Should Gays Be Allowed to Serve Openly in the Military

[johngr]

I said yes because I think it would be cool to to see an all gay elite regiment. They could call it the 69th Rump Rangers. Or I know, how about an all-gay double-MOS motorpool/medic unit (with specialty training in STDs) called the Crank Mechanics? Or an all-gay Air Force color guard unit in dress pinks, with the flag-bearer wearing a leather flight jacket, aviator sunglasses and crotchless chaps with nothing underneath, carrying a Rainbow flag, for marching in Gay Pride parades, nicknamed the "Flying Flaggots"? I tell ya, the possibilities are endless.

On the popular culture front, a new version of The Village People could have a really fun time with an updated, x-rated version of "In the Navy" and afer USrael starts WWIII, they could make a combination war/homosexual fetish porn movie called "Shaving Ryan's Privates".

[pcosmar]

I would much rather downsize the military. That seems more of a priority.
There is NO military authorized by the Constitution other than the Navy and Militia.

So it would be up to the local militia to decide.

[Bucjason]

Yes allow them, who cares??

[FrankRep]

The Military should be allowed to choose what type of people they want.

[rprprs]

I love the new Google ad at the top of the thread page.... Gay Military Dating . com ... lol.

[phill4paul]

The same question was asked of "people who refer to themselves as a sub-group of American defined by their African heritage" and women.
Don't see where it has been a major problem.
The military has a set of rules concerning sexual harassment, hell it has rules regarding everything, so as long as the rules are enforced and discipline maintained I see no problem.
Aside from that refer to Peters post above.

[TonySutton]

Yes of course gays should be allowed to openly serve in the military. Many gays are already serving in the military, some are serving openly. Having served 20 years myself in the Marines, I do not see any problem with it.

During my 20 years women began taking on a fuller role in the military. The arguments I hear today are very similar to the arguments I heard about women and probably similar to the arguments against blacks in the 50's.

[Sarge]

I have news for all. They have served for centuries.

"Alternative Sexual Relationships As A Result Of The Roman Marriage Ban
Because serving soldiers in the Roman army were not allowed the privilege of legal marriage, they entered alternative relationships. These included:

1. Sexual relationships with locals, both female and male.

2. Frequenting prostitutes both female and male.

3. Sexual relationships with slaves both female and male."

(Phang, The Marriage Of Roman Soldiers, Chapter Eight,

Many Roman soldiers brought their own slaves with them.

Throw in Bi Sexuals, which no one comments on, and there you have it.

[zach]

I said yes because I think it would be cool to to see an all gay elite regiment. They could call it the 69th Rump Rangers. Or I know, how about an all-gay double-MOS motorpool/medic unit (with specialty training in STDs) called the Crank Mechanics? Or an all-gay Air Force color guard unit in dress pinks, with the flag-bearer wearing a leather flight jacket, aviator sunglasses and crotchless chaps with nothing underneath, carrying a Rainbow flag, for marching in Gay Pride parades, nicknamed the "Flying Flaggots"? I tell ya, the possibilities are endless.

On the popular culture front, a new version of The Village People could have a really fun time with an updated, x-rated version of "In the Navy" and afer USrael starts WWIII, they could make a combination war/homosexual fetish porn movie called "Shaving Ryan's Privates".

You haven't said why other than pointing out cultural stereotypes which imply that only homosexuals engage in deviant sexual activities.

If one prohibits someone else from being out in the open about something, then sooner or later, it will make itself known in a worse way.

[johngr]

You haven't said why other than pointing out cultural stereotypes which imply that only homosexuals engage in deviant sexual activities.

If one prohibits someone else from being out in the open about something, then sooner or later, it will make itself known in a worse way.

They tend to be more public about it.The "pride" parades reflect this. Ever heard of such a parade for heterosexuals? I believe equivalent exhibitionistic behavior would get "breeders" arrested.

[zach]

They tend to be more public about it.The "pride" parades reflect this. Ever heard of such a parade for heterosexuals? I believe equivalent exhibitionistic behavior would get "breeders" arrested.

Indeed. And I don't particularly like these parades either.

However, I think one part of the "pride" aspect and showing it off excessively (i.e. the flamboyantly gay people) to others has to do with insecurity of not feeling fully accepted or secure within their own niche of society. If one feels secure with their own self in relation to how others perceive him or her, then they wouldn't need to let others know about their sexuality (in this case anyway) every other day or second. Not that it's all society's fault because there are LGBT people who have integrated themselves well into the society without feeling the need to irrelevantly and excessively show off their sexuality.

[MelissaWV]

Go downtown sometime and watch folks around clubs/bars ;) There's your heterosexual pride. Who needs sex ed? Hell, who needs "Anatomy" class with the way some folks dress...

There are plenty of homosexuals AND heterosexuals who can refrain from lewd displays and outright idiocy.

* * *

On the issue at hand, I don't think barring homosexuals from serving openly is doing anyone any favors. I do think those sorts of guidelines will be removed, but the conspiracy theorist part of me (a very small part, but sometimes I just can't help thinking about stuff) thinks that with military numbers what they are... ultimate removal of these policies will be argued more as a means to cut off a very obvious way for people to avoid a draft. Right now, if you're drafted, you could just very easily go in with your buddy who doesn't want to be drafted, either, and tongue-kiss, then scream "I'm GAY!" and you would be pretty much disqualified.

[zach]

On the issue at hand, I don't think barring homosexuals from serving openly is doing anyone any favors. I do think those sorts of guidelines will be removed, but the conspiracy theorist part of me (a very small part, but sometimes I just can't help thinking about stuff) thinks that with military numbers what they are... ultimate removal of these policies will be argued more as a means to cut off a very obvious way for people to avoid a draft. Right now, if you're drafted, you could just very easily go in with your buddy who doesn't want to be drafted, either, and tongue-kiss, then scream "I'm GAY!" and you would be pretty much disqualified.

Kind of reminds me of this:

"Since being gay is considered a disease, let's use it as an excuse: Sorry, I can't come to work today... I still have the gay."

But seriously, I've thought about that too.. it eradicates the excuse that being gay will keep someone from serving the military in some form.

[TonySutton]

They tend to be more public about it.The "pride" parades reflect this. Ever heard of such a parade for heterosexuals? I believe equivalent exhibitionistic behavior would get "breeders" arrested.

Pride Parades are blow back caused by police abusing their power in the late 60's. Their actions were often driven by people who wanted to enforce their religious beliefs through government force. It was quite common for gay bars to be targeted by police. All sorts of civil liberty violations would occur during these raids.

Today many gays are treated poorly in school and by their families. Pride Parades are an outlet for them to overcome this abuse. It can be a mental cleansing where gays can gather with people who do not look down on them and rebuild their self worth.

If you do not like Pride Parades you are not required to attend. There are many groups who hold parades in towns and cities all over this country. If people are breaking laws during the parades then the police should enforce those laws.

And concerning exhibitionist behavior, I guess you have never heard of Mardi Gras.

[MelissaWV]

...And concerning exhibitionist behavior, I guess you have never heard of Mardi Gras.

True on that one. You hear a lot more "show your tits" than you do "show your dick" to get beads.

[Liberty Star]

This is where evangelicals political statnces make no sense, OTOH they support spreading freedoms by force to other parts and yet oppose freedom to openly enjoy homosexual freedom in US military. OTOH they praise Israel where gay marriage is legal and they allow even USO style live gay sex shows for their troops morale building yet would oppose same freedoms for our own troops?

Can someone with a window into our evangelicals brain explain this massive hypocrisy?

[ChaosControl]

Don't ask, don't tell. Keep your private life private. I don't go around blabbing about my personal life, I don't see why *** people feel the intense need to.

[AlexMerced]

They tend to be more public about it.The "pride" parades reflect this. Ever heard of such a parade for heterosexuals? I believe equivalent exhibitionistic behavior would get "breeders" arrested.


The parades are natural reaction to former oppression, it's like when you first move out of your parents house, your excited to tell everyone about your new found freedom and stay out late and do all the things you couldn't before, after a while it wears off as it will, but when it's an entrie population of people it takes a couple of generations.

Kinda like a lot of the race pride type stuff is starting to die down with this generation, you will always have an extreme identity created after the ending of opression, it's natural, the more accepting people are the sooner the "wearing of onesself on ones shoulder" ends.

[RyanRSheets]

I don't think sexual orientation should even be a topic discussed in the military. I guess in a way I support Don't Ask Don't Tell, because I don't think people should be concerned with sexual orientation in a freaking warzone.

[RyanRSheets]

And gay pride events always irked me. Why should anyone be publicly proud of making a boolean decision one way or the other? Do what makes sense to you, and shut up about it. I'm not a homophobe, I just find collectivism disgusting.

[Southron]

Sure. They might as well die in our wars of conquest. Better them than me.

[BuddyRey]

Kinda hard for me to answer this one, since I don't believe the U.S. military as it is today should even exist. But I voted yes.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I think all members of the military who are gay should just come out. That way the government has to either change the policy or discharge 10% of the military. Also, any heteros who are sick of being forced into multiple tours should just do something gay and get kicked out.

[0zzy]

Don't ask, don't tell. Keep your private life private. I don't go around blabbing about my personal life, I don't see why *** people feel the intense need to.

I call bs. How many times have you seen a solider with their families? Kissing his wife? Seeing his wife? Talking to his wife?

But if a gay man or a lesbian woman does it, they can be dishonorably discharged. There is no such thing as private life when it comes to something like this. They aren't having sex in the office, but if they send an email to their gay male they can be fired? it's bs.

[0zzy]

I think all members of the military who are gay should just come out. That way the government has to either change the policy or discharge 10% of the military. Also, any heteros who are sick of being forced into multiple tours should just do something gay and get kicked out.

ROFL! I saw this in a movie somewhere. or maybe it was Family guy.... haha.

[AlexMerced]

If you support don't ask and don't tell then to be consistent you'd have to support discharge of those who come out as heterosexual, cause the argument is sexuality shouldn't be discussed or be an issue.

Something to think about, picture having to keep your relationship not only discrete but super secret cause it anyone else decides to out you, your done, if you speak out against a war, then the power that be can out you and destroy you.

This is not about just being discrete, this about the ability to have privacy, cause general and superiors can investigate you if they feel you are gay, and this gives them political power to silence dissent.

This goes beyond what's the proper level of discretion. This is about freedom and privacy.

Imagine...

Being paranoid that a private facebook message sent to your significant other can be used against you if don't follow in line, and with the patriot act they can probably get to those PRIVATE communications

Imagine not being able to tell any of your personal friends, cause of the fear that the information might get mentioned in obscure text or voicemail, which once again can be used against you, especially with the patriot act.

What if one of these paranoid people knew information of people in power misusing evidence or trying to push the warfare state, picture how easy under this state it'd be to silent that person that could of prevented a war.

[Matt Collins]

I think that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is the best policy.

[AggieforPaul]

I voted yes. I dont see any moral argument for they should be treated differently than straight soldiers.

[MelissaWV]

Don't Ask... Don't Care.

That'd be better to me.

Don't ask with the intention of making homosexuals some kind of protected species within the military, or endowing them with special rights, or whatever else.

Don't care if, when someone comes back from serving for months or even years, they kiss someone of the same gender instead of someone of another gender.

[Giuliani was there on 911]

Absolutely not, that will just continue to give homosexuality more legitimacy.

[AlexMerced]

If you support don't ask and don't tell then to be consistent you'd have to support discharge of those who come out as heterosexual, cause the argument is sexuality shouldn't be discussed or be an issue.

Something to think about, picture having to keep your relationship not only discrete but super secret cause it anyone else decides to out you, your done, if you speak out against a war, then the power that be can out you and destroy you.

This is not about just being discrete, this about the ability to have privacy, cause general and superiors can investigate you if they feel you are gay, and this gives them political power to silence dissent.

This goes beyond what's the proper level of discretion. This is about freedom and privacy.

Imagine...

Being paranoid that a private facebook message sent to your significant other can be used against you if don't follow in line, and with the patriot act they can probably get to those PRIVATE communications

Imagine not being able to tell any of your personal friends, cause of the fear that the information might get mentioned in obscure text or voicemail, which once again can be used against you, especially with the patriot act.

What if one of these paranoid people knew information of people in power misusing evidence or trying to push the warfare state, picture how easy under this state it'd be to silent that person that could of prevented a war.

No one seems to be addressing this very real aspect of the current law

[DjLoTi]

As someone who has served in the military, I am simply saying yes. I do not agree that causing disruptions by flaunting homosexuality should occur. The military needs to downsize anyway. Our military is a broken system. This is such a silly debate that wastes serious time about serious issues.

But I guess it isn't fair for the military to show blatant discrimination towards any type of individual. Personally I am not gay so this issue doesn't concern me.




.