Posted on 01/12/2007 5:39:25 AM PST by Woodland
pnh102 wrote: "Why should they run the risk of being railroaded out of a job they can on account of what they do outside of the service?"
Because the military is a 24/7 job--there's no such thing as "outside of military service" because private behaviors can have an impact on job performance and the public's perception of the military. That's why a DUI can cost you a stripe on the job as well as a fine in court--arguments that no one was harmed notwithstanding.
It's certainly allowed with the obvious caveat that we can't have harassment affect overall readiness. The IDF is concerned with military readiness, not with soldiers' off-base sexual practices. If soldiers' want to express their own opinions and beliefs, that's welcome, again to the extent of affecting the integrity of the unit. When I served, I knew a lot of people I disliked -- and in some cases despised -- and I always found it easy to find a happy medium that allowed me to work alongside them while making my opinions of them clear.
Maybe I'm a Neanderthal, but I wouldn't want to be sleeping in a tent or showering with a guy who might be sexually attracted to me (not that I'm anything special).
I don't know what to say, other than that's not been an issue for us in Israel. Units work fine, and if a gay soldier has ever raped a straight soldier, I haven't heard about it.
you don't know anything about the military it is far more than just pointing a gun.
It is about integrity of command and the ability of the forces to be disciplined in the mind.
Homosexuality is only about sex. Homosxuals have no place in any military.
Soldiers and Sailors often have less space between each other than a coffin. Submariners have too little space for privacy and the last thing needed is a sexual fetishist.
Prohibity homosexuals is no different than prohibiting pedophiles or those who have sex with animals.
all those who are homosexuals who are serving are NOT serving honorably. They are lying intentionally and posing a secrity risk based on their sexual fetish.
Mark Forley is a perfect example of a homosexual who was a demonostrable liability.
Homosexuals have selected to focus their lives on how they pop their orgasms. That has no place in military service.
We don't allow other sexual fetishes to serve in the military. Homosexuals are the same as pedophiles or animal sex fetishists. The second they are discovered they must be removed.
The fact you think it is only exposure to someone with hostile intent that makes them removable only proves how big a security risk homosexuals pose. There was a reason in 1992 there were a number of sailors who were accidentally falling overboard.
So by your assertion, everyone in the military would have a problem with this? If this is the case, why would people like Barry Goldwater or John Shalikashvili, who did serve in the military, not have a problem with it?
Pretty soon, if the liberals get their way, this is what our military will look like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb5pF0IF_DM
pnh102 wrote: "Why would people like Barry Goldwater or John Shalikashvili, who did serve in the military, not have a problem with it?"
You're kidding, right? Barry Goldwater's military experience is a bit outdated, and Shalikashvili is a retired general, hardly one to understand life in the proverbial trenches. Being rather generous, let's say they are both credible experts. Even so, I could list other generals and politicians who DO have a problem with gays openly serving. It proves nothing.
I find it interesting that if one liberal is offended or upset by a policy, that is enough for the ACLU and their "progressive" allies in the press to come screaming in to change the policy. But conservatives are just supposed to suck it up if we're offended, no matter how many we may be.
...why would people like Barry Goldwater or John Shalikashvili, who did serve in the military, not have a problem with it?
I served 24 years in the Navy. Is my opinion any less valid than theirs? I propose to you that as a former enlisted man who lived in cramped shipboard berthing areas and in shoreside barracks my opinion is more valid than any officer's.
I'll respect that. Under the current policy though, there probably are closeted gays and lesbians serving in such conditions and they do not engage in provocative behavior. Surely if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve openly, such behavior in that kind of environment would continue to be unacceptable because of other factors, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.