Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study: Military Gays Don't Undermine Unit Cohesion (MEGA-BARF ALERT)
WJLA News ^ | 7/7/2008

Posted on 07/07/2008 8:16:52 PM PDT by markomalley

Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.

The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.

"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.

To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.

Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.

Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.

"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.

The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to portray a bipartisan representation of the different service branches.

According to its Web site, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate." Palm himself was "a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community," the site says.

Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military - Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps Gen. Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit's sexual orientation.

Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.

Further, the Defense Department and not Congress should be in charge of regulating sexual misconduct within the military, he said.

"Who else can better judge whether it's a threat to good order and discipline?" Alexander asked.

Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."

"Everyone was living a big lie - the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: dontaskdonttell; homosexualagenda; ibtz; trroll; usmilitary; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-239 next last
To: markomalley

When I was in Afghanistan, no one I knew wanted to take a shower with a known homosexual in the area. There’s just something creepy about them being in a communal shower with the rest of us.


51 posted on 07/07/2008 10:54:31 PM PDT by AlaskaErik (I served and protected my country for 31 years. Democrats spent that time trying to destroy it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Are those guys French?


52 posted on 07/07/2008 11:11:18 PM PDT by wastedyears (Obama is a Texas Post Turtle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

“Yep.

No women in the military, either.

Otherwise you are introducing sexual politics at every level, promotion, demotion, morale. . .

That’s how I see it.”

And when we go to this all male military, will we not allow the men to have wives since their wives might cheat on them with other men in the military? I can’t believe you can actually believe women shouldn’t be allowed in the military as if it’s the same as having gays openly serve. I’m not for them in all combat roles, but good grief!....not allow them to serve at any level?

I served 6 years and I certainly was professional enough to not let myself get involved in sexual politics regarding promotion or anything else. Normal men do not seem to have a problem with women or feel uncomfortable around them. They do seem to have a problem with having to share close quarters with gay men. I question the heterosexuality of any man who says he would have no problem with showering with a guy he knows is gay. That is just disgusting.


53 posted on 07/07/2008 11:23:44 PM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
I can say one thing for sure with 17 years + in the military. Men do not shower or bunk with women. The reason is obvious, you do not share that kind of personal space with someone you can be sexually attracted and related to. That is why gays should not be allowed openly, unless you want to make arrangements for four separate kinds of bunks and shower facilities. Simple as that. Sounds rather disruptive to cohesion if you ask me.
I can imagine women who do not know me would want to take a shower with me, and I would be similarly uncomfortable pressed into the same situation.
54 posted on 07/08/2008 12:15:01 AM PDT by McCloud-Strife (McCain-Obama, No matter who wins, we lose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear
“The average life span among homosexual men is about 20 years shorter then heterosexual men.”
I just don't get why we demonize smoking for the health risk it is, and then countenance homosexuality as a healthy ‘lifestyle choice” or a “preference”.

I had to laugh the other day I heard on NPR radio a doctor who was explaining that the rise in MRSA “super-staff” infection could NOT be due to gays high use of antibiotics for infections when their immune systems are compromised, (the staff adapting so it is not susceptible to known antibiotics anymore) then he said the best way to avoid contracting MSRA
was good hygiene, like wash your hands after you go to the bathroom. LIKE GAY SEX HAS ANY POSSIBLE LINK TO GOOD HYGIENE! The gay lifestyle is not a healthy lifestyle.

55 posted on 07/08/2008 12:49:25 AM PDT by dixjea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD

Some scenarios I envision re: female troops (by troops I mean in the bunkers, in the battleship, in the basic training, etc., to be clear).

Drill sergeant Man takes a liking to Private Woman. Special treatment ensues.

Drill sergeant Woman takes a liking to Private Man. Special treatment ensues.

Drill Sergeant Man likes Private Woman, who spurns him. Special (bad) treatment ensues.

Vice versa, Drill Sergeant Woman likes Private Man, who spurns her. Special (bad) treatment ensues.

Promotion time! What must the women in the corps due to advance their cause?

What punishment should be given to the pretty troops? The same as to the ugly?

What will men do to impress the ladies that they would not normally do in a group of men?

What sort of rivalry will develop between men who like the same fellow soldier?

Mixing heterosexual troops male and female together, OR, mixing homosexual troops into a hetero population, introduces a sexual component to the military that is not the same as your army wives scenario.

That’s how I see it. It is human nature. I do not think it provides the best military.


56 posted on 07/08/2008 1:01:52 AM PDT by Marie2 (It's time for a ban on handgun bans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.

Listen I have no problem with the Brits. There are some pretty bad ass warriors in their ranks. Don't mess with the United States Marines though. The US military, especially the Marines are an unrivaled fighting force anywhere on the planet. Ask anyone who's ever been on the opposite side of the US Marines. The Somali's wouldn't f*** with them back in the '90's, no one who has an interest in living(sane or insane) will mess with them either. Allowing the openly gay in their ranks would forever change that special brotherhood of Marines.

57 posted on 07/08/2008 3:05:03 AM PDT by MovementConservative (John Roberts and Sam Alito.... Thank you GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
We need the best military we can possibly achieve. It is a critical issue, more important than the price of gas

What if the very best Iraqi or Farsi interpreter in our ranks happens to be gay? Does National Security override "don't ask, don't tell"?

I really don't have an answer, but I can tell you as someone that has access to veterans medical records via the VA there are a lot more gay veterans than anyone could ever imagine. There are quite a few transgender individuals to, all of which our VA is supplying medical care to.

58 posted on 07/08/2008 4:18:26 AM PDT by codercpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MarineBrat

If gays want to serve, let them serve for Israel or Britain.


59 posted on 07/08/2008 5:29:27 AM PDT by huldah1776 ( Worthy is the Lamb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD

You can make up what ever gets you through the day, but if you’re showering with a bunch of people you can bet some of them are homosexual. You’re saying the military policy should be set up so that you can avoid the truth. That’s what I’m going on about.


60 posted on 07/08/2008 5:46:40 AM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: cammie

Attitudes are changing because of public schools and the media, working hard to undermine moral standards.

WMAL was discussing this, and wondered why, since before 1993 the policy was if you were gay you could not serve, people didn’t get out of Vietnam by saying they were gay.

But the fact is, back during Vietnam it was still considered immoral to practice gay sex, and even people who wanted to get out of the war weren’t willing to debase themselves that much — they’d rather flee to Canada.


61 posted on 07/08/2008 5:55:57 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: purpleraine
Outside of it being a readiness issue, it is just another huge political battleground for the queers to win on. They don't care about gays serving openly in the military, they just want another legal victory to change one of our largest and proudest institutions.....as they have TV, the media, churches and the classrooms. They hate the armed forces.

Once this is hurdle is negotiated, they'll move on to the next.

62 posted on 07/08/2008 5:56:57 AM PDT by Archie Bunker on steroids (The Cold War; trillions of dollars over 45 years to protect our country from what we have become)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: cammie

Having women does cause some sexual issues.

On the other hand, the logistics at least are manageable.

If you allow women, and want to segregate into groups that are NOT sexually attracted, all you need to do is set up two baracks, two showers, and if you really want, two lower chains of command (they don’t do this last step). You can easily monitor fraternization because you can identify who are the women and who are the men.

Now, suppose you have 10 gay men in a troop. How do you separate them so there is no sexual attraction?

Well, you can’t put the gay men TOGETHER. They are attracted to each other.

You can’t put the gay men with straight men. The gay men are attracted to the straight men.

You can’t put the gay men with straight women. The straight women are attracted to the gay men.

The best you can do is pair up a gay man with a lesbian, and put them in separate quarters with separate facilities. And you have to do that with each group of 2.

In other words, it is impossible to have a “group” that includes gay men that doesn’t have sexual issues. And that is because it is fundamentally unnatural to be gay.


63 posted on 07/08/2008 6:00:14 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

Nice try, but as soon as you put TWO gay men in with the girls, those two gay men could hook up with each other.

And the straight women could be attracted to the homosexual men, and might even think it a challenge to bunk one of them.

The best you could do is put one gay man in with one lesbian woman, and hope they weren’t lying about it.

If the woman is bisexual, they pretty much have to be kept in isolation.


64 posted on 07/08/2008 6:02:25 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Archie Bunker on steroids
I'm not keeping score. Something either makes sense or it doesn't. It's either harmful or it's not. It's either right or not.

The poster I was responding to has put herself into a situation where she must lie or tell herself something doesn't exist to make it okay. Think about that situation and why that's any more normal or right than someone being queer.

65 posted on 07/08/2008 6:07:19 AM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: McCloud-Strife
That is why gays should not be allowed openly, unless you want to make arrangements for four separate kinds of bunks and shower facilities.

That won't help. Gay men are attracted to other gay men. So you can't put them together in a bunk. You have to isolate them from all other men.

But you can't put them with women, because the women are attracted to them. Also, men might lie to get to bunk with the woman, or a "gay" man might in fact be bisexual.

There is no way to appropriately segregate gays and lesbians -- they are simply unnatural, and don't fit into the normal societal structures.

As I always say: You can't have a "gay boy scouts", because you might as well be putting guys and girls together in tents for the night.

66 posted on 07/08/2008 6:09:46 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: purpleraine

Yes, don’t ask, don’t tell is set up to keep people in the dark, so some troops don’t freak out, or worse, discriminate or take action, against other troops.

And while the general attitudes in society may be getting more permissive towards deviant sexual activity of all types (look at the rise in teen girls giving random blow jobs to guys for the fun of it), the mentality of the “real men” who volunteer to go possibly get their brains blown out may not be the type of thinking that says “love to have a gay guy showering with me”.

They may much more likely be the kind to say “no f-ing way I’m hanging around with a f*g*t, no f-ing way I’m trusting some girlie man with my life”.

And if I was gay and in the military, I wouldn’t want to tell, because if you think the enemy is particularly cruel to women who they catch in combat, imagine what they’d do if they caught an openly homosexual soldier.


67 posted on 07/08/2008 6:15:34 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: purpleraine
You can make up what ever gets you through the day, but if you’re showering with a bunch of people you can bet some of them are homosexual.

I hate to ruin anyone's fantasy here, but group showers aren't exactly commonplace in the military anymore, outside of basic training. If you shower at the gym you go to, you're likely more exposed, so to speak, than the average troop is.

Again, this is not what the generals are worried about. There are sexual harassment mechanisms in the UCMJ that work as effectively on gay men as they do on straight men. What the leadership fears is that their system does not permit half measures. There is no 'tolerance' level, it's either on or off. An officer that said, "I tolerate the presence of women and minorities in the military, because I am legally required to, but I don't believe they should be here" in public may as well resign.

If gay rights are permitted in the military, being militantly (heh) pro-gay rights will be as mandatory as supporting women and minorities. Failure to aggressively adopt a pro-gay viewpoint will hurt promotions (which are centralized, and central boards bend to top pressure easily). Once pro-gay is the military party line, you cannot respect it as part of your job, but otherwise agree to disagree. You have to be 100% for it, publicly, or your career is over.

It may not start out that way, but within one generation of officers, the old guard will be brushed aside, and the new breed will throw their less ardently pro-gay colleagues under under the bus left, right and sideways, if it helps them get promoted. That's what the military leadership is worried about. Not flying HIV blood or gay shower scenes. They know what the system will become, and what effect it will have on the entire military culture.

68 posted on 07/08/2008 6:20:21 AM PDT by Steel Wolf ("There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate" Ibn Warraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
Gay rights in the military? I don't see this as a rights issue. I do see it as an issue of fairness and uniform discipline.

I think it's ridiculous that some guy can be seen holding hands with another guy off base and be discharged. If another soldier can hold hands with his wife or girl-friend and not be discharged, that would seem to be obvious discrimination in how the military carries out discipline.

Serving in the military is a responsibility, if people didn't volunteer, we'd have to have a draft.

My first comment on the thread was that there have been homos in the military forever, some distinguished themselves by their bravery and service. Somehow the military managed to survive that. So, what's the problem now?

69 posted on 07/08/2008 6:39:20 AM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
See 68 for comment on group showers.

It's a volunteer army. If your battle face requires you to spout off about how heterosexual you are perhaps there's something wrong with your game plan.

How about they all take a public oath in boot camp about how much they love the opposite sex?

70 posted on 07/08/2008 6:42:00 AM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
That won't help. Gay men are attracted to other gay men. So you can't put them together in a bunk. You have to isolate them from all other men.

But you can't put them with women, because the women are attracted to them. Also, men might lie to get to bunk with the woman, or a "gay" man might in fact be bisexual.

Pretend that your comments were made by a general to a Democratic congress member, and this was the response.

Democratic congress member: "I see. What if we funded separate, individual rooms and facilities for all gay and lesbian troops?"

General: "That would solve the housing issue, but it won't be very cost effective."

Dem: "In accordance with equal protection under the law, everyone has the right to serve, regardless of the cost. We'll just shave some money off of R&D or weapons systems to fund it. Here's your check, go provide every gay service member with BAH and separate facilities."

This isn't far from happening. Beware of using any argument against a military course of action that involves throwing enough money at. At some point, someone with enough money will come along and take you up on it.

71 posted on 07/08/2008 6:46:29 AM PDT by Steel Wolf ("There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate" Ibn Warraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
If gay rights are permitted in the military, being militantly (heh) pro-gay rights will be as mandatory as supporting women and minorities. Failure to aggressively adopt a pro-gay viewpoint will hurt promotions (which are centralized, and central boards bend to top pressure easily). Once pro-gay is the military party line, you cannot respect it as part of your job, but otherwise agree to disagree. You have to be 100% for it, publicly, or your career is over.

It may not start out that way, but within one generation of officers, the old guard will be brushed aside, and the new breed will throw their less ardently pro-gay colleagues under under the bus left, right and sideways, if it helps them get promoted. That's what the military leadership is worried about. Not flying HIV blood or gay shower scenes. They know what the system will become, and what effect it will have on the entire military culture.

Excellent insight.

Thanks for posting.

72 posted on 07/08/2008 6:49:32 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

As a member of the military, I’ve suffered homosexuals grabbing my butt, trying to crawl into my rack in the middle of the night, outright obscene propositions, leering in the locker room. I can testify that this did affect my trust and opinion of the people involved, and unit cohesion.


73 posted on 07/08/2008 7:04:28 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
You're setting yourself up for a fall. In the guys point, the problem is not with homosexuals. It's with affirmative action. You are agreeing that we have AA in the military for minorities and women (I don't dispute that, especially after what Clinton did to the military), so therefore we can't let homos in because they will also have AA. Then what? Disabled. What a slippery slope!!!!

The problem in the scenario you congratulated is that the military should promote on the basis of merit, not that gays shouldn't be in because they have AA.

74 posted on 07/08/2008 7:05:31 AM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: cammie
“It may not be a legit study, but I work with college students — so people of military age — and they are exceedingly unfazed by people’s sexual orientation, so I would tend to agree with the results of the study.”

I have to agree too- sexual orientation just isn't a big deal for the under 30 set much anymore. Not with the kids I work with and not with 2 of my best friends in the world- 20 year vets (1 Army, 1 Navy) told me last year that they had gays serving with them, everyone knew it, and no one seemed to care. Someone even tried to say they were gay to get out of going to Iraq and the CO told them it that wasn't enough to get thrown out anymore....
Times are changing I think.....

75 posted on 07/08/2008 7:33:26 AM PDT by bigred41 (Don't mess with Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: purpleraine
Gay rights in the military? I don't see this as a rights issue. I do see it as an issue of fairness and uniform discipline.

I think it's ridiculous that some guy can be seen holding hands with another guy off base and be discharged. If another soldier can hold hands with his wife or girl-friend and not be discharged, that would seem to be obvious discrimination in how the military carries out discipline.

This is the crux of the problem with 'Don't ask, don't tell'. In accordance with the extremist, absolutist strain of logic that the military generally works under, this is an irreconcilable paradox. It's basically the same as saying, 'It's okay to sell secrets to the Chinese, so long as you're discreet'.

Does. Not. Compute.

My first comment on the thread was that there have been homos in the military forever, some distinguished themselves by their bravery and service. Somehow the military managed to survive that. So, what's the problem now?

Without delving into the historical details of mandatory service, military discipline, and sexual tension, suffice to say that how armies behave has historically been something nations regard as necessary evils. Slaughter, rape, brutality, any number of dark things brought out of people forced into fighting for their lives, and made monsters by the stress. Even for notionally good causes and when heroism and bravery were also present. Once you move into the mid to late 20th century, American society had turned against forced service and low moral standards.

With the advent of an all volunteer service, the military has transformed with each passing decade into an increasingly neo-Puritanical, legalistic organization. The values America wants most are programmed in, and the troops adhere accordingly. Even to the point of drunk driving awareness, environmental awareness, multiculturalism, workplace harassment, gender and racial integration, and any number of progressive social concepts, you'll find that the military is pretty much ahead of the civilian pack, because they have to be, because it's mandatory.

I heard Carlos Mencia drop the n-bomb in a jam-packed MWR building in Baghdad, and you could have heard a pin drop from down the street, over a joke that any civilian crowd of whites, blacks or anyone would have cracked up at.

Why? Because the military is programmed to treat racism like a mortal sin, under all circumstances. Since racism is bad, the military bans it, with severe penalties. They ban everything that is bad, with severe penalties. Every time a new element that is deemed 'bad' is entered into the military bloodstream, it is banned, with severe penalties.

Despite your adorable use of the word 'homo', you clearly support gay rights. That's fine. But what if, as a condition of your job, you had to publicly and regularly state that homosexuality was wrong. If you were caught saying that you didn't care if someone was gay or not, it would damage or end your career? Even if it was an organization you loved, you'd feel that it just wasn't right for you, and would feel that it was time to move on.

That's what the problem is now. The military will make it mandatory to support those who practice homosexuality. Not even neutrality will be permitted. This will chase out most people who are opposed, and many people who are neutral, to pro-gay opinions.

There may be an untapped reservoir of enlightened knuckle-draggers out there, brave men and women with extremely liberal political views, and yet extremely old fashioned attachment to personal sacrifice for God, family and country. But we're already pushing our luck as it is with hard core social experimentation, and the balance the military is running now is still questionable as far as being long term viable.

Can a touchy-feely, risk averse, enlightened military actually fight wars the way they often need to be fought? We get by now on an awesome advantage in weapons and organization, but we've steadily lost our primitive, natural core to a more progressive, perfectionist ideal. What further damage will the military do to the testosterone-driven base of personnel, by becoming pro-gay? How far can you push liberalism on your steely eyed killers before they quit on you?

That's the problem now.

76 posted on 07/08/2008 7:36:51 AM PDT by Steel Wolf ("There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate" Ibn Warraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Nice try, but as soon as you put TWO gay men in with the girls, those two gay men could hook up with each other.

Oh, NO!!!

It's just too complicated.

And we haven't even begun to consider two man person foxholes, hot-bunking, tent-mates or mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

Instead of our schools encouraging youngsters to "experience" alternate sexual relationships (like homosexualism, lesbianism, pedophelia) they should start teaching them that the BIG GUY did have it right the way he originally designed and equipped us.

They could start by examining the principals that make the nut and bolt work so well together, move on up to putting round pegs in round holes, and graduate to the study of why you can't use one sink hole to fill up another sink hole.

77 posted on 07/08/2008 7:37:19 AM PDT by Iron Munro (Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: PGR88; Borges; PJ-Comix
This is just the thin edge of the wedge. These so-called studies want to convince everyone things won’t change day one - but no one considers what will happen when they start having gay baracks, gay Army marriages, gay pride celebrations, gay days, etc... as part of the “new” Army.

There is a very cheesy movie from 1967 called "The Gay Deceivers" about two young men who pretend to be gay to get out of being drafted. In the movie, it turns out that the Army had been run by a "Gay Mafia" all along, and used "the question" to bring more gay men in. Rather tacky film, but a funny premise nonetheless.

78 posted on 07/08/2008 7:41:16 AM PDT by Clemenza (You Shoot Me in a Dream, You Better Wake Up and Apologize)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
Thanx for the socio-military historical perspective.

I don't support gay rights. I support human rights. Some people happen to be homosexual. Unlike some knee jerkers here, I don't fight everything associated with homosexuals. I decide on the issue and take my stand in accordance with what I believe about it.

I am not asking the army to support homosexuals. I am asking the army to leave them alone unless they violated some standard of conduct. In this case, unwanted hitting on others or assaulting others. I believe the military already has those behaviors prohibited. To have a "don't tell" rule which includes being "found out" off base for what would otherwise be legal activity is ridiculous and at best unequal enforcement of the military code.

79 posted on 07/08/2008 8:09:02 AM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; wagglebee; scripter

And when it comes time for our child to get a blood transfusion from one of his buddies in this “gay” army, are we gonna hold our breath?

You bet.

That hiv test is good for the week its administered, and there are more blood-borne pathogens than just hiv....the only one tested for.


80 posted on 07/08/2008 9:02:21 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: codercpc

I work with homosexuals a lot in my job. I don’t hate them.

I could certainly see the military hiring a great homosexual Farsi translator.

I don’t see why our enlisted troops should have to shower, bunk, train and live with him.

I appreciate the service of all the troops, even the homosexual ones, and I especially appreciate when they “don’t tell” and keep their sexual preferences quiet, rather than using our military as the latest social frontier for the advancement of the Cause.

I know there are some homosexuals who would just like to be who they are and have no agenda to promote. I also know they are a small minority of the homosexual population.


81 posted on 07/08/2008 10:31:37 AM PDT by Marie2 (It's time for a ban on handgun bans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: xzins; markomalley; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; AliVeritas; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

82 posted on 07/08/2008 11:43:49 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

thanks for the ping, wagglebee.

Most don’t really consider what they’re asking of our troops....they don’t consider the BLOODY battlefield.

And, if I can help you, but you can’t help me when blood is needed or first aid is needed, then there’s a HUGE morale problem in addition to a huge battlefield safety issue.

Would you want your child receiving a transfusion from a known gay who had a test months earlier? I wouldn’t.


83 posted on 07/08/2008 11:57:53 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

So allowing homosexuals to sexually harrass normal men is ok for morale. How many men are inclined to deck a queer for viewing his private parts?


84 posted on 07/08/2008 12:03:11 PM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Hallmarks of Liberalism: Ingratitude and Envy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I will be the first to acknowledge that many, possibly even most, homosexuals are decent people despite their sinful lifestyles. I believe that in the average work enviornment they can work side-by-side with everyone else without their homosexuality becoming a problem.

However, there is a sense of trust and brotherhood (I’m still not a big fan of women in combat) that is absolutely necessary on the battlefield and this requires the ability to have complete trust. And no matter what anyone says, homosexuality interferes with this.

As far as blood transfusions go, I do not believe that male homosexuals should EVER be allowed to donate blood or organs. This IS NOT a reflection on them as individuals, nor does it discount the reality that many do take steps to lower health risks, it is simply a realization of the inherent health risks of their lifestyle. How many of us would get behind the wheel of a car or get on an airplane that was manufactured with parts that were “thought” to be free from defects a year ago, but could very likely be defective now?


85 posted on 07/08/2008 12:15:41 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; P-Marlowe
How many of us would get ... on an airplane that was manufactured with parts that were “thought” to be free from defects a year ago, but could very likely be defective now?

Outstanding illustration!!

86 posted on 07/08/2008 12:23:06 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: purpleraine
“I am not asking the army to support homosexuals. I am asking the army to leave them alone unless they violated some standard of conduct.”

Umm, in order for the military to not “leave” them alone they must support sodomy in the first place.

Hint, sodomy nor adultery goes big with most military personnel. You see, people's BEHAVIOR not skin color or genitals must be JUDGED in the strict environment of an all VOLUNTEER military.

Yes they are homosexuals in the military, as well as adulterers, pedophiles, liars, thieves ect... What is your point besides forcing the acceptance of behaviors deemed sick and perverted by many military members? "Human rights"? I guess those who deem homosexuality morally reprehensible have no rights?

87 posted on 07/08/2008 1:23:33 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: JohnD9207

What do generals know about unit cohesion?


88 posted on 07/08/2008 2:06:15 PM PDT by quadrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
You logic is ill and nonsensical. Stealing and attacking kids is not analogous to homosexuality. Maybe in your mind, but not to normal people.

To leave homosexuals alone who are not assaulting or harassing others is not supporting sodomy. Since sodomy is not illegal in the US what is you proposed postion the military should take that is not already included in their code of conduct? Should they prohibit sodomy off-base or off-duty?

89 posted on 07/08/2008 5:07:09 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

“a California-based research center.”

Riiiight


90 posted on 07/08/2008 5:47:21 PM PDT by BabaOreally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: purpleraine; LaurenD
You can make up what ever gets you through the day, but if you’re showering with a bunch of people you can bet some of them are homosexual. You’re saying the military policy should be set up so that you can avoid the truth. That’s what I’m going on about.

Nearly every article posted on FR about public sex has been about homosexuals (and often it's group sex). This includes oral and rectal sex in public restrooms, truck stops, public beaches and parks.

Knowing the preponderance of evidence that this demographic group gladly practices private behavior in public, would you be willing to share a communal shower with them if they were allowed to serve openly?

91 posted on 07/08/2008 6:30:14 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; cammie
The best you can do is pair up a gay man with a lesbian, and put them in separate quarters with separate facilities. And you have to do that with each group of 2

You have to put each bisexual in their own room...

92 posted on 07/08/2008 6:32:26 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear
LOL! I went to Catholic girls school, run by nuns. And yes I showered in a group that contained lesbians and the rest of us. We actually made fun of each other and let it go.

I guess you're not reading the thread. See what the guy said earlier about showering in the military.

I assume your comment means homosexuals can't serve because they have communal showers? That's a long way to go around a problem that can be easily solved.

I worked in various prisons and I can tell you there are at least a few ways to stop the troops from grabbing each other in the shower.

It never ceases to amaze me that people would be excluded from military duty because those brave, combat ready soldiers, marines, and sailors, and airmen and women might be oogled. People ready to kill and be killed afraid to shower together. The horror!

93 posted on 07/08/2008 6:36:54 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
Dem: "In accordance with equal protection under the law, everyone has the right to serve, regardless of the cost. We'll just shave some money off of R&D or weapons systems to fund it. Here's your check, go provide every gay service member with BAH and separate facilities."

No one has "the Right to Serve." Just like I don't have "the right" to be a starter for the Lakers.

94 posted on 07/08/2008 6:37:03 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

How did you handle the situations? Did you complain to your chain of command?


95 posted on 07/08/2008 6:38:56 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: purpleraine
Think of it from another direction.

Currently the situation is this, a bunch of guys go into a shower and take care of their personal hygiene. Everyone can reasonably assume that it is relatively safe as all present are “straight”. There is some guarantee against unwanted advances, the homosexual making those advances could get drummed out for it.

Now, allow gays in the military to serve openly. We can readily document where they claim sexual intercourse in public restrooms and showers is just “part of the homosexual lifestyle”. Now, if a gay suddenly decides to be agressive, the target of his “affections” will likely wind up in counseling for refusing his advance. As has already been stated, the military doesn't do anything halfway. They would literally have “advisers” from the homosexual aberrants telling them that they have to allow this behavior.

96 posted on 07/08/2008 6:41:40 PM PDT by Hawk1976 (It is better to die in battle than it is to live as a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear
PS: the reason that every article contains criminal behavior is the owner forbids articles supporting the rights of and positive stories about homosexuals.

Here's an example of what passes for propaganda and smear tactics. Someone posts the ridiculous even pornographic photos of a gay-pride parade. Numerous posters come along to titter and sneer and paint all homosexuals the same as those who were in the photos. Anyone who even knows more than one homosexual knows that's a gross exaggeration and a propaganda technique.

97 posted on 07/08/2008 6:41:52 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear

And you don’t want to know what you have to do for the hermaphrodites..


98 posted on 07/08/2008 6:45:48 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Hawk1976
The "they" who do that are the same "they" that enlist? Proof please.

If the military allows abberant behavior on base or on-duty, then some leaders need to be retired. You don't keep people out of the military because the leaders are too weak to manage and enforce the rules of conduct.

I said what I have to say about showers above. Oh, and read what the other guy said before.

I supervised showers in several men's prisons for two decades and never made a move or fell in love.

99 posted on 07/08/2008 6:45:56 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: purpleraine
No decent leader has any hope of managing behavior at all times. I would not have wanted to risk recieving a blood transfusion from a gay while I was in.

By the way, the UCMJ forbids oral sex, anal sex, indecent public acts, and pretty much any sex that isn't conducted in a missionary position for the purpose of procreation. How are you going to square that with gays?

100 posted on 07/08/2008 6:56:44 PM PDT by Hawk1976 (It is better to die in battle than it is to live as a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-239 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson