Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

A More Humane "don't Ask Don't Tell"?


Saint Therese

Recommended Posts

Saint Therese

[url="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gays-military-pentagon-announce-humane-approach/story?id=10194160"]article[/url]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

geetarplayer

Can DADT ever be truly humane? Even the Church wants people with same-sex attractions to be honest about it. I would be really interested to hear an in-depth explanation of why such citizens are not welcome in the armed forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read about a conversation that Jimmy Carter had at a prayer breakfast while he was president. He was asked why homosexuals couldn't serve. He said that any secret an individual carries can be used as an opening for them to be compromised. When asked about individuals who were out of the closet, he considered and said he guessed that would be different. Coming from a Naval Academy graduate and devout Southern Baptist, that was quite a step.

My dad had been propositioned once while he was in the service, and told the guy if he did that again, he lose a few teeth. He said after that, they worked together just fine. He said that in the stress of combat, any vice or failing you have comes out and gets magnified. Guys who drink start to drink way too much, guys who smoke or gamble, same thing. My problem with the whole thing is when we discharge someone the government has invested a lot of time and money in training because they are gay. It never seems to be a private, it's always a specialist in something technical or someone with needed language skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rhetoricfemme

[quote name='geetarplayer' date='25 March 2010 - 06:00 PM' timestamp='1269554433' post='2080040']
Can DADT ever be truly humane? Even the Church wants people with same-sex attractions to be honest about it. I would be really interested to hear an in-depth explanation of why such citizens are not welcome in the armed forces.
[/quote]
I don't think DADT is humane at all. One's sexuality is in no way an indicator of whether or not one would do well in the military.
From what I understand, the folks that are actually in the military don't really care. I'm not sure who it is who cares, really... My husband knows some gay folks. They aren't "out" per se, cause they aren't allowed to be, but their sexuality isn't a secret, either. It just seems that those folks are just doing their jobs like everyone else, so that's all that anyone cares about.

I'm also a part of a military spouse community, and it's about as tight-knit and active as PM, and this topic has been brought up there, too. A lot of those ladies personally know homosexual folks who are serving, and/or their enlisted spouses know them, too. As far as I can tell, the only people who have a problem with gay or lesbian people in the military are the people who have negative opinions about them in the first place. Actually, one of the members of that milspouse community is a lesbian who is currently active duty. She and her partner are both military, if I remember correctly. She's never mentioned anything about being treated differently because of her sexuality.

It just doesn't seem like something that should be brought to work in the first place, so it should be left alone. I've heard the argument that putting a gay man in an overseas combat zone is dangerous because there's the risk of him becoming emotionally attached to other men who he's in close quarters with. That seems like a lot of bull, though. I mean, if you're in a combat zone like that, you're going to get emotionally attached to everyone who you're serving with. Your lives are in each other's hands.

I also feel that I should mention that I can only speak for me and the observations I've made. I'm in no way speaking on behalf of anyone else. :)

Edited by rhetoricfemme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

they dont seem to have a problem with men and women fighting together, so i fail to see how it could be any different, were there to be any extra feelings of attachment. but it seems military friendship goes super deep anyways, so it doesnt matter one way or the other. were i to be military i would be proud to serve with whoever was proud to be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='geetarplayer' date='25 March 2010 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1269554433' post='2080040']
Can DADT ever be truly humane? Even the Church wants people with same-sex attractions to be honest about it. I would be really interested to hear an in-depth explanation of why such citizens are not welcome in the armed forces.
[/quote]


I read once that the military had several reasons for concern, one being the reason that CatherineM posted about being able to be comprimised by an enemy for information to keep their secret safe, another being that people had to be willing to lay down their lives to protect the troops they serve with and they felt that maybe a hetrosexual may be less inclined to make that sacrifice for a homosexual, and the same in reverse, especially if there was a conflict between them. They said that any weakness or hesitation in a group of soldiers could compromise the whole group. Although I would think that following that reasoning that any soldiers with differences may react that way, like those whose personality clashed or disliked each other for some other reason.

Remember to pray for peace and especially for the safety of our young heroes who place their lives on the line to assure us our freedoms.

ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='geetarplayer' date='25 March 2010 - 06:00 PM' timestamp='1269554433' post='2080040']
Can DADT ever be truly humane? Even the Church wants people with same-sex attractions to be honest about it. I would be really interested to hear an in-depth explanation of why such citizens are not welcome in the armed forces.
[/quote]
That's why I prefer the old flat-out ban on homosexuals in the armed forces to the silly political compromise of the "don't ask, don't tell" c[font="Arial"]ra[/font]p.

Besides the issue of the disgusting and degrading immorality of homosexual sodomy, there are many complications which can result from the extremely close quarter conditions of soldiers or marines in a combat situation (or combat training situation). Members of a fighting platoon must live and work in extremely close conditions, and a tight command structure and unit integrity must be maintained for the unit to be effective. Introducing homosexual "romantic" attachments, tensions, and jealousies into a combat unit can seriously weaken that integrity. Women should not be serving in combat units with men for similar reasons.
Besides, sodomy is dishonorable, and unworthy of an American fighting man. Call me quaint and old-fashioned, but I think some minimal standard of decency and honor should at least be attempted to be preserved.

Serving in the armed forces is not a "right" owed every single citizen who desires it. The military should not be about fulfilling some liberal notion of equality, but about winning wars. There are plenty of reasons, which are nobody's fault, which disqualify a person from military service. I didn't make it through USMC OCS. And, if you're looking for "humane" treatment, the military probably isn't the place for you anyway.

A couple years back, there was some drama on Phatmass from a certain homosexual soldier who slipped in under "don't ask, don't tell" - and let me just say his situation was not a pretty picture. There are reasons homosexuals were not allowed in the military.

Trying to play the "Catholic" card is out of place here. According to the rules, persistent homosexuality is a barrier from a man entering the priesthood. Unfortunately, many seminaries ignored these standards, with disastrous results.

Of course, I realize my arguments will likely be dismissed, as political correctness has become the new religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Socrates' date='26 March 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1269624500' post='2080648']
That's why I prefer the old flat-out ban on homosexuals in the armed forces to the silly political compromise of the "don't ask, don't tell" c[font="Arial"]ra[/font]p.

Besides the issue of the disgusting and degrading immorality of homosexual sodomy, there are many complications which can result from the extremely close quarter conditions of soldiers or marines in a combat situation (or combat training situation). Members of a fighting platoon must live and work in extremely close conditions, and a tight command structure and unit integrity must be maintained for the unit to be effective. Introducing homosexual "romantic" attachments, tensions, and jealousies into a combat unit can seriously weaken that integrity. Women should not be serving in combat units with men for similar reasons.
Besides, sodomy is dishonorable, and unworthy of an American fighting man. Call me quaint and old-fashioned, but I think some minimal standard of decency and honor should at least be attempted to be preserved.

Serving in the armed forces is not a "right" owed every single citizen who desires it. The military should not be about fulfilling some liberal notion of equality, but about winning wars. There are plenty of reasons, which are nobody's fault, which disqualify a person from military service. I didn't make it through USMC OCS. And, if you're looking for "humane" treatment, the military probably isn't the place for you anyway.

A couple years back, there was some drama on Phatmass from a certain homosexual soldier who slipped in under "don't ask, don't tell" - and let me just say his situation was not a pretty picture. There are reasons homosexuals were not allowed in the military.

Trying to play the "Catholic" card is out of place here. According to the rules, persistent homosexuality is a barrier from a man entering the priesthood. Unfortunately, many seminaries ignored these standards, with disastrous results.

Of course, I realize my arguments will likely be dismissed, as political correctness has become the new religion.
[/quote]
I'm undecided if I agree with your conclusion, but +1 for a well thought-out post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='XIX' date='26 March 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1269625362' post='2080665']
I'm undecided if I agree with your conclusion, but +1 for a well thought-out post.
[/quote]
Thanks, buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

geetarplayer

[quote name='Socrates' date='26 March 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1269624500' post='2080648']
Besides, sodomy is dishonorable, and unworthy of an American fighting man. Call me quaint and old-fashioned, but I think some minimal standard of decency and honor should at least be attempted to be preserved.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, I don't know if that same minimal standard is being held to all soldiers in the same way. Not from some of the stories coming out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. But then, I'm just a civilian relying on civilian media outlets. I don't have any contact with the military, so I don't really know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Socrates' date='26 March 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1269624500' post='2080648']
That's why I prefer the old flat-out ban on homosexuals in the armed forces to the silly political compromise of the "don't ask, don't tell" c[font="Arial"]ra[/font]p.

Besides the issue of the disgusting and degrading immorality of homosexual sodomy, there are many complications which can result from the extremely close quarter conditions of soldiers or marines in a combat situation (or combat training situation). Members of a fighting platoon must live and work in extremely close conditions, and a tight command structure and unit integrity must be maintained for the unit to be effective. Introducing homosexual "romantic" attachments, tensions, and jealousies into a combat unit can seriously weaken that integrity. Women should not be serving in combat units with men for similar reasons.
Besides, sodomy is dishonorable, and unworthy of an American fighting man. Call me quaint and old-fashioned, but I think some minimal standard of decency and honor should at least be attempted to be preserved.

Serving in the armed forces is not a "right" owed every single citizen who desires it. The military should not be about fulfilling some liberal notion of equality, but about winning wars. There are plenty of reasons, which are nobody's fault, which disqualify a person from military service. I didn't make it through USMC OCS. And, if you're looking for "humane" treatment, the military probably isn't the place for you anyway card is out of place here. According to the rules, persistent homosexuality is a barrier from a man entering the priesthood. Unfortunately, many seminaries ignored these standards, with disastrous results.

Of course, I realize my arguments will likely be dismissed, as political correctness has become the new religion.
[/quote]

Who the hell are you? You couldn't cut it so now you're an expert on who should and shouldn't be allowed in? Petarus said he favors repealing it. I'm not dismissing your comments because they aren't pc. I'm dismissing them because they are asinine. You find sodomy icky and unbefitting the gang you wernt good enough to join? I hate to tell you champ but there are plenty of marines engaging in sodomy. Oral as well as whatever happens with the cute okinawian girl whose at the bar down the road from the base. Grow up.

Edited by Hassan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hassan' date='27 March 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1269676591' post='2081199']
Who the hell are you? You couldn't cut it so now you're an expert on who should and shouldn't be allowed in? Petarus said he favors repealing it. I'm not dismissing your comments because they aren't pc. I'm dismissing them because they are asinine. You find sodomy icky and unbefitting the gang you wernt good enough to join? I hate to tell you champ but there are plenty of marines engaging in sodomy. Oral as well as whatever happens with the cute okinawian girl whose at the bar down the road from the base. Grow up.
[/quote]


Completely and utterly uncalled for.

You have no clue as to why he could not pass. For all you know it was a psychological test that he was honest about where they decided he was unfit for military service.

Not getting in does not mean he was not GOOD ENOUGH, it means he was unfit for the position. They mean completely different things. A man who cannot be celibate is not considered "not good enough" for the priesthood in the Latin Church, but rather unfit for the priesthood.

Yes sodomy is icky and befitting of the high moral and ethical behavior that should be expected of a United States soldier (marine, airforce, army, guard, etc). Of course it is still present... but that doesn't mean it is befitting to a person in such position. Immoral sexual behavior is unfitting to the presidency but by all means that has not stopped one of our recent presidents. It is so unfitting to the position that he was actually impeached. United States soldiers can get discharged for such behavior and rightfully so.

One can accept the present state of affairs while still holding on to the ideals...

Hassan, why don't you grow up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Socrates' date='26 March 2010 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1269624500' post='2080648']

[quote]
Besides the issue of the disgusting and degrading immorality of homosexual sodomy, there are many complications which can result from the extremely close quarter conditions of soldiers or marines in a combat situation (or combat training situation).
[/quote]
Well first the army isn't a religious organization so why should it adopt one Church's moral code? Not to mention, as Hassan pointed out, there are plenty of soldiers who engage in things that are viewed as sexually "disgusting and degrading" by the Church. In fact given that the army is drawn from the American population you can bet that 90%+ of the soldiers engage in pre-marital sex, use of contraceptive, oral sex, masturbation, anal sex and the use of pornography. Should they be discharged too?

[quote]
Members of a fighting platoon must live and work in extremely close conditions, and a tight command structure and unit integrity must be maintained for the unit to be effective. Introducing homosexual "romantic" attachments, tensions, and jealousies into a combat unit can seriously weaken that integrity. Women should not be serving in combat units with men for similar reasons.
[/quote]
Believe it or not homosexuals wont fall for the first guy they see. Maybe if a soldier sexually propositions another soldier they should be discharged, but the same would go for straight soldiers around women. So I really don't think that the off chance of a gay soldier developing a crush on a straight soldier would "weaken" the unit. Actually in ancient Sparta homosexuality was encouraged among their army because they thought it would make the men fight harder for eachother so your point doesn't make sense even if all gay soldiers developed crushes on the straight soldiers (which just wouldn't happen to begin with).

I think you're against homosexuals in the military because you're against homosexuality and want to force your own beliefs on others. I can't really see any valid reason to exclude homosexuals from the military. There are openly gay soldiers in the Australian Defence Force and that hasn't lead to some disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Slappo' date='27 March 2010 - 04:19 AM' timestamp='1269677996' post='2081201']
Completely and utterly uncalled for.

You have no clue as to why he could not pass. For all you know it was a psychological test that he was honest about where they decided he was unfit for military service.

Not getting in does not mean he was not GOOD ENOUGH, it means he was unfit for the position. They mean completely different things. A man who cannot be celibate is not considered "not good enough" for the priesthood in the Latin Church, but rather unfit for the priesthood.

Yes sodomy is icky and befitting of the high moral and ethical behavior that should be expected of a United States soldier (marine, airforce, army, guard, etc). Of course it is still present... but that doesn't mean it is befitting to a person in such position. Immoral sexual behavior is unfitting to the presidency but by all means that has not stopped one of our recent presidents. It is so unfitting to the position that he was actually impeached. United States soldiers can get discharged for such behavior and rightfully so.

One can accept the present state of affairs while still holding on to the ideals...

Hassan, why don't you grow up?
[/quote]

You can believe what you want. In the real world, it's asinine to deliberately handicap our defense forces because otherwise qualified people violate some bizzare sexual taboo that your church decided however many centuries ago that it was icky. Hold whatever sexual morals you wish, but stop trying to bully others into playing along. And I don't find my remarks uncalled for. Socrates loves trumpeting his supposed refusal to blunt his 'hard truths' for the sake of politness or political correctness. I'll follow his line and lay out the facts as I see them without hedging my language. I'm sick of competant people. People who are able to meet the standards that members of the armed forces are required to meet, being bullied and having their careers threatened because some chicken-hawk makes their sexuality an issue based on his deep and profound knowledge of what it 'really' takes for a combat unit to function. Gay men and women are in combat right now. If their sexuality becomes an issue they can get discharged. But if it isn't they shouldn't have to worry about seeing their career go up in flames because of who they had sex with during their last leave before they deployed.

And women can serve in combat roles. Maybe not the same function men but they can and do serve some functions in a unit that is in combat. Women serve in the Israeli defense Force, they served in the red army that kicked the Nazis back to German (they were some of the most decorated snipers), and they serve now in Iraq. They don't always get to recognition they deserve because their combat service can't always be officially named as such, but it happens. And I'm sick of armchair generals telling women currently killing and dodging IED's for their country what they are and are not or should not be capeable of doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saint Therese

I'm really tired of every thread turning into an apologetics for homosexuality.

Edited by Saint Therese
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...