Gays in military? - Page 12




 
--
 
December 7th, 2006  
bjackson911
 
 
very well put
January 10th, 2007  
Duty Honor Country
 
 

Topic: "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy should go!


It seems GEN John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the US during the Clinton era, has said that Gays should openly serve in the military

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...ncl=1112378227

I guess the news story states that in the Army, about 25% of memebers know a gay soldier with that figure at 20% for combat arms units.

Is it a matter of time before gays can serve openly?
January 11th, 2007  
Arevalo Inc.
 
"The Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy should stay.

No one needs to know that a certain soldier only likes guys. Homophobes are everywhere they are entitled to their belief. The gay soldiers job is to protect the country and in order to have that there needs to be no division in their midst specially with something so contraversial as their sexual orientation. As much as there are Pro-Gay there are Anti-Gay it would be unfair to ask our soldiers to worry about such things when their ultimate goal is to protect the country that they love and the camaraderie is an important role in their service.
--
January 12th, 2007  
bulldogg
 
 
And you don't think this secrecy poses a security risk?
January 13th, 2007  
Wolf
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
And you don't think this secrecy poses a security risk?
There's always going to be some level of risk.
Why should a soldier have to know his comrade's sexual preference?

I, personally, think that information should exist on a 'need-to-know' basis.
January 13th, 2007  
Wirehead2ACR
 
Gays have served in all the militaries of the world. I think that a persons orientation is their private and personal information and should not be worried about.

I been in a lot of showers and confined areas and NEVER once molested or raped my fellow comrades.

I served honourably and if I could would have stayed in serving a full 20 years, but sadly it was not to be and I was medically retired in my 4th year of service to my country.
January 13th, 2007  
Gator
 
 
Checking United States Code on the matter......

Title 10 - Subtitle A - Part 1 - Chapter 13 - § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


§ 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
******************************

I for one cannot see anything which would make merely being homosexual a disqualifying factor for United States Military Service in the case of the Militia, so homosexuals seem to have the legal right to defend America, just like any other Citizen or would be Citizen.
Unless of course the Federal Government is claiming that merely being homosexual is some sort of defect, which would no doubt be decided in a Court of Law.

I can tell you that the DVA not only employs but also cares for a lot of Veterans who are homosexual, people who served honorably, while at the same time being homosexual.
I remember a Court case not very long ago where a Vietnam War Veteran, still on Active Duty was denied his final enlistment because someone finally noticed that he checked that he was indeed a homosexual on his paperwork, so the United States Military wanted to toss out said homosexual service member, short of his time needed for retirement.
The Court said that since the service member had made notice that he was indeed a homosexual, when asked to join the US Military while the Vietnam War was ongoing, and that the United States Military took said individual anyway (thinking no doubt that people were saying they were indeed homosexuals just to get out of Combat Duty in Vietnam) regardless of his sexual orientation, the Court used the logic that if the person was good enough to be in the Military when needed, even as a homosexual, that the Military could not just block his retirement merely because of his homosexuality.

In short, I say homosexuals bleed just like everyone else, and by and large care about the Nation in equal proportion to heterosexuals, and thus have a right just like everyone else to defend the United States of America, in the United States Military, if they so choose.
It has already been proven that, in the past at least, when the US Military is short of Troops, merely saying one is homosexual is not a disqualifying factor.
January 14th, 2007  
A Can of Man
 
 
I think it should be allowed as long as they don't make a fuss or an issue about it. Just as no one should make a fuss or an issue out of their background, beliefs etc. Not saying it's all the same stuff, it's that when you're in, you're GREEN. You are the same. If for any reason you feel your difference precludes you from serving with others, that's your problem and you should leave at the next available date. The service will not change for you and it shouldn't. You should change to fit the service.
If you're gay and don't piss everyone off about it that's fine. That's what I think anyways. And I think the laws should be set that everyone physically and mentally fit to serve should be given a fair chance to do so.