Replies

Perhaps the ugly truth is that soldiers and sailors already know who is gay in their units and who isn't and that the gay soldiers and sailors are in many units exemplary and significantly outperforming their straight colleagues. Perhaps the only thing that keeps them in check and from going out there and really raising the bar is the threat of too much attention leading to their dismissal.

Perhaps the straight soldiers and sailors recognize this too. They recognize that keeping gays in the closet or in fear of being summarily dismissed, may be the only way for straight soldiers and sailors to stay competitive. They may know they are faced with this “force within a force” that seeks in every way to outperform as a way of proving social worth. The possibility of straight soldiers and sailors having to “up their game” in order to compete may scare the hell out of them and so they opt to keep their gay colleagues in a coercive detainment instead.

In that way, perhaps gays in the military is similar to blacks in professional sports half a century ago. A majority of white players may not have wanted them and said the reason wasn't anything other than team cohesion. However, the ugly truth might have been that they had seen blacks play and they were threatened by their abilities to perform, compete and even (heaven forbid) win.

Having served in the military as well as some others on here, I know the discussions and attitudes about homosexuality in the military, and job performance didn’t have anything to do with it. I will concede that there may be a possibility that may have changed since I served, but...I doubt it.

Granted, I served before the DADT policy, but that doesn’t mean that people didn’t discuss it.

Your assertion is a specious argument.

Perhaps the ugly truth is that soldiers and sailors already know who is gay in their units and who isn't and that the gay soldiers and sailors are in many units exemplary and significantly outperforming their straight colleagues. Perhaps the only thing that keeps them in check and from going out there and really raising the bar is the threat of too much attention leading to their dismissal.

That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard, and it is quite obvious that you have never been in the American military.

Giving the patent approval to behaviors that are nihilistic and destructive to social order, only encourages those practices and puts homosexuals in a power to use their “special protection status” over new, young, and naive recruits. They can force their attentions on others through rank which is where the danger occurs. To think that that will not happen is ridiculous when that is why men and women were separated. If you think that men and women can not control their sexual urges, then multiply that by 10 because homosexuals are at least that much more out of control and aggressive.

Homosexuals lack of “control” is well documented and for centuries considered a mental illness—public restrooms, bushes in public parks, priesthood assaults on boys. Homosexuals promiscuity and pedophilia victims far exceed the numbers from the heterosexual community when ratios are figured. Their “emotional” control over their reasoning makes them a danger. Their lack of moral constraint makes them a supreme danger. That is the bottom line. You want the military to “approve” of a destructive behavior. With no “shame” applied to behaviors, they become mainstreamed. Since homosexuality is a learned behavior, homosexuals have been fighting for the right to mainstream that behavior—to muzzle our most masculine men and make them impotent to fight the homosexual propaganda.

This undermines the freedom of religion—people have the right to have moral codes—to judge behaviors as good and bad and if the military forbids its troops from expressing disgust for certain behaviors, then it gives it tacit approval. It is imperative for the military to have a moral code. For egalitarian societies, where women are not degraded and used as breeders and slaves, homosexuality can never be condoned.

Look to the Spartans who practiced rampant homosexuality (women had no rights) and the recruitment of young boys was incorporated into that military. Yes, they had an outstanding military and homosexuality was used to encourage cohesion (just like the Nazi Brownshirts who used the Hitler Youth for recruits)(pantheistic culture encouraged it and all sexual immorality—pedophilia was rampant since it is learned and necessary for recruitment.)

Judaism and Christianity were the forces that ended the pagan practices. That is why we see the destruction of Christian principles now: to give freedom to all sexual immorality and perversions.

“Perhaps the straight soldiers and sailors recognize this too. They recognize that keeping gays in the closet or in fear of being summarily dismissed, may be the only way for straight soldiers and sailors to stay competitive.”

That is an unwarranted insult to the members of the U.S. Military. I know that “ad hominen” attacks are not good form here. However, it is my opinion that you should change your handle from “johnnycap” to “johnnycRap.” Because you are very full of it.

Perhaps the ugly truth is that soldiers and sailors already know who is gay in their units and who isn't and that the gay soldiers and sailors are in many units exemplary and significantly outperforming their straight colleagues.

That's quite an amazing claim you're making. I suppose you have data or other evidence to back it up.

Despite the stereotype of the "neat, clean, hardworking gay man," I've noticed those who have been discharged were usually the opposite. Many were obsessive about their hair or clothing, but more often than not, their quarters were pig-styies.