Ban On Gays In Military - Practical Or Moral Reason?

[Flatbutt1]

Originally posted by cantdrv55
Two or three weeks later, I caught him in bed with a guy, who he says was his cousin. I ran down to the control room right away and turned him in. He was out very soon thereafter.

As I said, if he didn't bother me, I would've continued to look the other way. But catching him in the act bothered me. Keep it to yourself and we will be OK. Flaunt it and your a$$ is gone.

What would you have done if you caught him with a woman?

[sammyg2]

The general was right and I applaud him for having the guts to tell the truth instead of bowing to the PC generating special interest groups.

[holtjv]

I talked about this with my Marines when we were deployed somewhere. The consensus was (we were very tight, mind you, very) that they would look the other way.

Now, if there was a guy in the unit who didn't pull his load, not a team player, etc., AND was gay, that guy would almost certainly get a beating then would disappear the next day, out of the service. Any guy who could endanger you by being lazy would stand a chance of getting a beating.

Some of the other interesting thoughts can be reflected in this one big logistical question, which is especially significant when deployed in a combat area:

1. do you have separate toilets/showers/squad bays
2. will gays/lesbians demand separate facilities
3. will hetero's demand separate facilities

Then, of course, the levity hits and someone brings up the bit about if you were a straight guy and were able to take a shower with 20 chicks...



Jack

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by fastpat
Actually, there is. By American common law, every able bodied man is considered in the militia from which the active duty military is drawn. All methods used to deny service based on other than the "able bodied" standard are illegal under common law since that's a denial of a right to self defense which includes defense of family, neighbors, and land in addition to self.

The expectation has always been that there would be no standing army, hence no need for most folks to ever do more than learn how to fire a rifle.

Interesting interpretation.
2007 there is a standing army and that army has rules.
For you to serve, you must be able bodied (physically, mentally and socially) able.
The constitution is a living growing document that is constantly being interpreted to suit the needs of the people it serves.
Today "don't ask, don't tell" is the interpretation.
Who knows, tomorrow it may change.

[cashflyer]

Look... if they kick out the gays, who's gonna scrub your back in the shower???
(you know... hypothetically)


That aside, if this "war on terror/afghanistan/iraq/iran" doesn't conclude soon, we'll be putting anyone who can carry a rifle into service. Gays, lesbos, trannies, illegal immigrants, prisoners, tax dodgers, litterbugs, etc.... you name it, we'll deploy it.

[FOG]

The Brits and Aussies have recently allowed homosexuals to openly serve. Check on their results, it has not been positive. The others don’t deploy or have lots of other issues. The Israelis definitely stay home.

Military officers are barred per the UCMJ from voicing certain opinions in public that are contrary to official policy. Things got much tighter under Clinton in 93. .Gen. Pace voiced his personnel opinion and his support for public policy. There is no violation. Lots of people don’t understand the ethical line.

As an example I think that the drinking age for service men should be lowered to whatever age they are enlisted at as long as they don’t have any other restrictions upon them. I think the 21 age limit on drinking causes more problems than it solves but I strictly enforce it.

Seahawk hit on the head, though I have additional thoughts having deployed both in ground and aviation billets. The gay issue has come up and it is much more divisive than the heterosexual things, which negatively impacted the units.

The U.S. military is not about practicing any form of democracy but protecting.

The logistical issues with deploying females are very significant in the areas of hygiene and billeting. Gays would increase the issues many times (don’t have a clue as to the factor but it is significant.

[KFC911]

Originally posted by scottmandue
...The problem being gays as stereotyped as sissy's...

I've never been in the military, but I can assure you that a really hot chick would disrupt my fighting capabilities more than any gay guy would They've always been there (just like in every segment of our society throughout history)...

[fintstone]

I would have to agree with Wayne...and General Pace.