Charles Djou, Soldiers Who Cannot Comply With DADT Repeal 'Shouldn't Be In The Service'

“No matter how stupid the choices of the leadership, so long as they are not illegal, soldiers are expected to follow orders.”

Define legal???? IF an order is immoral, is it legal????

Now that being said...if I’m sharing a fighting position with a homosexual in hot war zone....at that particular occassion, IF she or he pull their weight (as I would expect from any soldier) I see no reason to not give them the same level of protection I would anyone else (I watch their back and expect the same in return). It when we get back to the barracks that the problems will most likely occur.

Sadly, I trully expect a “Frag a Fag” movement to start occuring in SOME units. Should a homosexual get in an officer position, I don’t think the soldiers will have the same respect (benefit of doubt) given to other junior officers. This will impact moral and readiness. This just isn’t a good idea. The REAl world isn’t as tolerant as hollywood portrays it, or as homophobic either.

Senior Officers and NCOs don’t needed the added combat stress of having to give special protection to openly professed homosexuals to protect them from other soldiers.

Yes, an immoral order is legal. Morality is not an absolute, from the standard of government. Yes, religiously we believe in moral absolutes. Unfortunately, different religions believe in different moral absolutes, and government does not specifically choose between the moral teachings of religion.

Most laws are moral laws, and that is because many religious morals are so well-ingrained that they are accepted outside of their religious origins. Unfortunately, as we drift from God, humanity is losing it’s inate sense of right and wrong.

But a soldier can’t decide which orders to obey based on the religious beliefs they hold. Realizing that there are many false religions claiming a christian faith but teaching that homosexuality is moral, and realising that there are religious faiths that teach “morality” that Christians would find antithetical, we can’t leave it to individual soldiers to make their own decisions on morality.

Of course, an individual soldier must be true to their morals. That is why I support allowing honorable discharge to those who, for their own religious moral reasons, cannot accept the situation if DADT is repealed. But unit cohesion dictates that if gays are assigned to a unit, that unit must treat gays just like straights.

Of course, that is what happens today — the point of DADT was that there are gays in the military, they are sleeping with, showering with, and serving with straights, and so long as nobody KNOWS about it, everybody is “fine” with it.

We can’t defend DADT and then say that the mere presense of gays is itself disruptive, because the point of DADT is that it is the KNOWLEDGE of gays being present that is the disruption, not the gays. I think this was a slippery slope, but it’s what we have to deal with today.

Given that most American corporations have strict non-discrimination policies, and expect their straight employees to work with gay employees, I would be worried if I was in the military and got an honorable discharge because or a moral aversion to working with gays — it could severely limit the ability to get a job later. I would note that every major military contractor has strict anti-discrimination polcies as a matter of course, mostly dictated by their government contracts both here and abroad.

“Of course, an individual soldier must be true to their morals. That is why I support allowing honorable discharge to those who, for their own religious moral reasons, cannot accept the situation if DADT is repealed. But unit cohesion dictates that if gays are assigned to a unit, that unit must treat gays just like straights.”

That my friend is insane. It will remove those from military service best able to deal with it, and those that make the best soldiers. You confirm my worst fears about repealing DADT...the destruction of our military forces by stepping on FIRST AMMENDMENT rights of a large minority in favor of a shaky small one.

I know it isn’t right to denigrate someone just because they don’t agree with you. However, I must question if you are not a homophile or homosexual yourself. Or if you harbor anti Christian bias. The Judeo Christian view against homosexual behavior are well over 2000 years old. These so call religious views favoring it are a very recent aboration.

You are evaluating the situation with a moral standard, and I’m evaluating from the point of view of military chain of command.

I don’t see how you could possibly operate a military if individual soldiers can decide whether or not to fight for or with other soldiers based on their personal moral viewpoints. No matter how correct those moral viewpoints are, you simply can’t have unit cohesion if soldiers can’t count on each other to follow orders and work together.

From that perspective, IF they decide to let gays serve openly, I see no choice other than to let people who don’t like that take honorable discharges. You can’t have troops who won’t fight together in the same unit, and you aren’t going to form gay units (which would be another somewhat rational choice), since units would still count on other units.

But lets talk morals. Homosexuality is a sin. So is adultery. Should soldiers be allowed to not defend their fellow soldiers if they know those soldiers found a prostitute the night before, or are living with their girlfriends but not married? Those are sins. What if we know a man cheated on his wife? Do we get to let him be exposed to enemy fire, because we don’t want to fight for a sinner who is deliberately and willfully living in sin (I say that to avoid the obvious problem that all of us are sinners).

In my opinion, and I believe I am correct, the argument against gays in the military is not founded on the immorality of a gay lifestyle, but rather on the problems that having an openly gay person causes in a unit (a problem that would exist with any declared gay man, whether that person was engaged in homosexual acts, or had decided to live a celibate life because they believed homosexual acts were immoral).

The younger generation have been sufficiently brainwashed that they no longer have an aversion to homosexuals, even though many of them are still disgusted and averse to the homosexual acts. I see this with my own children, and their friends.

I believe that within the next 20 years, nobody is going to consider serving in the military with an openly homosexual person to be distracting or damaging to the troop morale. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are already working next to each other throughout our society, in some cases forced by anti-discrimination statutes, but also by simply tolerance and respect for privacy.

I’ve never had a problem being with homosexuals. They are immoral, sinners, living outside the will of God. THey are often selfish, immature, and self-centered. But so are many of my non-homosexual non-christian aquaintances (and more then a few christian aquaintances).

I oppose gays in the military, including the DADT policy. I think it’s absurd to consider the gay rights movement, gay marriage, civil unions, or gay adoption. Those are all part of the selfishness of people who want not only to live an abberant lifestyle simply because it’s how the “feel”, but they want to force the world to accept them, embrace them, and give them special treatment.

But I’ve long since stopped caring whether the person I’m talking to is gay, or an adulterer, or a thief, or an idolater.

“But lets talk morals. Homosexuality is a sin. So is adultery. Should soldiers be allowed to not defend their fellow soldiers if they know those soldiers found a prostitute the night before, or are living with their girlfriends but not married? Those are sins. What if we know a man cheated on his wife? Do we get to let him be exposed to enemy fire, because we don’t want to fight for a sinner who is deliberately and willfully living in sin (I say that to avoid the obvious problem that all of us are sinners).”

Your point is consistent with concerns I have as well. There are more persons (hetereosexual) currently living together in a sexual relationship outside of marriage than within.

I work for the military as a civilian and I am still a serving reservist. Sexual misconduct is an absolute plague on the military right now. You would not believe the number of court martials that occur regularly because officers and senior NCOs cannot keep their paws off junior enlisted. It is seriously disruptive to unit cohesion and morale.

With this already being a MAJOR problem with the military, we cannot afford to have openly homosexual service members. We don’t need further disruption. In the private sector, a person takes there sexual behavior home with them at night. In the military, while deployed, this is not the case.

Let those of us that ACTUALLY have to deal with maintaining good order and discipline make the calls on homosexuals openly serving. We cannot afford to lose those soldiers that actually behave themselves to make room for those with abherant lifestyles. It won’t be the persons with “religious” objections to homosexuality that will “refuse to fight with/for” homosexual members. However, they will be more likely to tell the homosexual that their conduct is wrong....and be dismissed for religious beliefs. Sorry, that is just wrong and violates the 1st Ammendment. You don’t discharge the well behaved to accomodate those that aren’t.

Like I said before, let us in uniform deal with the order and discipline problems. Discharge of objectors is NOT a good idea...it is just plain wrong.

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.