Your philosophy or bias is getting in the way of your seeing the truth. There have been a half dozen or so articles about this in the last week on FR, with many cogent comments - reasons why allowing homosexuals into the military is a bad thing. The majority of those serving in the military do not want open homosexuals in with them.
That is reason enough. But there are many specfic reasons why homosexuals in the military is a bad thing. BTW, women in the military has drawbacks and IMO there should be separate units or whatever the right term is for women, the way there used to be. Women just plain cannot function exactly the same as men, so standards have to be watered down for them and this is bad for morale.
When George Washington was a General in the military, one man was found to be a homosexual and he was drummed out - literally drummed. Homosexuals were punished and rejected from the military. So don’t lie and imply they were accepted.
I do not use the word “gays” because that is a euphamism and a propaganda word stolen from English - now we can’t say “gay” using the real meaning because it now means “sodomy practitioner”. Homosexuals are more promiscuous, more prone to disease, more prone to substance abuse, domestic violence, child molestation, and more. They have the highest rate of AIDS as well as other STDs and for that fact alone are a risk in the military.
So any so-called argument you present will be entirely dismantled by any one of these threads. If you want to support homosexuals in the military then find a thread with a list of reasons why it is wrong and defeat each reason with facts.
But you won’t be able to do it, you support your side with emotion and fact free statements such as “they should act like adults”. Well, homosexuals act like uncontrolled worse than animals so that argument won’t fly.
What's worse is that male personnel have to carry water for them. A unit with 90% males and 10% females is about 85% as effective as one with 100% males. IMHO.
I never said that homosexuals were historically accepted in the military, simply that they were there. The broad general argument against homosexuals in the military is that their presence is prejudicial to good order and discipline. An openly homosexual officer or non-com might show preference to certain subordinates or be suspected of doing so. (You see why integrating females in male units has a similar effect.)
The other problem is discomfort on the part of many straight men about being in close quarters with homosexuals, which I can certainly understand and sympathize with. As I said, as long as everyone behaves like adults, the situation should be tolerable.
Commanders like to avoid problems and conflicts and the easiest way is not accept gays into the services, I agree. But they are there now. When I was in the Army there were two incidents involving homosexuality that I was aware of. In one case, during my time in missile school, a former service member and a recruit in our training platoon told the battery commander that they were homosexuals in order to be discharged. They got their wish, but the Army tried to keep the story under wraps because they didn't want a bunch of guys who wanted out coming forward and claiming to be gay.
The other incident was at my TO&E unit in Germany, one black guy who had guard duty asked permission to return to the barracks to get some gear and was granted it. When he was not back in time for his round, they found him in his room (which he shared with about seven other guys, who were not present at the time) nekkid and asleep in the same bed with another guy, in the soixante-neuf position. According to the reporting officer, "the air was thick with the smell of sex". (Tell me, lieutenant, how do you know what sex smells like?) I lived on the same floor and never suspected anything. Both guys were discharged for "participation in lewd, indecent and immoral acts".
Somehow the Army survived these incidents. Again, I am only opposed to behavior, not inclinations.
you are correct
they are notn gays they are homosexuals
the left finds positive words and then twists them to suit their agenda
Like progressive in the 20’s but it became a dirty word so they used liberal and now that is becoming a dirty word they look to use populist or back to progressive
same as gay
gay means to be happy, gay is a positive word
homosexual they thought as a negative so they take the word gay thinking it will bring more of a positive view.
well it doesn’t. Dress a wolf as a sheep it’s still a wolf.
Dress a man as a woman it still is a man even if he has it chopped off.
homosexual not gay, I won’t play the lefts game will you???