Allowing Gays in the Military Would Be Unfair and Hurt Troop Morale

[Flaylo]

Allowing Gays in the Military Would Be Unfair and Hurt Troop Morale - US News and World Report

This link touched upon some of the objections I've raised and I will posted them

The new "nondiscrimination" law would affect all military branches and communities, including Army and Marine infantry, special operations, Navy SEALs, and submarines. Unlike workers who return home at night, military personnel must accept living conditions that involve "forced intimacy," with little or no privacy. This would be tantamount to forcing female soldiers to share private quarters with men—a situation that would be unacceptable to the majority of military women even if misconduct never occurred. Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them.

As for us in the Army, how do we feel about it the possible repeal of DADT?

In the 2008 Military Times Poll, 58 percent of 2,000 active-duty subscribers said they opposed repeal of current policy—for the fourth year in a row. Responses to a new survey question found that if Congress repealed the 1993 law, almost 10 percent would not re-enlist, and an additional 14 percent would consider ending their careers. Many first-termers normally leave, but the loss of even a few thousand careerists in communities, grades, and skills that are not quickly or easily replaceable would come at a crippling cost—especially when we are at war and trying to grow the Army and Marine Corps.

Count me as one of those who would end their career if forced acceptance of the one sided homosexual agenda were forced upon me, I refuse to be an advocate of anyone's agenda.


Who's really getting discharged more, gays under DADT or others?

Honorable discharges of gays who were misled about eligibility to serve are far fewer than losses due to pregnancy or weight standard violations. Clarify the meaning of the law, and such discharges could drop to near zero. There is no national security argument for legislation that would undermine recruiting, retention, and readiness in the all-volunteer force.

DADT really hurts the military more than any other people discharged, is that what that obstinate Navy fellow said earlier? Maybe he should reconsider.

A distinguished group of retired flag and general officers recently delivered to Obama and Congress a statement supporting the 1993 law, signed by more than 1,000 retired officers, including 51 of four-star rank. Noting that it "protect good order, discipline, and morale in the unique environment of the military," the officers wrote, "As a matter of national security, we urge you to support the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, and to oppose any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law."

A whooping 51 retired four-stars wrote Obama to that he should support DADT, this combined with the 58% of active duty subscribers to the Army Times says a lot about what servicemembers really think, leave it to Fathertime and he will say all of these people are homophobic active duty and retired military, but is that really the case? I leave it for each and every individual to decide for themselves.

 

[Flaylo]

Poll: No political risk in repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'

But other members of the joint chiefs have been more circumspect, with Marine Corps Commandant James Conway expressing some opposition. According to a recent poll by Military Times, members of the Marine Corps remain the most opposed to repeal, with the Army also being slightly opposed. The Navy and the Air Force, however, slightly favor repeal, according to Brendan McGarry, a reporter who helped conduct the poll.

 

[Father Time]

'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
So? Oh no he/she may be fantasizing about them, this harms the fantasized person ... how?

"Count me as one of those who would end their career if forced acceptance of the one sided homosexual agenda were forced upon me, I refuse to be an advocate of anyone's agenda."

Oh cut the bullshit, it won't force you to do anything. You can still believe whatever you want about gays you'd just have to have some openly gay coworkers (which you may encounter IN EVERY OTHER JOB).

The rest of your post is ad populum (appeal to majority) or appeal to authority fallacies.

 

[Flaylo]

'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
So? Oh no he/she may be fantasizing about them, this harms the fantasized person ... how?

"Count me as one of those who would end their career if forced acceptance of the one sided homosexual agenda were forced upon me, I refuse to be an advocate of anyone's agenda."

Oh cut the bullshit, it won't force you to do anything. You can still believe whatever you want about gays you'd just have to have some openly gay coworkers (which you may encounter IN EVERY OTHER JOB).

The rest of your post is ad populum (appeal to majority) or appeal to authority fallacies.

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers? You've shown that you really care about what hurts the military.

 

[Father Time]

'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
So? Oh no he/she may be fantasizing about them, this harms the fantasized person ... how?

"Count me as one of those who would end their career if forced acceptance of the one sided homosexual agenda were forced upon me, I refuse to be an advocate of anyone's agenda."

Oh cut the bullshit, it won't force you to do anything. You can still believe whatever you want about gays you'd just have to have some openly gay coworkers (which you may encounter IN EVERY OTHER JOB).

The rest of your post is ad populum (appeal to majority) or appeal to authority fallacies.

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers? You've shown that you really care about what hurts the military.

What is there to be concerned about? If they leer or bother them then you can cite them for harassment.

And as Cold Fusion points out, would you rather have to guess who's gay in your unit or would you rather know?

Although really discharging someone from the military because their very presence makes someone uncomfortable is draconian and pretty stupid.

 

[Article 15]

'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
So? Oh no he/she may be fantasizing about them, this harms the fantasized person ... how?

"Count me as one of those who would end their career if forced acceptance of the one sided homosexual agenda were forced upon me, I refuse to be an advocate of anyone's agenda."

Oh cut the bullshit, it won't force you to do anything. You can still believe whatever you want about gays you'd just have to have some openly gay coworkers (which you may encounter IN EVERY OTHER JOB).

The rest of your post is ad populum (appeal to majority) or appeal to authority fallacies.

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers? You've shown that you really care about what hurts the military.

I don't know about your credentials but when I was in the service it wasn't a democracy.

The bigoted dinosaurs will shape up or ship out.

 

[Flaylo]

'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
So? Oh no he/she may be fantasizing about them, this harms the fantasized person ... how?

"Count me as one of those who would end their career if forced acceptance of the one sided homosexual agenda were forced upon me, I refuse to be an advocate of anyone's agenda."

Oh cut the bullshit, it won't force you to do anything. You can still believe whatever you want about gays you'd just have to have some openly gay coworkers (which you may encounter IN EVERY OTHER JOB).

The rest of your post is ad populum (appeal to majority) or appeal to authority fallacies.

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers? You've shown that you really care about what hurts the military.

What is there to be concerned about? If they leer or bother them then you can cite them for harassment.

And as Cold Fusion points out, would you rather have to guess who's gay in your unit or would you rather know?

Although really discharging someone from the military because their very presence makes someone uncomfortable is draconian and pretty stupid.

I'd rather not be forced to know who's gay as I prefer people keeping that to themselves, what I don't know will not hurt me. I'm concerned with how the military will be affected by the DADT rescinded, I don't care about what one sided homosexual activists are interested in.

 

[Flaylo]

'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
So? Oh no he/she may be fantasizing about them, this harms the fantasized person ... how?

"Count me as one of those who would end their career if forced acceptance of the one sided homosexual agenda were forced upon me, I refuse to be an advocate of anyone's agenda."

Oh cut the bullshit, it won't force you to do anything. You can still believe whatever you want about gays you'd just have to have some openly gay coworkers (which you may encounter IN EVERY OTHER JOB).

The rest of your post is ad populum (appeal to majority) or appeal to authority fallacies.

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers? You've shown that you really care about what hurts the military.

I don't know about your credentials but when I was in the service it wasn't a democracy.

The bigoted dinosaurs will shape up or ship out.

I jonied the military in 1995 straight out of high school, I'm far from a bigot dinosaur, thats a subjective statement on your part. You are right, the military isn't a democracy so why are gays going against DADT?

 

[Article 15]

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers? You've shown that you really care about what hurts the military.

I don't know about your credentials but when I was in the service it wasn't a democracy.

The bigoted dinosaurs will shape up or ship out.

I jonied the military in 1995 straight out of high school, I'm far from a bigot dinosaur, thats a subjective statement on your part.

If you are still in the service then you are 15 years deep into an enlistment and a crusty old sarge by now. Wake up. Your opinion or position on this issue is bigoted. It's bigoted and it also shows a lack of faith and respect for your fellow servicemembers.

You are right, the military isn't a democracy so why are gays going against DADT?

What does the military not being democracy have to do with gays going against DADT? Whatever the hell that means.

 

[Flaylo]

If you are still in the service then you are 15 years deep into an enlistment and a crusty old sarge by now.

I'm almost 33 years old, far from being a crusty old SFC. I joined the military after the implementation of DADT.

Wake up. Your opinion or position on this issue is bigoted. It's bigoted and it also shows a lack of faith and respect for your fellow servicemembers.

My opinion doesn't matter, the concern of my soldiers and unit cohesion does matter and I will not support anything that will harm those two things. I am under no military obligation to support anyone's fanatical activism. I'm all about the Army business and NCO business.

What does the military not being democracy have to do with gays going against DADT? Whatever the hell that means.

The gays need to get with the program and follow military policy and leave their homosexual agenda at the door before they sign up and take that oath. They can have whatever personal feeling they like, but they do not have the right to use their activism to selfishly dictate military policy and how the military is ran. Soldiers do not get to pick and chose to disregard/follow what they think is right or wrong. Joining the military is voluntary and is not a right.

 

[Article 15]

If you are still in the service then you are 15 years deep into an enlistment and a crusty old sarge by now.

I'm almost 33 years old, far from being a crusty old SFC. I joined the military after the implementation of DADT.

33 years old and 15 years in ... you are crusty and in denial too it seems.

Wake up. Your opinion or position on this issue is bigoted. It's bigoted and it also shows a lack of faith and respect for your fellow servicemembers.

My opinion doesn't matter, the concern of my soldiers and unit cohesion does matter and I will not support anything that will harm those two things. I am under no military obligation to support anyone's fanatical activism. I'm all about the Army business and NCO business.

"Fanatical activism" .... lol

You realize you are making the same arguments that bigoted whites made when they intergrated units almost 70 years ago, right?

Your obligation is to the Army and the US Government. You at least got that part right. When the policy changed it will be your job to enforce it i.e. dicipline any morons under you who harass any gays you might be responsible for ... you know supporting unit cohesion and all.

What does the military not being democracy have to do with gays going against DADT? Whatever the hell that means.

The gays need to get with the program and follow military policy and leave their homosexual agenda at the door before they sign up and take that oath. They can have whatever personal feeling they like, but they do not have the right to use their activism to selfishly dictate military policy and how the military is ran. Soldiers do not get to pick and chose to disregard/follow what they think is right or wrong. Joining the military is voluntary and is not a right.

You need to get with the program and leave your oiwn anti-homosexual agenda at the door. These men and women want to serve their country honoroably and not have to hide who they are in the process. And don't give me some bull shit and tell me that DADT allows them to serve while still being equal to everyone else because it doesn't. Not even close..

 

[Flaylo]

33 years old and 15 years in ... you are crusty and in denial too it seems.

Or maybe I'm just severely misinformed, you'll have to show me where being a 33 year old SFC is a crusty old sarge.

"Fanatical activism" .... lol

Thats exactly what it is, fanatical activism by one sided homosexual activists who put their agenda over the needs and and good order and discipline of the military. Military is selfless service and homosexual one sided activism is not consistent with Army values. I live those values and impress them upon my soldiers. I will not impress homosexual activism upon my soldiers.

You realize you are making the same arguments that bigoted whites made when they intergrated units almost 70 years ago, right?

I'm not making that same argument, sexual orientation based on sexual acts and race and ethnicity are not the same.

Your obligation is to the Army and the US Government. You at least got that part right. When the policy changed it will be your job to enforce it i.e. dicipline any morons under you who harass any gays you might be responsible for ... you know supporting unit cohesion and all.

I enforce that same policy right now with DADT still in place. As long as DADT is in place there will be very little harrassment of gays, that was its sole intention when it was implemented. I will not enforce homosexual activism.

What does the military not being democracy have to do with gays going against DADT? Whatever the hell that means.

You need to get with the program and leave your oiwn anti-homosexual agenda at the door.

I don't have an anti-homosexual agenda just because I disagree with homosexuals openly serving in the military, you gay activists can't have all your wy or its the anti/homosexual way, you need to get with the program and accept that not everyone that disagree with your one sided homosexual biased agenda is not bigoted or a homophobic person.

These men and women want to serve their country honoroably and not have to hide who they are in the process.

Serving in the military is not a right and plenty of soldiers have to give up a lot and sacrifice when they join the military, some more than others. Gays can do whatever they like as long as they don't openly make it known, openly stating that they are gay is of no benefit to the military and unit cohesion. I'm pro-unit cohesion and anything that will improve unit cohesion and morale and the health and welfare of soldiers and anti-anything that goes against and doesn't benefit those things. You one sided homosexual biased actvists only have the interests of homosexuals in mind.

And don't give me some bull shit and tell me that DADT allows them to serve while still being equal to everyone else because it doesn't. Not even close..

Not everyone in the military is "equal" or treated "equally," officers get more pay and better housing than enlisted and even their own reserved parking spaces, but soldiers suck it up and drive on without complaining. Gay soldiers are treated no different than straight soldiers, you show me where the inequality lies. All people joining the military have to adapt to military life and the rules and regulations, if they can't they need to find another occupation, and I will do everything in my power to assist them.


When they get discharged under DADT, they have it better than others who get discharged for they get discharged honorably, despite the fact that they either admitted or were caught in the act of breaking the regulation. Homosexual acts are forbidden under the UCMJ anyways so what good is rescinding DADT going to do?

 

[Article 15]

33 years old and 15 years in ... you are crusty and in denial too it seems.

Or maybe I'm just severely misinformed, you'll have to show me where being a 33 year old SFC is a crusty old sarge.

It's a matter or perception. I'm sure you don't feel like one but your rank and time of service says you are.

"Fanatical activism" .... lol

Thats exactly what it is, fanatical activism by one sided homosexual activists who put their agenda over the needs and and good order and discipline of the military. Military is selfless service and homosexual one sided activism is not consistent with Army values. I live those values and impress them upon my soldiers. I will not impress homosexual activism upon my soldiers.

No, it's not. Its men and women like you and I that want to serve openly and proudly, just we did/do.

I'm assuming that you are hetero.

You don't hide the fact that you are hetero do you?

I'm not making that same argument, sexual orientation based on sexual acts and race and ethnicity are not the same.

You are making the same argument. Unit cohesion, etc. It's the same thing they tried back in the day. They were just as wrong then as you are now.

I enforce that same policy right now with DADT still in place. As long as DADT is in place there will be very little harrassment of gays, that was its sole intention when it was implemented. I will not enforce homosexual activism.

When DADT gets repealed YOU WILL enforce the same harassment policy you would if someone in your unit were harassing someone because they were black, or latino, or a woman.

I don't have an anti-homosexual agenda just because I disagree with homosexuals openly serving in the military, you gay activists can't have all your wy or its the anti/homosexual way, you need to get with the program and accept that not everyone that disagree with your one sided homosexual biased agenda is not bigoted or a homophobic person.

You are against homosexuals serving openly ... I hate to break it to ya but that's part of the anti-homosexual agenda.

These men and women want to serve their country honoroably and not have to hide who they are in the process.

Serving in the military is not a right and plenty of soldiers have to give up a lot and sacrifice when they join the military, some more than others. Gays can do whatever they like as long as they don't openly make it known, openly stating that they are gay is of no benefit to the military and unit cohesion. I'm pro-unit cohesion and anything that will improve unit cohesion and morale and the health and welfare of soldiers and anti-anything that goes against and doesn't benefit those things. You one sided homosexual biased actvists only have the interests of homosexuals in mind.

Straights can openly say they are straight and it doesn't effect unit cohesion. Gays should be able to do the same. Admittedly, we will experience some minor issues with dumbasses who take action against gays but they will weeded out. As they should be. Then your unit will be cohesive and anyone enlisting from the day the policy is repealed forward will be fully aware that they might have to work along side a homo ... just like they would in any civilian job they may hold.

And don't give me some bull shit and tell me that DADT allows them to serve while still being equal to everyone else because it doesn't. Not even close..

Not everyone in the military is "equal" or treated "equally," officers get more pay and better housing than enlisted and even their own reserved parking spaces, but soldiers suck it up and drive on without complaining. Gay soldiers are treated no different than straight soldiers, you show me where the inequality lies. All people joining the military have to adapt to military life and the rules and regulations, if they can't they need to find another occupation, and I will do everything in my power to assist them.

Homosexuals have to behave differently and are not allowed to speak of the same things publically as straights. A straight male can show up for PT one day and talk to his buddies about what he and his girlfriend or wife did that weekend. A gay male cannot do the same about his boyfriend. The policy forces these men and women to live a double life.

When they get discharged under DADT, they have it better than others who get discharged for they get discharged honorably, despite the fact that they either admitted or were caught in the act of breaking the regulation. Homosexual acts are forbidden under the UCMJ anyways so what good is rescinding DADT going to do?

Recinding DADT would also involve tweaking Article 125, dude ....

 

[Flaylo]

It's a matter or perception. I'm sure you don't feel like one but your rank and time of service says you are.

Thats your perception, but not the perception of my soldiers every morning during PT. A 33 year old SFC is not a crusty old sarge, if any of my soldiers told me that I'll put them in the front leaning rest position and let them rethink it.

No, it's not. Its men and women like you and I that want to serve openly and proudly, just we did/do.

Serving proudly is about work, discpline and professionalism, sexual orientation is not conducive to serving honorably. Serving in the military is not a right, you must remember that.

I'm assuming that you are hetero.

You don't hide the fact that you are hetero do you?

I am heterosexual but I don't openly spill the details of my sex life for all to hear. I am not known as Heterosexual SFC __, I am known by by rank and my actions.

You are making the same argument. Unit cohesion, etc. It's the same thing they tried back in the day. They were just as wrong then as you are now.

I am not making the same argument, an orientation based on voluntary sexual acts and race-ethnicity are not the same.

When DADT gets repealed YOU WILL enforce the same harassment policy you would if someone in your unit were harassing someone because they were black, or latino, or a woman.

If it gets repealed on my watch I will not enforce homosexual activism and homosexuality. I do enforce the military's EO program, not black, white, latino or gender based activism.

You are against homosexuals serving openly ... I hate to break it to ya but that's part of the anti-homosexual agenda.

Your against heterosexuals who don't share your one sided homosexual agenda activism.... I hate to break it to ya but that's part of the anti-heterosexual agenda.

Straights can openly say they are straight and it doesn't effect unit cohesion. Gays should be able to do the same.

Straight soldiers don't wate their time and energy oopenly saying they're straight, homosexual activism wants gays to waste time talking about their homosexuality.

Admittedly, we will experience some minor issues with dumbasses who take action against gays but they will weeded out.

So are you saying if DADT is rescinded the old problem people causing lack of unit cohesion are going to be those opposed to it? Have you ever thought that maybe the action of rescinding DADT is the problem?

As they should be. Then your unit will be cohesive and anyone enlisting from the day the policy is repealed forward will be fully aware that they might have to work along side a homo ... just like they would in any civilian job they may hold.

Getting rid of those who may cause physical harm to gays is not going to make all soldiers accept homosexuals openly serving in the ranks.

Homosexuals have to behave differently and are not allowed to speak of the same things publically as straights. A straight male can show up for PT one day and talk to his buddies about what he and his girlfriend or wife did that weekend. A gay male cannot do the same about his boyfriend. The policy forces these men and women to live a double life.

Have you ever thought that people don't want to hear about their gay sex acts? Do you think the heterosexual soldiers are going to be accepting of that kind of talk over time? Thats a weak reason to rescind DADT, just so a gay can openly talk about screwing his boyfriend.

 

[maineman]

'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
So? Oh no he/she may be fantasizing about them, this harms the fantasized person ... how?

"Count me as one of those who would end their career if forced acceptance of the one sided homosexual agenda were forced upon me, I refuse to be an advocate of anyone's agenda."

Oh cut the bullshit, it won't force you to do anything. You can still believe whatever you want about gays you'd just have to have some openly gay coworkers (which you may encounter IN EVERY OTHER JOB).

The rest of your post is ad populum (appeal to majority) or appeal to authority fallacies.

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers? You've shown that you really care about what hurts the military.

Back in the 70's, the navy outlawed beards... against the wishes of a vast majority of sailors. Odddly enough, the navy survived. Oddly enough, losing our beards, although upsetting us in the short term, did not hurt our readiness in any way.

And what about someone who admits to being a homosexual, but does not let his sexuality detract from his professionalism, makes them inherently "untrustworthy"?

 

[Flaylo]

'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
So? Oh no he/she may be fantasizing about them, this harms the fantasized person ... how?

"Count me as one of those who would end their career if forced acceptance of the one sided homosexual agenda were forced upon me, I refuse to be an advocate of anyone's agenda."

Oh cut the bullshit, it won't force you to do anything. You can still believe whatever you want about gays you'd just have to have some openly gay coworkers (which you may encounter IN EVERY OTHER JOB).

The rest of your post is ad populum (appeal to majority) or appeal to authority fallacies.

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers? You've shown that you really care about what hurts the military.

Back in the 70's, the navy outlawed beards... against the wishes of a vast majority of sailors. Odddly enough, the navy survived. Oddly enough, losing our beards, although upsetting us in the short term, did not hurt our readiness in any way.

And what about someone who admits to being a homosexual, but does not let his sexuality detract from his professionalism, makes them inherently "untrustworthy"?

Loss of beards and allowing gays to openly serve are two different things, this is an even worse comparison than blacks and gays.

 

[Flaylo]

Homosexuals have to behave differently and are not allowed to speak of the same things publically as straights. A straight male can show up for PT one day and talk to his buddies about what he and his girlfriend or wife did that weekend. A gay male cannot do the same about his boyfriend. The policy forces these men and women to live a double life.

No one in the Army is allowed to publicly discuss their sex life, especially when it involves people in their unit, that also destroys unit cohesion and its unprofessional. Whatever soldiers discuss privately among themselves is another matter.

Life in the Army is not going to be fair to some people but thats just the way it is, you either adapt and obey or move out.

 

[Flaylo]

I seriously doubt that if DADT was rescinded that soldiers are going to be accepting, tolerant, understanding and willing to hear openly serving gays talk opnely about their sex lives and their man-on-man encounters in the bedroom. I seriously that if DADDT was rescinded that straight soldiers who share rooms with openly gay soldiers will be tolerant and understanding if their gay roomate were to bring someone of the same sex into their rooms and kiss and make out and or have sexual relations.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is all academic anyway.

Calling the living quarters of soldiers Barracks is a misnomer. They're called lodgings. They each have their own room and have to share a common restroom and cooking area. So worrying about someone leering at someone is not really a problem anymore.

 

[Flaylo]

This is all academic anyway.

Calling the living quarters of soldiers Barracks is a misnomer. They're called lodgings. They each have their own room and have to share a common restroom and cooking area. So worrying about someone leering at someone is not really a problem anymore.

Some soldiers still share barracks rooms and even if they don't share a room how do you a barracks full of alpha male soldiers are going to react to two men walking in and around the barracks holding hands and kissing?