Posted on 07/07/2008 8:16:52 PM PDT by markomalley
Unfortunately, that's NOT the way it's going to be spun.
(The funny part about it is that the logistics of housing homosexual and heterosexual enlisted personnel would be unmanageable and un-affordable...no matter what your opinion of gays is...all I can say is that I sure am glad that I'm retired and won't have to deal with this mess)
The problem here is generals are far removed from the possible AIDS tainted blood that flys on the battlefield and infects straight patriots.
My dissertation advisor, generally a man of the left, nonetheless liked to discomfit folks advocating allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military by asking “would you want to serve on a submarine with one?”
The awkward silence that usually followed adequately made the point of why allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military would be a problem for morale and unit cohesion.
Such relationships will impact decision making as emotions come into play with command decisions.
Such activity will not be lost on other members of the team, squad, platoon, company, etc. and will effect unit cohesion.
20 retired Army SGT here that call this so called study bs.
They never bother to ask the troops who have to live with each other, shower together...ect!!!
NO STRAIGHT SOLDIER wants a GAY roommate its as simple as that.
the military is not a social club...it has one purpose:
TO GO PLACES AND BLOW THINGS UP AND KILL THE ENEMY...PERIOD!
“Rule One...”
20 YEAR retired Army SGT here that call this so called study bs.
They never bother to ask the troops who have to live with each other, shower together...ect!!!
NO STRAIGHT SOLDIER wants a GAY roommate its as simple as that.
the military is not a social club...it has one purpose:
TO GO PLACES AND BLOW THINGS UP AND KILL THE ENEMY...PERIOD!
Well then, perhaps they should just let active service members have a vote and then be done with it?
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.
But as you said, that’s a heterosexual issue as well - having a romantic assignation within the squad will effect moral whether it’s guy-girl or guy-guy. So where does that put us? No women in the military either?
Its going to be a different camaraderie than the one I knew.
Gays in the military brings up a new meaning for “rear guard”
I have no problem with that
I think women in combat positions in the military is a bad idea.
I suppose it depends on how you define "cohesion"...
Impossible? No. Possibilities are not the issue. The issue is the odds...
I do not believe they should be in combat, either in the field, or on board ships that sail into harms way.
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.
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.