Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military

NY Times ^ | 2 January 2007 | JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI

[Boris99]

"Well, any female soldier can assert authority over male soldiers, based on rank."

I was referring to the fact that even a private in the military police can pull over a Sgt. or 1SG and give them a hard time. I have no way to prove it, but I suspect that to a man hating, militant, butch, lesbian that is an attractive job prospect. S/he can pull over one of those infantryman that thinks he is so tough. S/he'll show him who's boss!

[SC DOC]

I would be very surprised if the military (even in emergency situations) did not routinely screen collected blood for Hepatitis B, C, HIV (multiple strains) and syphilis, as they do routinely in the Red Cross.

[stevie_d_64]

cheeky...

[WVNan]

Which raises a point. Gays as a rule are fairly "sissified" and probably would not opt for military life, but I'm all for letting the "butches" in. There are no tougher people on earth. I've seen them fight.

[stevie_d_64]

The "penetration, however slight" clause always got me scratching my head for some reason...

You either are, or are not going to complete the offence...

I WANT THE TRUTH!!!

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

I just can't think of another military force that goes to this great length to keep its cohesive-ness so loose, for lack of a better term...

I don't even think the French military is so liberal...

Seems to me in my experience other countries base their military on a performance template and not on a "people person" template like we do...

Now...Our forces are second to none...But when it comes to tinkering with the makeup and diversity nonsense...We rank right up there with the best of them...(that second part is sarcasm)

Just forces me to believe when some government idiots have nothing else better to do...

"Lets screw with the military some...Let's float the homosexual service issue out there again..."

Or some other idiot pet project on them...

[stevie_d_64]

Should I have not said anything, or are you just fed up with the topic???

[traditional1]

"Should I have not said anything, or are you just fed up with the topic???

No, I'm not commenting that the post is not warranted at all. I'm only expressing my feeling that the whole issue of sex deviates in the military is political-correctness gone overboard.

I do not believe the military needs sex deviates in its ranks at all, as the issue is the suitablility of those who are mal-adjusted to societal norms do not fit in military, where DISCIPLINE is expected, including MENTAL discipline, and the inter-dependence on the team members that could mean life or death is not a place for weak-disciplined, morally courageous, and rule-driven mindset are keys to survival in combat.

I believe the military is WRONG to have ever caved into the faggot/dyke agenda and PC-pressure to allow the deviates a forum and a place in the ranks where they clearly don't belong.

Would anyone (other than another sex deviate gay) ever put a gay soldier/sailor forth as a role model for their son?

[Boris99]

I'm sure there are plenty of tough butches, but call me old fashioned...when I see a butch to me there seems to be some sort of deep-seeded mental issues going on just below the surface.

[Quix]

Good points.

[stevie_d_64]

I agree...I am glad you clarified your position...

I just had that picture of you smacking yer forehead in agony at this issue being raised again...;-)

No prob...

I've got a thread I am going to post here in a minute that in many ways is not that big a surprise, but I figure most here would have to agree with my brief commentary on it...

It'll be up here in a minute...

[LexBaird]

(example one: Broadway, which focuses on themes about homophobia and AIDS, neither of which has much interest for the straight community. Example two: the Episcopal Church, which has lost all sight of Christianity in its attempt to raise buggery to a sacrament).

Example three: the NYT, which has made homosexual advocacy practically a requirement to join the editorial board.

[trebb]

Like some retiring Chief from the Air Force supposedly said at his retirement ceremony,\" When I came in the Air Force, it was unacceptable to be homosexual and remain in service. Later, it was only unacceptable to admit being homosexual. I'm just glad to be getting out before they make it mandatory to be homosexual."

[Steel Wolf]

Let those who think practicing homosexuals have a place in our military, I suggest they take the first blood transfusion from one of these homosexuals.

U.S. military personnel are required to have an AIDS/HIV test every 12 months. In practice, due to pre-deployment screenings and other unit functions, they actually get it more often than that. I'd take a blood transfusion from any soldier over any civilian; gay, straight or otherwise. No one is screened better.

[shrinkermd]

Good point. I have never settled in my own mind what to do. Surely, homosexuals have always served, but what is the best policy towards the issue?

[Steel Wolf]

Not many gay men want to be in the military, but a lot of gay women do. I only served once in a unit with females in it, but almost half of them were lesbians.

That's exactly true. I can count on one hand the number of gay soldiers I've ever run across. As far as lesbian or bisexual ones, I couldn't even give you a good ballpark figure, but it's a lot. In my line of work, we had a pretty egalitarian chain of command that didn't really give a hoot what people did on their off time, so long as it didn't make the papers. Drunk driving was almost a capital offense, whereas no one really cared who you slept with, so long as you were discreet.

Still, you're right about the "gay friendly" problem. The military being what it is, if homosexuals were permitted, the EO regs would be force feeding a lot of gay friendly propaganda down people's throats. It's one thing to ask them to turn a blind eye. Many officers and NCOs are happy to do that, to keep the unit running well. It's another entirely to get them to look what they consider to be immoralitly in the eye, and call it holy.

[JCEccles]

Conservatives who support Giuliani for president love to dismiss concerns about his social liberalism by saying, "Gay rights is a state and local issue; the president has little influence over it."

This a prime example of how wrong-headed that argument is.

A Giuliani-Pelosi-Reid social liberal triumvirate could be expected to make the US armed forces as gay friendly as the British army and navy.

This would not sit well with the conservative Scots-Irish from the southern states that disproportionately make up the core of our current military. As recruitment numbers plunge, the Giuliani-Pelosi-Reid social liberal triumvirate could expected to implement a draft. Thus, we would all be forced to participate in the lunatic left's grand gay social experiment.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

Mental issues below the surface? Rosie O'Donuts immediately springs to mind.....

[Boris99]

"Still, you're right about the "gay friendly" problem. The military being what it is, if homosexuals were permitted, the EO regs would be force feeding a lot of gay friendly propaganda down people's throats. It's one thing to ask them to turn a blind eye. Many officers and NCOs are happy to do that, to keep the unit running well. It's another entirely to get them to look what they consider to be immoralitly in the eye, and call it holy."

Amen to that. To gays that truly are interested in serving their country, they are able to do so as long as they don't wear their sexuality on their sleeve. What this is about is pushing militant gays into the military who are not concerned with service to country, but rather advancement of a gay agenda. If that happens we will have decisions being made not in the interest of the military or the country, but decisions being made to advance the "agenda." Promotions and choice assignments will be given not to the best soldiers, but to the "correct" soldiers. Imagine a General's staff being made up of soldiers simply because they were the "correct" soldiers, not necessarily the best soldiers for the job. That is not a military that we need to fight our wars.

[wintertime]

harm recruitment ( from the article)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We may have a situation that now exists in the Catholic Church.

Just as gays are now drawn to the seminaries, and dominating the culture there, gays could be drawn the military. We would not have an effective military if the armed forces become a gay playground that discourages the participation and advancement of straight men and women.

[Steel Wolf]

Good point. I have never settled in my own mind what to do. Surely, homosexuals have always served, but what is the best policy towards the issue?

After a brief decade of service, in both mixed and all male units, this is how I generally rate groups as effective soldiers, on a scale of one to five.

1. Straight males.
2. Lesbians.
3. Gay males.
4. Pop up targets (Ivans)
5. Straight women.

Now, given the political delicacies of the issue, forming a policy around these realities is practically impossible. The military already has a rep for being a place for straight guys and lesbian women, but putting that into law might be a little dicey.

The best option would be to keep the military, or at least the Army and Marine Corps, as an all male, non-homosexual work environment. Simply put, the good of the nation should be more important that the career desires of an individual gay or female that always wanted to drive a tank. Let the Air Force and the Navy remain integrated and even allow them to drop the "don't ask, don't tell" restriction. That way, there's still somewhere for everyone to serve, but it's in roles that will facilitate and maximize our available manpower.

If we, as a society, are unwilling to get over our desire to be fair to everyone, then that's fine, but it will come at a cost to our overall effectiveness. While we retain a strong technological advantage now, we permit ourselves weakness as a luxury, so we can feel morally superior. The military, as an organization, is already far more obsessed with fairness and following the rules than it is with victory. Adding another sacred cow to the herd, in the form of gay rights, will only weaken our combat power.

For the record, I served with a lot of people that weren't straight, the vast majority women, and I learned a lot of good technical skills from them. Part of me feels very bad that we can't all just shut up and soldier, because the military would be losing a lot of expertise from them, and they're good people, too. I just don't see a good way around it. The military at it's core either needs to be a killing machine, or a fairness-producing machine. It can't be both for long. One side will eventually win out.