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

[Clyde]

Other than LN's original contention that it hurts unity/integrity I haven't really read a reason to disallow admitted homosexuals. The problem I see with LN's argument that he references is that IMO that same argument can made about soldiers who practice Islam. As a matter of fact, I'd bet more soldiers are bothered by a fellow soldier who prays to Allah than a fellow soldier who he is worried about in the bunker.

 

Do we ban those of the Islamic faith?

 

Full disclosure: I have not had the privledge to serve.

[Fastbreak]

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

My argument is that "sexuality" of any flavor is entirely out of place in a barracks, battlefield or... (I started to say "foxhole" but given the subject matter... :lol:) Sexuality of any kind is a potential distraction. Two guys fighting over a girl... you name it.

 

My point is, if one's sexuality is not permitted to be a "disqualifier" for the job... it should not be made an issue on the job. Pushing sexuality beyond this belies an agenda with which I strongly disagree.

 

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

:lol: I misspelled "predilection" didn't I... I'm really tired and should be using spell check. Sounds like a tawdry euphemism ... kinda like foxhole... :lol:

[Clyde]

My argument is that "sexuality" of any flavor is entirely out of place in a barracks, battlefield or... (I started to say "foxhole" but given the subject matter... :lol:) Sexuality of any kind is a potential distraction. Two guys fighting over a girl... you name it.

 

My point is, if one's sexuality is not permitted to be a "disqualifier" for the job... it should not be made an issue on the job. Pushing sexuality beyond this belies an agenda with which I strongly disagree.

 

:lol: I misspelled "predilection" didn't I... I'm really tired and should be using spell check. Sounds like a tawdry euphemism ... kinda like foxhole... :lol:

 

Why would a homosexual stating publicly that they are gay be "an issue" any more than a straight man making it obvious he likes women? Isn't it safe to assume it wouldn't be "pushed" if it wasn't taboo?

[Hearsay]

I cannot add anything here in the early morning that would be anything more than an aubade about the merits of fraternal harmony. I will simply share that when my father would return home from cruise, he would relate that the ship's contingent was always 2 or 3 men smaller than departure from port, as those who had been "outed" had mysteriously been pitched over the side.

 

I believe that Admiral Mullen's position may actually endanger people.

[acemona]

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.

 

The recent scandals had to do with pedophilia, not gay and lesbian. Please do not equate the two.

[acemona]

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.

 

This is not true. They can be outed by a third party who learns of their orientation by any means, whether the person told them or not.

[Fastbreak]

The recent scandals had to do with pedophilia, not gay and lesbian. Please do not equate the two.

Apparently, I am so out of touch that my understanding of homosexuality as the sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex is no longer valid.

 

I would be fascinated to hear the rationale that leads you to assert that sexual contact/interaction between two males, regardless of ages, whether voluntary/involuntary, romantic and loving or forced cannot reasonably be described as a homosexual act.

[UKMustangFan]

The military is the one area that, IMO, every action that is permitted should add some sort of benefit to the military as a whole. If removing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is going to benefit the military in a positive manner in terms of effectiveness or efficiency, then by all means do away with it. If not, there is no reason to change it. I still have not heard from one person how getting rid of the policy will impact the military in a positive manner....Anyone?

[MJAlltheWay24]

The military is the one area that, IMO, every action that is permitted should add some sort of benefit to the military as a whole. If removing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is going to benefit the military in a positive manner in terms of effectiveness or efficiency, then by all means do away with it. If not, there is no reason to change it. I still have not heard from one person how getting rid of the policy will impact the military in a positive manner....Anyone?

 

That's because it probably doesn't.

 

Even for the individual who proclaims his homosexuality, things probably don't get better. Unforunately, there would probably be a lot of things that go on when superiors are not watching to those who take advantage of this changed policy.

[Fastbreak]

Why would a homosexual stating publicly that they are gay be "an issue" any more than a straight man making it obvious he likes women? Isn't it safe to assume it wouldn't be "pushed" if it wasn't taboo?

Every person in a civil society has limitations placed upon their base desires. We have many rules and laws… both religious and civil/secular that define the acceptable parameters of our actions. The military, for reasons of discipline, morale, unit cohesion, mission readiness, etc. adds even more limitations to “individual liberties”.

 

Homosexuality has long been considered “taboo” by many cultures and beliefs. I find it fascinating that only in the past 40 years (and with increasing velocity,) has “coming out” found any degree of acceptance in America. I attribute this to a parallel decline in overall moral and spiritual convictions in our materialistic culture. The following is lifted from an interesting presentation on the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality:

 

“The Catholic template for the homosexual issue is quite different from the caricature fostered by the pro-gay lobby. The Church teaches that the inclination arising from deep-seated homosexual tendencies is an objective disorder (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], section 2358). Some will immediately object that what is natural for many individuals cannot be a disorder. But the Church does not base its teaching on the premise that homosexuality is something voluntarily chosen. In fact, the Church admits that the causes of homosexuality remain "largely unexplained" (CCC, 2357). So, if tomorrow, some scientist discovers a genetic basis for homosexuality, the basis of what the Church teaches is unaffected. Homosexuality would then be one among many other genetic disorders in a world shot through with imperfection.”

 

For the full read: http://catholicanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/01/catholics-homosexuals.html

 

Although written very recently and in a non-antagonistic manner… this gentle assessment sounds archaic in contrast to the current progressive agenda.

 

For the proponents forcing the gay and lesbian agenda in our faces, millennia of human understanding is “old fashioned, unenlightened and oppressive” in our “progressive” age. It’s now, not just “okay to be gay” but those of us not so inclined, must accept it as coequal and of the same spiritual and cultural merit as traditional unions. The fact that a majority of Americans still cling to “traditional values” in this regard, and are too slow in coming around to accepting the aggressive gay/lesbian agenda is the impetus for “forcing” this issue upon those for whom resistance is futile, if not suicidal (from a career perspective…) namely, our military.

 

That’s what I mean when I say, “cultural or social experimentation”. By planting the seeds (albeit forced) in our military where individuals are not free to choose and do as they please (without serious repercussions) the movement might gain traction for accelerated acceptance throughout our culture.

 

The fact that no one can rationally forward an explanation of how this better equips our men and women in uniform to accomplish their primary mission and to better carry out the monumental tasks with which they’re assigned should make the motives behind this self-evident. This process is entirely assbackwards IMO. The proper methodology would be to persuade and turn our civilian society to their POV first, and then bring the military up to speed with then established social standards. This clearly takes too long. There are too many unenlightened fundamentalists, conservatives and traditionalists in America to turn opinion soon enough for these folks, so, they are assailing our soldiers with their self-serving social agenda passed down through a liberal president and a significantly left leaning congress.

 

The generals have no real choice but to do what the Commander in Chief (backed by the Congress who funds them) command that they do.

 

So, yet again, I say, “This is wrong.”

 

You are of course free to agree or disagree... ( ...isn't that a nice feeling?)

[repnky23]

Why would a homosexual stating publicly that they are gay be "an issue" any more than a straight man making it obvious he likes women? Isn't it safe to assume it wouldn't be "pushed" if it wasn't taboo?

 

I do not know of any job in the military where you would have to state your sexual orientation-homesexual or straight- this is something that is clearly a personal issue. You're in the military to protect and serve your country. Not to publicly announce your sexual affiliation.

[rockmom]

Here's an interesting story. Maybe it will help give a perspective some of you may never have considered.

 

Retired Navy Capt. Joan E. Darrah served 29½ years as a naval intelligence officer and was chief of staff and deputy commander at the Office of Naval Intelligence. She has received several awards: three Legion of Merits, three Meritorious Service Medals, three Navy Commendation Medals and the Navy Achievement Medal. Darrah lives with her partner of 19 years, Lynne Kennedy, in Alexandria, Virginia.

[Fastbreak]

Here's an interesting story. Maybe it will help give a perspective some of you may never have considered.

I read the story in its entirety. As always, I appreciate you sharing outside information. :thumb:

 

I am curious what your feelings are regarding the official position of the Catholic Church on homosexuality?

[Fastbreak]

I remembered this from our friends at Monty Python from over 30 years ago... no mean-spirited offense intended. The text at the top left is the actual title of the sketch as labeled by the Pythons. I was hoping we might all enjoy a light-hearted spoof of everyone's worst case stereotype. If this is over-the-top, I apologize in advance and ask a mod to delete it.

 

 

And now, for something completely different...

 

[rockmom]

I read the story in its entirety. As always, I appreciate you sharing outside information. :thumb:

 

I am curious what your feelings are regarding the official position of the Catholic Church on homosexuality?

 

In a nutshell, I share the Catholic Church's position to "hate the sin, not the sinner".

 

Honestly, if you want to discuss the religious aspect, I feel that would be better in another thread. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

 

If you'd like to discuss any of the issues raised in Ms. Darrah's account here, I'm happy to do that.