Please excuse me if this is an old topic, but with ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ coming under fire I thought now might be a good time to see where people stand on the issue and why they stand there. If your reasoning is religious based, I would appreciate if anyone can quote scripture or a message from the Church supporting their belief.
Yes, they should be allowed.
My reasoning is based on common sense and the need for the country.
It’s whoever is fit to serve the country, and not their sexual orientation that matters. It’s discrimination in the workplace essentially. Gay people aren’t deprived of jobs elsewhere, why the military? Countries like Australia don’t have problems with gays in the military.
Best suited for the job, that’s all that should matter. When you get rounds coming down from militants, does it matter whether the guy or girl next to you is gay or lesbian? I’d be hoping that their training kicks in and they are able to defend me, themselves, and the people they work with.
I assume you are asking about the US military.
First, let me point out that gays and lesbians have been serving in the US armed forces, since its founding So the question really is whether they should be allowed to be openly serving as gay or lesbian.
I would then point out that most countries with a developed economy allow for gay and lesbians to serve in the military.
I wouldn’t assume that, although I am talking about don’t ask don’t tell. So, if another country has a similar policy it can apply to them as well.
This wasn’t my question, but you may assume anything you like as long as your answer is justified, which it is below.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 6:9-10[/BIBLEDRB]
homosexuality is condemned, but it doesn’t say “no military service”
since it is condemned though, i can’t support it
I do think that the main reason we have seen such abrasion on this is that many in the military might be homophobic, and actively serving gays might impair function. Is that fair? No. But ‘fair’ isn’t in the military’s job description.
I’m not sure that what you say is true. My personal experience is that the members of the US military are much more tolerant and flexible than polls of the general public might suggest.
I’m not claiming to have major research to back that up, however at the very least it is probably a consideration of those in power- they of course wouldn’t say it publicly or they’d be scolded both by the gay rights group for not standing up for them and by the military for slandering them.
The Biblical quotes are completely irrelevant, the question is not asking whether homosexuality is right or wrong. It’s asking if someone who is homosexual should be allowed to serve in the military.
So yes, it doesn’t say no military service, because that would be completely irrelevant.
At least be able to read carefully before mindlessly posting just about anything that comes to mind. :rolleyes:
No, actively serving gays aren’t going to impair on the job function, it’s just some homophobic law that has been around forever, and it will be changed soon, no doubt about it.
Other nations have actively serving gays, and they don’t seem to have any problems. I know someone in one one of the commando regiments here who have gay colleagues that work with them, doesn’t seem to have any effect.
I haven’t served, so have no experience in the matter.
However, it seems that the brass tells us that openly gay people in the military create problems for the military.
Added to that is that the military is voluntary. They can make certain rules and regulations and if one doesn’t agree, too bad. Find another way to serve your country, methinks.
I also wonder, if the draft was instituted, could someone claim to be gay to get out of military service? How would they know or how could it be disproven?
There is undoubtedly some homophobia in the military–probably more than the general population as a whole (would be my experience, and one would expect this to be true). However, in the past there was also much racism in the military, and this was largely weeded out by military culture which has no tolerance for racism. I imagine a similar sort of thing could happen for homosexuals.
Keep in mind, the military culture will always be incompatible with some traits of popular homosexual culture—particularly, being feminine—but people who have those traits are probably not likely to join the military in the first place. Further, such traits last about 30 seconds in Basic Training…
In my mind lifting the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not supporting homosexuals, but opening the door to many who for whatever reason could not hide their orientation. As a Catholic, I think homosexual sex is immoral, but I would not ask anyone to hide their orientation. Under the current military rules, even a celibate homosexual would get discharged if it became known that he found other men attractive. That is wrong.
Of course it’s a problem, the difference between having brothers in arms who when they pat you on the back, there’s no possible sexual component, or having people with abominable inclinations who are tempted by you and regularly get physically close to you is quite a large one.
And all the psychological and spiritual problems that go along with that sin are the opposite of conducive to good morale.
It’s like asking, should there be open adulterers in the military – only worse. Quite a lot of dishonor.
It’s worse than women in the military.
This sin has an awful effect on the sinners – putting them in positions of power makes it absolutely certain that power will be abused, whether it’s police, military, you name it.
No, it’s not homophobia.
Imagine that the Army started assigning women to live in the same quarters as men, to share the same shower facilities and toilets.
Would be surprised that substantial numbers of women would complain, or at least feel uncomfortable with being forced to share shower space with men?
Would we simply accuse the women of being heterophobic? Of course not.
Well, there is really no substantial difference in asking a man to share shower space with a homosexual.
Sure, the homosexual is probablly well capable of controlling themselves, but then again, the same could be said for the men showering with the women, would it not. But the simple knowledge that the men assigned to their quarters will not make passes at them isn’t exactly a comfort when stepping into the shower, now is it.
In the military, especially the Navy and certain other elements of the land arms ( armor, etc…) require very close quarters with little privacy. Since we would not expect mixed genders to share things like bunks and showers, why expect it introduce the same with homosexuals.
If you want to be and do as you please, then the military might not be the place, no matter what one’s choices are. (If you are a slob in your personal manners you have to stop being a slop) When you serve in the military you surrender your right to do and be as you please (your agreement, pledge, vow). What ever that may be. The military is not to form itself to accommodate it’s membership, it’s membership is to conform to the mold set by the military. If you can perform that, then no one will hold anything against you, but if you can’t perform that, then you are not able to fit the mold.
The mold that has been set has been quite successful in the passed 250 yr’s why should it be changed? Because of some one’s choice that does not fit the mold?
What a disgusting and uneducated comment, completely ignorant of others as well. What do you mean by worse than women in the military?
So women and gays should not serve in the military? Because it’s sinful :rolleyes:
You obviously have no military experience, and if you do, I sure hope you don’t stick around. I’d hate to have to serve next to someone that holds such ridiculous beliefs in a rifle section.
It should be changed because it’s discriminatory. It’s like depriving homosexuals of jobs in the civilian sector because they are gay.
We could go back to executing gay people, it was quite successfull back in the day, it even kept the occurrences of “immorality” quite low compared to now - so should we go back to executing gay people?
No it’s not, see my post above as to why.
It really no different than asking a platoon of women to shower with a man, even if the man promises celebacy.
The women are ENTITLED to feel uncomfortable in such a situation. And that is an overall reduction in morale, and hence troop readiness.
I was a Troop Commander in an Armor unit. The 4 men inside a tank have to live in VERY close quarters. And they have to function as a cohesive team. One of my biggest challenges was creating the correct ‘mix’ of crew in each of the tanks.
Adding in a known homosexual into the mix would have impared my unit’s overall readiness. The other 3 members of his crew would have, correctly, been uncomfortbale living in tight quarters, in exacly the same way a woman would feel uncomforable if she had to take a pee into a zip lock bag 2 feet away from a man. (which is often how tankers have to do such things).
Certainly neither the man or the woman would find that sexually attractive, but it would add to a level of discomfort, and thus morale lowering that it is only too human to expect.
This is complete rubbish. Gay people serve in the Australian Special Air Service, and they don’t seem to have any trouble. It’s a special forces regiment and they don’t seem to have any trouble at all. In fact I know of this reading a book written by a Trooper from the SAS and he commented on how his colleague was gay, this was in the early 90’s - how he was first reluctant to come out with it even though it was tolerated, but when he did, no one really cared. People don’t join the military to indulge, those with such motivations quickly find they are in the wrong environment.
So during an enemy contact, are you afraid the homosexual might pull a fast one on you? :rolleyes:
The UK, NZ and other western countries also don’t have an anti-gay policy, they don’t have any problems either, so I feel your comments are rather incorrect.
Homosexual attraction is such a great aberration against the natural law, that it has to be educated out of people that this is the case through vice – making them more animal like.
It’s called a curse and a penalty for grave sins, and that it most certainly is.
This is mortal stuff. And if you buy the propaganda that it’s ‘ok’ you’re in hot water that’s going to boil.
People who pretend it’s normal, or buy that somehow people who have it are ‘victims’ do not understand that though these people need to be helped, there is no way society should ever tolerate it as publicly acceptable.
To put it into the military, makes the military weak. You can say it doesn’t, and claim your military is functioning well. Effeminate men, overly shy and nervous, obsessive, exhibitionist men, do not make good soldiers. And these are only some of the common problems that go along with this sin.
To overcome the shame that God’s natural law places in them at this vice causes profound interior problems with how they deal with everything. It turns everything upside down.
There’s hope for all people who work to overcome it, but for those who embrace it? They will only spiral downwards and do great harm.
‘That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.’
Pope St. Pius V
“Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God’s law, for our Maker did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which He is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust.”
‘All passions are dishonorable, for the soul is even more prejudiced and degraded by sin than is the body by disease; but the worst of all passions is lust between men. . . when God abandons a man, everything is turned upside down! Therefore, not only are their passions satanic, but their lives are diabolic. A murderer only separates the soul from the body, whereas these destroy the soul inside the body. . . There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity.’
St. John Chrysostom