still lynching them in the south.

Obviously no one would want to hand the queer eye guys a gun and say "go defend our boarders" but if the drill seargents could handle the naive boys of WW2 or the 'hell no we won't go' crowd from the 70s or the loser goth macdonnald employees of today, they can turn anyone into a soldier.

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.

I say if a gay person is just a good Marine, Soldier, Sailor, or Airmen then let them in. More to protect the nation. But the problem with letting gays into the military is all due to the cultures. Back in ancient times, homosexuality was encouraged, at least, in the military.

I'm sure there are allready some homosexuals in the marines.

Back in 1989 I wrote a letter to the editor of Stars and Stripes, the newspaper published for DOD forces stationed overseas. Having seen more than a few "soldiers" granted a quick release from duty simply by claiming to be gay, I espoused the idea that honorable service should not be limited to heterosexual soldiers only, and that anyone who is otherwise physically and mentally capable should be granted the right to serve honorably.

My closing statement was: I would rather serve in a foxhole with a competent, homosexual soldier - than have my sons be forced to serve because there weren't enough competent heterosexuals to serve during my time.

16 years later, nothing has happened to change my mind on the subject.

Well that was completely uncalled for.

However I am sure that there are already homosexuals in the Air Force, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, and every other major organization.

Oh it isn't a probobly it's a yes, yes there already are gays in all services because under "don't ask don't tell" they are all allowed in so long as they just don't say they're gay.

For all you non-Americans "don't ask don't tell" is the US Millitary's policy that basically says, "We'll let you in if you're gay, we just don't want to know about it." The army automatically discharges any servicemen that are openly gay.

Originally Posted by MI Blues

Back in 1989 I wrote a letter to the editor of Stars and Stripes, the newspaper published for DOD forces stationed overseas. Having seen more than a few "soldiers" granted a quick release from duty simply by claiming to be gay, I espoused the idea that honorable service should not be limited to heterosexual soldiers only, and that anyone who is otherwise physically and mentally capable should be granted the right to serve honorably.

My closing statement was: I would rather serve in a foxhole with a competent, homosexual soldier - than have my sons be forced to serve because there weren't enough competent heterosexuals to serve during my time.

16 years later, nothing has happened to change my mind on the subject.

fair call MI, fair call

And for those of you who may have served with someone you thought might be gay:

Have you ever noticed how much more accepting you and your mates were of a butch female soldier than you were of a sissy-ish male one?

I served with a married couple - Male SFC, Female 1SG. She was absolutely butch - and absolutely competent. He was a soldier's soldier. But in social scenes, they were friendly, not affectionate. I sometimes wondered if they didn't marry to cover the fact (?) that they were both gay, and both loved the Army more than they did their own sexual preference.