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

[God Conquers]

How would homosexual activity be any different than normal sexual activity? They already have women in the army, and, this is a guess, there is probably some sex that goes on. (because women are temptresses! )

Wouldn't it make sense to limit any sexual conduct? YOu can't really prevent it... and I don't think all-women, or all-gay units would work. Plus, there's gay women too! So you need to have.... ah forget it. It don't make sense.

[Nihil Obstat]

What are official military rules regarding sexual activity between members?

[Socrates]

Women are still excluded from direct combat roles, though this line has lately been blurred somewhat.
Until recent times, the military was essentially all-male, except for nursing units and such.
I know I'll get hammered for saying it, but the inclusion of females in more and more military roles has created quite a few problems and complications in the military.


Fraternization rules prohibit sex between personnel of different rank. Basically, an officer isn't allowed to have sexual relations with his/her subordinates.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Socrates' date='30 March 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1269986241' post='2083619']

Fraternization rules prohibit sex between personnel of different rank. Basically, an officer isn't allowed to have sexual relations with his/her subordinates.
[/quote]
Has it ever been the case that all sexual contact was prohibited between personnel?
Sounds like it would work better, IMO.......

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='30 March 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1269986572' post='2083628']
Has it ever been the case that all sexual contact was prohibited between personnel?
Sounds like it would work better, IMO.......
[/quote]
Not sure, not that I'm aware. Remember, for most of their history, the armed forces were basically all male.

Fraternization applies to not just sex, but any outside social activity. It's basically so personal relationships won't interfere with command decisions.

[Jesus_lol]

yeah the purpose made brothels are so much more convenient.

[God Conquers]

Ah. Interesting.

The complications of a professional army!

It's kind of tough not to be friends with people you spend so much time with on duty.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Socrates' date='30 March 2010 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1269983307' post='2083575']
That's a non-argument.
[/quote]

I disagree. Tell me why it's a non-argument? We don't work arbitrarily, we work by principles. If you want to say homosexuals should be excluded from the army because the Church says homosexual acts are sinful then by the same reasoning we have to exclude 90% of the American populace.

[quote]
And the practical difference is that homosexuality creates problems/tensions within a group of fighting men that heterosexual naughtiness outside the unit does not.
[/quote]

That's an unsubstantiated claim. Prove it. I can point to dozens of armies who don't have a DADT policy and they haven't been torn apart by the presence of homosexuals yet. If a heterosexual man isn't mature enough to work with a homosexual without freaking out then they're probably not mature enough to be in the army. No offence.

[quote]
And it's not "once Church's moral code," but that of the One True Church, whose views on this matter until a couple decades ago were shared by pretty much all the major religions, homosexual behavior being contrary to natural law.
[/quote]
It doesn't matter whether it's the One True Church's position or not. Defence forces an arm of the state not the Church. Your country is a liberal (I'm talking the political ideology not the "pc" left wing stuff you whine about) democracy which means people are entitled to their own beliefs, even if you think they're incorrect.

Edited March 31, 2010 by OraProMe

[Socrates]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='31 March 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1270014372' post='2083892']
I disagree. Tell me why it's a non-argument? We don't work arbitrarily, we work by principles. If you want to say homosexuals should be excluded from the army because the Church says homosexual acts are sinful then by the same reasoning we have to exclude 90% of the American populace.[/quote]
I've explained this before, and I'm not going to repeat it endlessly. And saying that because other evils exist, we must allow more evils is not a valid argument.
The military's reasons for not allowing homosexuals are not based on what the Catholic Church says, anyway. You're the one who keeps insisting this is an exclusively Catholic issue.

[quote]That's an unsubstantiated claim. Prove it. I can point to dozens of armies who don't have a DADT policy and they haven't been torn apart by the presence of homosexuals yet. If a heterosexual man isn't mature enough to work with a homosexual without freaking out then they're probably not mature enough to be in the army. No offence.[/quote]
Prove it? How, you want us to go spend a month in a foxhole together? Your claims are just as unsubstantiated. However, plenty of commanding military officers with decades of military experience behind them disagree with you. And most of my friends who have served in the armed forces agree with them. No offense, but I trust them in this matter more than you.
But sorry, I was forgetting that they're not 18-year-old kids who know everything. We should all bow to your wisdom.

As no one's asking you to join the U.S. military, I don't see why this should be such a big deal to you.


[quote]It doesn't matter whether it's the One True Church's position or not. Defence forces an arm of the state not the Church. Your country is a liberal (I'm talking the political ideology not the "pc" left wing stuff you whine about) democracy which means people are entitled to their own beliefs, even if you think they're incorrect.[/quote]
My point was, the military's ban on homosexuality had nothing to do with "one Church's position." The U.S. Army was not founded by Catholics. Opposition to homosexual activity is hardly some peculiar Catholic dogma, but is part of the entire Judeao-Christian moral tradition.
Homosexual activity was banned in the American military since we first had an army, and even Thomas Jefferson (about as liberal a Deist as you could find back then) thought sodomy a crime punishable by castration.
But it's nice we now have an 18-year-old Aussie to explain to the American founding fathers what their principles really mean.
People may be entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to military service, nor that the military cater to them.

I don't think either one of us are going to convince the other on this issue, as our principles are fundamentally different, so I see little point in arguing further.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Socrates

[CatherineM]

Ora-Part of this is cultural. I now live in a country where homosexuals can serve openly in the military and marry for that matter. It's almost a non-issue here. There is a different feel to how things work here that I can't put adequately in to words. In the US, that feeling is completely different, and if you had grown up in the US, it might make more sense. I'm not saying it is wrong or right, it is just the way it has been for a couple of centuries, and it might take a bit more time for the US to be ready to make that step.

And before you ask, I haven't served in the active duty military. I'm an Army brat who spent some time in ROTC, but couldn't serve because of a knee injury. That small amount of time I was in training, I met several lesbians in the unit, but back in the early 80's that wasn't unusual. 50% of the women in my forestry class were too.

[Socrates]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='31 March 2010 - 02:11 PM' timestamp='1270059111' post='2084147']
Ora-Part of this is cultural. I now live in a country where homosexuals can serve openly in the military and marry for that matter. It's almost a non-issue here. There is a different feel to how things work here that I can't put adequately in to words. In the US, that feeling is completely different, and if you had grown up in the US, it might make more sense. I'm not saying it is wrong or right, it is just the way it has been for a couple of centuries, and it might take a bit more time for the US to be ready to make that step.
[/quote]
Do you see things like "gay marriage" as being a purely cultural issue? The Church doesn't see things that way.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Socrates' date='31 March 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1270059893' post='2084153']
Do you see things like "gay marriage" as being a purely cultural issue? The Church doesn't see things that way.
[/quote]
No. It was something very hard for me to understand when I moved here, harder than the metric by far. I just meant that culturally here, people seem to have a "anything goes" kind of attitude. Canada is kind of like that kid in high school who had an inferiority complex who'd go along with anything the cool kids did. They are so afraid of giving offense that they accept anyone's living situation. That includes the polygamists in BC, and now they are allowing Muslim men to immigrate with more than one wife. Canadians are constantly apologizing, which drives me crazy when my husband does it.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='31 March 2010 - 11:40 AM' timestamp='1270060849' post='2084162']
No. It was something very hard for me to understand when I moved here, harder than the metric by far. I just meant that culturally here, people seem to have a "anything goes" kind of attitude. Canada is kind of like that kid in high school who had an inferiority complex who'd go along with anything the cool kids did. They are so afraid of giving offense that they accept anyone's living situation. That includes the polygamists in BC, and now they are allowing Muslim men to immigrate with more than one wife. Canadians are constantly apologizing, which drives me crazy when my husband does it.
[/quote]

I assume you are referring to the polygamists in Bountiful, BC? no one really accepts them here, and the province is trying pretty hard to get rid of them legally. They are breaking the law, according to the government officials.
Similar to northern Arizona and southern Utah. Polygamy isnt legal anywhere in the USA, but it is politically tolerated in those places.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='31 March 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1270062565' post='2084177']
I assume you are referring to the polygamists in Bountiful, BC? no one really accepts them here, and the province is trying pretty hard to get rid of them legally. They are breaking the law, according to the government officials.
Similar to northern Arizona and southern Utah. Polygamy isnt legal anywhere in the USA, but it is politically tolerated in those places.
[/quote]
They tried to file charges and make them stick, but it didn't happen. The charges were all thrown out.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='31 March 2010 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1270059111' post='2084147']
Ora-Part of this is cultural. There is a different feel to how things work here that I can't put adequately in to words. In the US, that feeling is completely different, and if you had grown up in the US, it might make more sense. I'm not saying it is wrong or right, it is just the way it has been for a couple of centuries, and it might take a bit more time for the US to be ready to make that step.

And before you ask, I haven't served in the active duty military. I'm an Army brat who spent some time in ROTC, but couldn't serve because of a knee injury. That small amount of time I was in training, I met several lesbians in the unit, but back in the early 80's that wasn't unusual. 50% of the women in my forestry class were too.
[/quote]

Cultures change and as Socrates has been using the past tense when he talks about America's judeo-christian morality I'm sure he realizes that

Edited April 2, 2010 by OraProMe