Another " don't ask, don't tell" thread

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

I didn't say I'm OK with coed showers anywhere. My point about seeing a naked female was that just because I have a chance to SEE a naked woman doesn't mean that I'm automatically sexually aroused or that I will make an advance.

 

But it's still a possible, and more realistically, a likely scenario that someone will get sexually aroused. That's great if you've got self control, but that doesn't mean it's a good plan to rely on everyone else to have it in that situation.

[rockmom]

I think the point of the issue is... "How do you think SHE would feel having to share a shower with you and other men?"

 

Our men and women in uniform are obligated to follow orders... they cannot come and go as they please... they cannot refuse to participate as you and I are free to do.

 

I go back to my original premise. The military is not the place for liberal social experimentation.

 

 

There it is again..."liberal social experimentation". What does that mean? You act like gay people are some sort of phenomenon to be studied or something. Again, why should the military be any different than any other industry? In reality, contrary to what seems to be a more popular belief than I ever knew, gay men are not out trying to molest every man they see, nor are they even interested in every man they see.

 

What is this social experimentation theory you keep talking about. Social experimentation implies something never been done. Frankly, if the military doesn't have to abide by the rules of "society" they shouldn't even be considered a "society" for the sake of the discussion of social norms.

[Fastbreak]

There it is again..."liberal social experimentation". What does that mean? You act like gay people are some sort of phenomenon to be studied or something. Again, why should the military be any different than any other industry? In reality, contrary to what seems to be a more popular belief than I ever knew, gay men are not out trying to molest every man they see, nor are they even interested in every man they see.

 

What is this social experimentation theory you keep talking about. Social experimentation implies something never been done. Frankly, if the military doesn't have to abide by the rules of "society" they shouldn't even be considered a "society" for the sake of the discussion of social norms.

Men and women in the military follow orders or face severe discipline… or worse. They have no "vote", no voice (if they are to keep their jobs) no ability to move to a different neighborhood, etc. There is nothing "equal" or "fair" about a general commanding a colonel who commands a major who commands a lieutenant who commands enlisted sergents, corporals and privates to storm a beach, assault an enemy fortification, etc. These guys cannot "choose" whether they think it’s a good idea and whether they want to go along with it or not. They jump when told... or else.

 

In this regard, some liberal tinkerers have realized that the military is the perfect laboratory to push through agenda that reflects the type of civil society they envision. The PROBLEM with all of this is the fact that we are already asking these soldiers to place themselves between enemies sworn to our destruction... and us. Anything that does not specifically help equip, prepare, or otherwise improve their ability to focus and do their jobs better is a needless distraction at best.

 

Homosexual men and women are already able to serve in the U.S. Military… but JUST LIKE heterosexual men and women, they are not permitted to openly flaunt their sexuality. Why is it necessary in your opinion to MAKE A CLEAR EXCEPTION for gays in the military that is not also offered to heterosexuals?

 

The Catholic Church refuses to this day to ordain homosexual priests. Perhaps you differ with the opinion of the church, but in light of recent scandals in the church, this policy must be viewed as prudent from a public relations standpoint without even considering spiritual, scriptural or traditional principles. The fact is, not everyone buys into the urgency for openly expressing alternative lifestyles… and we shouldn’t have to… whether Pope, private citizen or soldier on the front lines.

[Clyde]

But it's still a possible, and more realistically, a likely scenario that someone will get sexually aroused. That's great if you've got self control, but that doesn't mean it's a good plan to rely on everyone else to have it in that situation.

 

Again, I am willing to bet that there is a bigger issue with heterosexual harassment than gay on straight harassment. I bet its not even close.

[Clyde]

Homosexual men and women are already able to serve in the U.S. Military… but JUST LIKE heterosexual men and women, they are not permitted to openly flaunt their sexuality. s.

 

What?

 

Straights aren't allowed to "come out" as being straight?

[doubledeuce]

My daughter plays college basketball and there are several gay players on her team. Let me tell you she is very, very uncomfortable when they go to road games and there is only open showers. I cannot imagine how it would be if she had to live with the team in an open barrack type situation.

[MJAlltheWay24]

In this regard, some liberal tinkerers have realized that the military is the perfect laboratory to push through agenda that reflects the type of civil society they envision. The PROBLEM with all of this is the fact that we are already asking these soldiers to place themselves between enemies sworn to our destruction... and us. Anything that does not specifically help equip, prepare, or otherwise improve their ability to focus and do their jobs better is a needless distraction at best.

 

To me, this is what it all comes down too. Well said.

[bugatti]

I have really enjoyed reading the well thought out responses in this thread. I will be the first to admit I am really torn on this issue. Fastbreak brings out some wonderful points, as does rockmom. I can see both sides of this issue.

 

In a perfect world I would be more in support of your view, rockmom. For a host of reasons we live in a sexually consumed world. It should not be that way, but it is. I just have a hard time putting soldiers (gay or straight) in a potentially uncomfortable situation. It is not fair but I also know it is the reality of the situation.

[Clyde]

 

In this regard, some liberal tinkerers have realized that the military is the perfect laboratory to push through agenda that reflects the type of civil society they envision. The PROBLEM with all of this is the fact that we are already asking these soldiers to place themselves between enemies sworn to our destruction... and us. Anything that does not specifically help equip, prepare, or otherwise improve their ability to focus and do their jobs better is a needless distraction at best.

 

.

 

Are you saying that if some % of soldiers is uncomfortable with a certain segment of the population that they are to be excluded? I don't fully understand your last sentence as it relates to the issue of homosexuality.

[MJAlltheWay24]

Are you saying that if some % of soldiers is uncomfortable with a certain segment of the population that they are to be excluded? I don't fully understand your last sentence as it relates to the issue of homosexuality.

 

But they aren't excluded...just the discussion of it is. Homosexuals are not excluded at all, we have already covered that point. It's the same reason so many other things are excluded in the barracks and in the military, as to not cause distraction. "Stay the course" IMO.

[Clyde]

But they aren't excluded...just the discussion of it is. Homosexuals are not excluded at all, we have already covered that point. It's the same reason so many other things are excluded in the barracks and in the military, as to not cause distraction. "Stay the course" IMO.

 

How far do we take it? What % have to be "distracted?"

 

Does the same logic apply to Islams in the military?

[woodsrider]

So do gay men and women forfit their right to defend their country because they are gay? I would assume that means they should be exempt if a draft were ever put back in use.

[Clyde]

So do gay men and women forfit their right to defend their country because they are gay? I would assume that means they should be exempt if a draft were ever put back in use.

 

Today they only forfeit their right to admit that they are gay. However, once they do then they are subject and likely to be removed from the military.

 

As to this issue and how it relates to a draft, my guess is the local recruiting office would look like a NYC GLAAD parade.

[Fastbreak]

Are you saying that if some % of soldiers is uncomfortable with a certain segment of the population that they are to be excluded? I don't fully understand your last sentence as it relates to the issue of homosexuality.

If I understand the argument that justifies homosexuals serving in the military, "If two men are equally trained, equally conditioned, equally skilled and capable of fulfilling their mission requirements... what difference should it make if one is heterosexual and one is homosexual?"

 

Okay... fine... let them serve, let them advance, let them receive equal treatment based upon their commitment, dedication and accomplishments. IMO, genuine equality based on ability.

 

Why is this not adequate?

 

Why is it so important that everyone also accept homosexuality as a lifestyle? Why is it necessary for homosexuals serving in the military to be open about their predelection for others of the same gender? Why is sexuality of any kind essential to the equation?

 

I cannot imagine one career advancement I've ever experienced that had anything to do at all with my preference to be with my wife and only my wife. Most people I work with have never even met my wife. (I'd be more than happy to show her off... the opportunity simply does not arise that frequently.) It's never been an issue... ever... and I can assure you I am not in the habit of discussing what I consider my private life in work situations.

 

I have no doubt there are many heterosexual males and some females that have spoken or behaved in sexually inappropriate ways while in the military... but if the rules are followed, they should have been disciplined... period.

 

I am not making exceptions for one and saying "no" to the other. I can accept, as I'm sure many would, that what people do in private on their own time is their business. What they do while on military time is and should be limited... across the board.

[Clyde]

If I understand the argument that justifies homosexuals serving in the military, "If two men are equally trained, equally conditioned, equally skilled and capable of fulfilling their mission requirements... what difference should it make if one is heterosexual and one is homosexual?"

 

Okay... fine... let them serve, let them advance, let them receive equal treatment based upon their commitment, dedication and accomplishments. IMO, genuine equality based on ability.

 

Why is this not adequate?

 

Why is it so important that everyone also accept homosexuality as a lifestyle? Why is it necessary for homosexuals serving in the military to be open about their predelection for others of the same gender? Why is sexuality of any kind essential to the equation?

 

I cannot imagine one career advancement I've ever experienced that had anything to do at all with my preference to be with my wife and only my wife. Most people I work with have never even met my wife. (I'd be more than happy to show her off... the opportunity simply does not arise that frequently.) It's never been an issue... ever... and I can assure you I am not in the habit of discussing what I consider my private life in work situations.

 

I have no doubt there are many heterosexual males and some females that have spoken or behaved in sexually inappropriate ways while in the military... but if the rules are followed, they should have been disciplined... period.

 

I am not making exceptions for one and saying "no" to the other. I can accept, as I'm sure many would, that what people do in private on their own time is their business. What they do while on military time is and should be limited... across the board.

 

Is your argument that an admitted homosexual would be a problem because fellow soldiers would be uncomfortable and not trust him/her?

 

On a side note, is "predilection" ever used in reference to heterosexuals?