Gays in military? - Page 7




 
--
 
October 3rd, 2005  
Ramjet
 
Quote:
the original purpose of sex is procreation.
I think the main purpose of sex is pro-creation, but I wouldn't label it as the original purpose.

Quote:
we must recognize that it is a disability
I'm curious; how is being gay or lesbian a disability? Personally I define a "disability" as something that obviously constricts a person's level of functioning. However, being gay or lesbian is a sexual orientation. I don't see how it impairs a person?

Anyways, if it is indeed a disability, should all gays and lesbians be permitted to apply for disability pensions?

RE: Gays and lesbians and sex. It seems that one of the implications here is that being homosexual = promiscuous. IMO I think that is a rather outdated stereotype, albeit an enduring one.

Personally, I don't see how sexual urges between gay/straight males, or gay/straight females would be any different. Besides, if people are easily distracted by their urges, then I would seriously doubt they are fit for service.

To the best of my understanding, being in the military means being professional - which means you leave personal feelings at the door when on duty. Sexual orientation doesn't matter.
October 3rd, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
[quote="Ramjet"]
Quote:
Personally, I don't see how sexual urges between gay/straight males, or gay/straight females would be any different. Besides, if people are easily distracted by their urges, then I would seriously doubt they are fit for service.

To the best of my understanding, being in the military means being professional - which means you leave personal feelings at the door when on duty. Sexual orientation doesn't matter.
I couldn't possibly shower with the Swedish Bikini Team without some unprofessional feelings. That is a distraction. After such an activity, it would be tough for me to perform a touchy military action because men are made that way. Women are more in touch with how they feel about a mate and Men are visually attracted to a mate to begin with, then an attachment will form. I don't think it would be any different with gays, except reversed.
October 4th, 2005  
migidarra
 
I don't have anything against a gay or lesbian person. Its the idea that I don't like. Same with premarital sex, stealing, lying, cheating. They are all one in the same to me. Doesn't mean that I won't be there friend....I don't discuss their sexual preference most of the time...and if he asks my opinion I will tell him straight up. Doesn't make me hate them....but it is disturbing. just my 2 cents
--
October 4th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
I couldn't possibly shower with the Swedish Bikini Team without some unprofessional feelings.
Well maybe your airforce guys are a bunch of pretty boys but I ain't thinking Bikini Team is an apt metaphore for grunts and marines. Ever wonder why the army doesn't put out a swimsuit calander?
October 5th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Well maybe your airforce guys are a bunch of pretty boys but I ain't thinking Bikini Team is an apt metaphore for grunts and marines.
Artillery, artillery, see avatar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Ever wonder why the army doesn't put out a swimsuit calander?
God, no! Now I'll have nightmares.
October 18th, 2005  
NewRecruitAFR2332
 
 
There is no reason to not accept homosexuals in the military. But what's not cool is abusing the don't ask, don't tell policy to either leave the service or to get someone kicked out.

My ex-boyfriend had a problem with this issue. I'm not exactly sure if he sent out the fake e-mail himself or if someone else did it.

So that's my $.02.
October 19th, 2005  
JAS
 
 
an article..that may be interest
http://online.logcabin.org/issues/lo..._overview.html
rather have my son in a fox hole with a competent gay person than an incompetent straight guy.
October 19th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Excellent article JAS, cheers for posting it. They make a VERY effective argument. I only wish they had provided links to data for the claims they make, I don't doubt them but it would make a stronger case.
October 19th, 2005  
DTop
 
 
Not to take sides in this discussion but to clarify the policy in the US, I post the following for consideration.

The 1993 law, which has been upheld as constitutional several times, is conduct based. It does not rely on amorphous concepts such as sexual orientation or vague preferences.

WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS

In a series of statutory findings, Congress affirmed that:

· "There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces;"

· "Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life;"

· "There are "numerous restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian life;"

· Conditions are often "spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy;"

· Standards of conduct apply to members of the armed forces "at all times...whether the member is on base or off base…on duty or off duty;"

· "The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons...who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, [which] would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order, and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."
Link
The Law
October 19th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Thanks for that Top.

See the affirmation of the very last paragraph posted here is refuted by the evidence from our allies and other armed forces that allow gays to serve openly with no deleterious effects.