Gays in military?

Sacred Band of Thebes

Sacred Band of Thebes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theban_Sacred_Band

Memorial to the Sacred Band of Thebes at Chaeronea, marking the communal grave (πολυανδρειον / polyandreîon) in which they were buried. Philip II of Macedon erected the tribute to commemorate the bravery of the conquered batallion.The Sacred Band of Thebes (in ancient Greek ἱερὸς λόχος / hieròs lókhos) was an elite Greek troop of 150 pairs of pederastic lovers, according to Plutarch (in the Life of Pelopidas) formed by the Theban commander Gorgidas. The pairs consisted of the older heniochoi, charioteers, and the younger paraibatai, companions. The motivation for the use of such an "Army of Lovers" in battle is also stated by Plutarch:

"For men of the same tribe or family little value one another when dangers press; but a band cemented by friendship grounded upon love is never to be broken, and invincible; since the lovers, ashamed to be base in sight of their beloved, and the beloved before their lovers, willingly rush into danger for the relief of one another."
According to Plutarch, Gorgidas initially distributed the Sacred Band of Thebes throughout his battle lines as an elite to strengthen the others' resolve, but later Pelopidas, after the Band had fought successfully at Tegyrae, used it as a sort of personal guard. For about 33 years, the Sacred Band of Thebes remained an important part of the Greek infantry.

Its defeat came at the Battle of Chaeronea, the decisive battle in which Philip II of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great ended the independence of the Greek city-states. Philip had been held as a hostage in Thebes, and had learned his military tactics there. The remainder of the Theban army fled when faced with the overwhelming forces of Philip and Alexander, but the Sacred Band, surrounded, held their ground and fell where they stood. Plutarch recounts that upon encountering their corpses heaped together and understanding who they were he exclaimed:

"Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly."
Though Plutarch claims that all three hundred died that day, other writers claim that two hundred and fifty four died and all the rest were wounded. That claim was substantiated upon the excavation of their communal grave at Chaeronea, in which two hundred and fifty four skeletons were found, arranged in seven rows.


Illustrative bas-relief of Greek warrior accompanied by his charioteer. From the pediment of a kouros statue, ca. 490 BCE.Plato wrote about the code of honor of the Sacred Band of Thebes:

"The beloved, when he is found in any disgraceful situation, will be pained at being detected by his lover. If there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour... For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms... Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger?"

Sacredbandmemorialchaeronea.jpg


Memorial to the Sacred Band of Thebes at Chaeronea, marking the communal grave (πολυανδρειον / polyandreîon) in which they were buried. Philip II of Macedon erected the tribute to commemorate the bravery of the conquered batallion.
 
The Army already spends a ton of time "training" us to prevent sexual harassment, equal opportunities, domestic violence, etc ad nauseum. I personally know of several incidents of male-female sexual relations that damaged the workplace. Throw in homosexuals and you will have male-male and female-female relations damaging the workplace.

A lot of the "anti-gay" sentiment in the military probably stems from the "anti-woman" sentiment that is slowly crumbling away. A lot of the American military tradition comes from a strong Christian base which is "anti-gay". There is also a lot of male chauvinism used to turn men into killers. This instills a lot of hostility against anything "different" which includes gays. This mirrors the civilian view, which, MTV to the contrary, is still predominantly discouraging of homosexuals. These attitudes will eventually change.

But a more interesting question (for me), is whether or not the military would be BETTER if gays were allowed to openly serve. You could argue that we currently have a manpower (or peoplepower in todays genderless speak) shortage an could use that extra 2-10% of the population to draw from, but who knows what would happen to heterosexual recruiting if gays were openly serving. Can gays fight better, march longer, shoot more accurately, or maintain equipment more effectively? If not, then disrupting a system that works quite well just to accommodate a very small minority doesn't make much sense. But as the entry requirements drop (I think they are raising the age to enlist, as well as selectively waiving the high school graduate requirement, not to mention lowering the physical fitness standards) to boost recruitment, even a small minority might be catered to.
 
I do not want gays in the military for certain reasons, some of which i will name, first of all the shower thing could mess up concentration for both gays and straights, think about, if you were a straight guy and they made you shower with women, you would be pretty distracted i would think, and so would a gay guy showering with a bunch of naked men, you have any idea what would be going through his head, i am pretty sure he wouldn't even want to be thinking about the men around him, sometimes thoughts can't always be controlled. Alot of it also does have to do with women, for example i know that some men would take pity(not that they would need it) on a woman who was wounded and would probably stop just to go protect them better. Same thing with a gay guy if he is attracted to someone who works with him what happens if they are in combat and he is constantly catering to their needs which can endanger the unit, i am not saying this WILL happen just saying it is more than likely. For the record, i don't hate gays, i sometimes say things that make people think i do, but i honestly don't hate them so don't call me a basher cause that is mean.
 
Jason Bourne said:
I do not want gays in the military for certain reasons, some of which i will name, first of all the shower thing could mess up concentration for both gays and straights, think about, if you were a straight guy and they made you shower with women, you would be pretty distracted i would think, and so would a gay guy showering with a bunch of naked men, you have any idea what would be going through his head, i am pretty sure he wouldn't even want to be thinking about the men around him, sometimes thoughts can't always be controlled. Alot of it also does have to do with women, for example i know that some men would take pity(not that they would need it) on a woman who was wounded and would probably stop just to go protect them better. Same thing with a gay guy if he is attracted to someone who works with him what happens if they are in combat and he is constantly catering to their needs which can endanger the unit, i am not saying this WILL happen just saying it is more than likely. For the record, i don't hate gays, i sometimes say things that make people think i do, but i honestly don't hate them so don't call me a basher cause that is mean.

1st of all...


you dont think there are gays in the miltary already?







:roll:
 
You cant sterotype gays. I have gay friend and black friends

I am very racist and very homophobic, does that mean as long as you keep your mouth shut and dont remind me who/what you are every 5 minutes i cant be cool with you. As long as your not the black guy that wears the 40 pound chain with a 300 dollar jersery thats 4 sizes too big and pantz sized for somenoe twice your size i can be fine with you and can become good friends, same thing with gays as long as you dont hit on me or anything of that matter were good to go.
 
chewie_nz said:
Jason Bourne said:
I do not want gays in the military for certain reasons, some of which i will name, first of all the shower thing could mess up concentration for both gays and straights, think about, if you were a straight guy and they made you shower with women, you would be pretty distracted i would think, and so would a gay guy showering with a bunch of naked men, you have any idea what would be going through his head, i am pretty sure he wouldn't even want to be thinking about the men around him, sometimes thoughts can't always be controlled. Alot of it also does have to do with women, for example i know that some men would take pity(not that they would need it) on a woman who was wounded and would probably stop just to go protect them better. Same thing with a gay guy if he is attracted to someone who works with him what happens if they are in combat and he is constantly catering to their needs which can endanger the unit, i am not saying this WILL happen just saying it is more than likely. For the record, i don't hate gays, i sometimes say things that make people think i do, but i honestly don't hate them so don't call me a basher cause that is mean.

1st of all...


you dont think there are gays in the miltary already?







:roll:

I have 2 aquaintainces the the US armed forces that are gay, one Army and one Airforce. I don't keep up too frequently with either of them but they have told me they arn't exactly lonely.

Until they make everyone take a ploygraph there's going to be and have always been gays in the millitary.

That's why I think "don't ask don't tell" is stupid. Either you strap everyone up to a lie detector or just let the gays serve with the honor that every fighting man deserves.
 
I never said that there aren't gays in the military chewie so please don't put words in my mouth.

Rabs you just summarized many of my feelings, lol.
 
Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
From Rod Powers,
Your Guide to U.S. Military.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!

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.

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

Elements.

(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)

(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.

(3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.

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.

Lesser included offenses.

(1) With a child under the age of 16.


(a) Article 125—forcible sodomy (and offenses included therein; see subparagraph (2) below)

(b) Article 134—indecent acts with a child under 16

(c) Article 80—attempts

(2) Forcible sodomy.


(a) Article 125—sodomy (and offenses included therein; see subparagraph (3) below)

(b) Article 134—assault with intent to commit sodomy

(c) Article 134—indecent assault

(d) Article 80—attempts.

(3) Sodomy.


(a) Article 134—indecent acts with another

(b) Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment.

(1) By force and without consent. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for life without eligibility for parole.

(2) With a child who, at the time of the offense, has attained the age of 12 but is under the age of 16 years. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 20 years.

(3) With a child under the age of 12 years at the time of the offense. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for life without eligibility for parole.

(4) Other cases. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.

Next Article> Article 126-Arson >

Above Information from Manual for Court Martial, 2002, Chapter 4, Paragraph 51



Any "practicing" homosexual male can be charged under the UCMJ. If they openly admit that they are gay then of course they admit that they practice sodomy. It would put them in a catch 22 situtation. This of course can also apply to heterosexual couples that practice those particulars of sex.
 
I saw this on a Royal Marine site and thought you might like to read it.

Met up with this lad last night who's just about hacked training. He told me all about the First "Offical" Poof in training.

Seems he's very Ooo get you bigboy! Mike told me of the day that he cocked up on weapon drills and was told to take his helmet to the Water Tank, Fill it up and then put it on his head. So off he Minced a skipping and a hopping to the tank. Gets there and is told to naff off by a PTI as blokes were doing regains. Minces back to his instructor who then informed him that he had to see every PTI and PW on the bottom field to get permission to dip his helmet in the Tank. So theres the "Mincing Nod" Skipping up to all the instructors asking

"Can I dip my HELMET please Cpl/Sgt"

Turns out that all the PW's and PTI's were in stitches as this guys got a voice like Farking Blue Bottle from out of the Goonshow. The odds on the Whoofter passing out are very very slim so Mike informed me.

All joking aside I think it bloody stinks making the Armed Forces enlist whoofters. Jesus Wept what next? Blokes having a sex change care of the Forces? I just wish the Powers that be would make a stand and say Enough is Enough! lets get back to reality and stop this errosion of our Once proud Armed Forces.
 
I guarantee there are gay folks in every branch of the US military, and there are also heterosexuals in every branch that have been wrongly accused of being gay and have suffered for it. I'd say the latter is much more of concern than the former.
 
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 *******... 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.
 
bulldogg said:
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 *******... 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.

As opposed to the "morality" of what other country sir?

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.)
 
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.
 
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.
 
"Kiss Me Good-night Sergeant Major." I thought that was just a good 'ol British WWII song...but now I wonder???

:shock:
 
Why should you wonder? I think it was meant as a joke, but it may have been something more. And it could have been sung by a female nurse, you never know.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Back
Top