Homosexuals In The Armed Services

[kujo]

SSA? What is that?

[hoosieranna]

[quote name='kujo' post='1215252' date='Mar 17 2007, 09:54 PM']SSA? What is that?[/quote]

Same Sex Attraction, I'm guessing.

[Socrates]

Homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the military. Besides the whole moral issue, there are problems that can arise within the ranks when soldiers are serving in close quarter conditions under intense circumstances. Sodomistic "relationships" and the complications arising therefrom complicate the integrity of the close-knit fighting unit.

I consider the current "don't ask-don't tell" policy something of a weak compromise, but it's not quite so problematic as it essentially continues to bar homosexual activity without invading people's privacy.

And the idea that homosexuals have an intrinsic "right" to serve in the armed forces is absurd. There are plenty of conditions that bar people from military service. I myself washed out of USMC OCS (whole other topic).
(Similar issues come up with the whole homos-in-the-priesthood debate.)

Military policy must not be dictated by civilian standards of political correctness if we want an effective, honorable fighting force.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1215216' date='Mar 17 2007, 07:33 PM']Interesting point Kujo. It raises the question about the origin of SSA (ie, is it inherited or not)... any thoughts there?[/quote]
This has actually been debated many times ad nauseum on these boards. I'd suggest running a search if you're interested. The evidence for homosexuality being inborn is weak at best, and I'd say that whole issue is rather irrelevant to the current "gays-in-the-military" policy debate.

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1215613' date='Mar 18 2007, 09:44 PM']Homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the military. Besides the whole moral issue, there are problems that can arise within the ranks when soldiers are serving in close quarter conditions under intense circumstances. Sodomistic "relationships" and the complications arising therefrom complicate the integrity of the close-knit fighting unit.

I consider the current "don't ask-don't tell" policy something of a weak compromise, but it's not quite so problematic as it essentially continues to bar homosexual activity without invading people's privacy.

And the idea that homosexuals have an intrinsic "right" to serve in the armed forces is absurd. There are plenty of conditions that bar people from military service. I myself washed out of USMC OCS (whole other topic).
(Similar issues come up with the whole homos-in-the-priesthood debate.)

Military policy must not be dictated by civilian standards of political correctness if we want an effective, honorable fighting force.[/quote]

I don't so much think that a person (homosexual or not) has an intristic "right" to serve; however, if they meet the physical and psychological requirements, I don't think that their sexual orientation really matters.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1215665' date='Mar 18 2007, 09:37 PM']I don't so much think that a person (homosexual or not) has an intristic "right" to serve; however, if they meet the physical and psychological requirements, I don't think that their sexual orientation really matters.[/quote]
Sexual "orientiation" falls under "psychological" (Though I realize this will likely start the repeat of another old debate).

And if one never acts on his homosexual inclinations, then this is not an issue under "don't ask-don't tell."

[catholicinsd]

Lesbians should be able to serve, gay men probably not.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1215673' date='Mar 18 2007, 11:49 PM']Lesbians should be able to serve, gay men probably not.[/quote]

But there are women in the military and that causes the same problems in terms of romantic relationships. And hypothetically speaking, it really would be discriminatory to let lesbians in and not gay men.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1215676' date='Mar 18 2007, 10:53 PM']But there are women in the military and that causes the same problems in terms of romantic relationships. And hypothetically speaking, it really would be discriminatory to let lesbians in and not gay men.[/quote]

Who would to rather have in combat: a lesbian like Aileen Wuornos or a gay guy like Bobby Trendy?

[Jaime]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1215678' date='Mar 18 2007, 08:57 PM']Who would to rather have in combat: a lesbian like Aileen Wuornos or a gay guy like Bobby Trendy?[/quote]

Well I think that wins for the most ignorant statement of the day..


Way to go kiddo!!

[Sojourner]

I think it's important to remember that there is a cost associated with don't ask/don't tell; [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302373.html"]here's an interesting article along those lines[/url].

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1215668' date='Mar 18 2007, 11:41 PM']Sexual "orientiation" falls under "psychological" (Though I realize this will likely start the repeat of another old debate).

And if one never acts on his homosexual inclinations, then this is not an issue under "don't ask-don't tell."[/quote]

I understand that you don't want to rehash an old argument and that's cool (I don't wanna repeat old topics either). But, if that's the case, then the "psychological" aspect is flawed. Quite simply, I just don't think that it being gay has any impact on your ability to serve and protect the country. Whether or not the "being gay" portion comes into play at birth or by choice.

I would agree with your second assertion; however, the person who is homosexual (unless they are Catholic and trying to live with the cross God has given them) will most likely act up on his/her inclinations.

[Anomaly]

The 'big deal' is because acting on homosexulaity is intrinsicly disordered and violates 'natural law', it throws a huge monkey wrench into the interpersonal relationships of a military squad that needs to depend on each other to make life or death situations.

The Catholic Church is quite clear on it's teachings in it's writings, but not clear in what Bishops and Cardinals say or behave, homosexual acts are gravely disordered. But since the RC Church is becoming to politically sensitive, it allows Bishops and others to disagree openly and provide support to political groups that support homosexuality as a 'normal' choice. It's the slow slide from 'tolerance' to acceptance.

Terra. What does it matter that it costs money? Is it a moral / safety issue, or not?

[Red Knight]

My two cents, as a military officer, is that the Unifrom Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prohibits a large array of sexual acts, regardless of the genders involved. For instance sodomy and oral sex are forbidden by the UCMJ. Even a married couple within the military is not authorized such behavior. It is this group of regulations that bans "practicing" homosexuals from active service in the military.

Don't ask, don't tell actually complicated matters by adding the "non-practicing" aspect to it.

[RezaMikhaeil]

It's important to add that men and women in the armed services, though they have seperate living quarters, do spend most of their time together, therefore if you were "in the trenches" [as someone else mentioned] women would be there too so the distraction situation would be the same.

Reza

[Sojourner]

I'm spending a little time this week with two of my brothers and their wives, all of whom have military background. Brother 1 is USMC and just got back from Iraq a couple weeks ago after a seven-month tour; he'll probably be going back in a year for another seven months. His wife is former USMC.

Brother 2 is USAF and spent a year in Korea; his wife is former USAF. Over lunch today, I broached the subject of gays in the military, and here's the responses I got from everyone but Brother 2, who was working:

Brother 1: Doesn't care about sexual orientation of men in his unit, as long as they can do the job. Had there been a policy allowing gays in the military at the time he enlisted, it would not have made one bit of difference one way or the other. He's been in for 10 years now, and will be in for at least another three.

Wife 1: She said there were several women she knew during her time in the USMC who were lesbians, and it was a problem at times. She said had there been a policy allowing openly gay people in the military, she would not have joined -- the closeness and forced intimacy of the living situations can be very uncomfortable, particularly if there is a high potential of unwanted sexual advances. She also said that during boot camp every effort was made to keep sexual thoughts off the brain -- men and women were kept totally separate, took no classes or training together. Inserting homosexuality into that equation would make training even more difficult than it already was.

Wife 2: Knew several lesbians, but did not feel that they were overly threatening or aggressive toward her, so does not have as strong an opinion on keeping gays out of the military.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Terra Firma

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1215751' date='Mar 19 2007, 08:50 AM']I understand that you don't want to rehash an old argument and that's cool (I don't wanna repeat old topics either). But, if that's the case, then the "psychological" aspect is flawed. Quite simply, I just don't think that it being gay has any impact on your ability to serve and protect the country. Whether or not the "being gay" portion comes into play at birth or by choice.

I would agree with your second assertion; however, the person who is homosexual (unless they are Catholic and trying to live with the cross God has given them) will most likely act up on his/her inclinations.[/quote]
Soldiers/Marines in active duty live in very tight quarters under extrem conditions, and sodomy and sodomistic "relationships" within the ranks compromise the integrity of the fighting unit. It is also disgraceful to the honor of a soldier or Marine.
I know I would not wish to be in a platoon with active homosexuals.

And what positive good would come out of reversing the military's time-honored policy and allowing active homosexuals in the military?? (other than being "politically correct")

Why are you, as a self-professed "Catholic", defending the condoning of an unnatural sin condemned clearly by God and the Church?

Edited March 20, 2007 by Socrates

[catholicinsd]

I still think my plan is the best.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1216115' date='Mar 19 2007, 07:58 PM']And what positive good would come out of reversing the military's time-honored policy and allowing active homosexuals in the military?? (other than being "politically correct")[/quote]
One positive good could be to lessen the financial impact (millions of dollars) of kicking gay soldiers out of the military, after resources have been poured into training them.

Another positive good could be opening wider the pool of potential soldiers. (Although, allowing gay soldiers might have a deterrent effect on people like you or my sister-in-law who otherwise would be inclined to join, so that one might come out as a no positive gain.) But given that recruiting goals in recent years have only been met by lowering standards on aptitude and education, it seems to me that we should think carefully about kicking out those who are willing and able to serve.

[RezaMikhaeil]

If you dont allow homosexuals to serve in the military, then you shouldn't allow them to be citizens of our country either. Those that serve in the military, is to protect the freedoms [even the freedom of religion and sexual preference] that we're given in this country.

I know that it's been brought up but I'm going to bring it up again: Gay and Straight people both, violate the military's military code, if someone is gay or straight, it shouldn't matter as long as they can keep in line with the military's moral code.

Reza