Never mind. If you guys want to pretend the "DADT" policy issue is all about these ridiculous things so it's easier to argue against, knock yourselves out. I'm not interested in defending strawmen, thanks.
toldailytopic: Gays in the military.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
As long as their not openly homosexual and in the military.
What other restrictions would you put on Freedom?
lucy
New member
When one enlists in the military, they voluntarily give up certain freedoms....
- the "right" to go where you please, when you please (AWOL)
- the "right" to fraternize with whom you please (officers cannot date enlisted personnel)
- the "right" to refuse to do what you are told to do (when you receive orders, you have to obey- you cannot tell your superior that you don't want to do as ordered)
- the "right" to live where you please (for the most part, you live in a barrack or in officer's quarters or wherever you are assigned to live, unless the location you are assigned does not provide living quarters)
- the "right" to "quit" your job (you sign a contract to serve for a certain period of time and you can't just decide not to fulfill that time commitment)
- the "right" to socialize where you please (enlisted men cannot go into the officer's club to drink/socialize)
- the "right" to choose your job assignment (you are assigned to drive a tank? You cannot choose to fly aircraft instead)
These are "freedoms" that are protected for non-military citizens by the military; however, military personnel voluntarily give up these freedoms in order to serve the greater good of their country. There is no difference in restricting the "freedom" to announce your sexual orientation. Again, to what purpose/end does and individual need to publicly announce their sexual orientation in the military or anywhere else for that matter?
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
Not any more than one has a right to announce their religious belief, maybe they should demolish all the churches that are on board the bases around the world, in the sense of fairness and all, what purpose/end does an individual need to publicly announce that?
Besides the above "rights" are not given up, they are set aside until the military contract is no longer in effect, and as long as the military member wishes to comply with his contract.
Also, it is not voluntarily set aside, since the new recruit has no idea these orders exist until after they have joined, nor can the military prevent what you have mentioned, they can only punish one with the violation of that regulation.
It all depends on how important these Freedoms are to the individual and to what sacrifice they are willing to make to retain them.
American history is full of examples of men/women making personal sacrifices in order to affect changes in our way of life.
One such example is women in the military, think about all the changes that had to made in order to accomplish this, considering that everything that was military had to be modified, changed or altered to allow this to happen.
It all boils down to the Freedom of Choice and how important it is to the individual.
lucy
New member
Yes, it all boils down to the freedom of choice of the individual; do they want to be in the military? Then they have to follow the military rules and regulations. As to whether recruits know all the things I listed, or not, these are very basic items and easy to find out about via internet or other sources. If one is going to join the military, they would be wise to count the cost and to inform themselves of the personal sacrifices they will need to be willing to make before joining.
No one is forcing anyone to sign up, either.
lucy
New member
Not a single person on this thread has provided any kind of argument for the BENEFITS of allowing openly gay people in the military to announce their sexual orientation. Not one!
If there is no harm in allowing it then why prevent it? Are you just that dense or do you think repeating what someone says is clever?
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
The demonstration of an American ideal and a right of their citizens!
How would that same argument not apply to heterosexuals? IF this is about people answering questions or speaking about their sexuality, then obviously the rule should be applied to all.
IF a gay man is not permitted to speak about his husband/SO and family, why should a heterosexual man be able to mention his wife and family?
I have no problem with rules against sexual harassment that are applied across the board. However, why is it that some people just naturally assume that gay men are going to be the one's doing the harassing?
Heterosexual men are known to harass women and yet when THAT issue comes up it is normally met with the attitude of "Oh boys will be boys. That's why women shouldn't be allowed in the military."
Rather than anticipating problems based on nothing other than personal or religious bias, it would make more sense to deal with people on an individual basis.
Last edited:
Why bother? No one's listening. Judging from the responses I've read so far in this thread, including yours, any answer would just be ignored. Probably even responded to as if an entirely different statement had been made.
Currently, to my understanding, the reason the DADT policy is in place is the aforementioned "unacceptable risk to the Armed Force’s standards of morale, good order, discipline, and unit cohesion."
Homosexuals in the armed forces would be disruptive in the same manner that having both males and females serve together has proven to be disruptive. But even more so, as you can't near so easily segregate homos and heteros as you can male and female.
The readily obvious "shower" example has been referred to (and laughed off) already. With males and females you can easily segregate them to male and female showers. That particular problem is easily averted. Feel free to explain how one would segregate male heteros, male homos, female heteros and female homos? You can't set up a shower system for homos with anyone without problems. And that's just taking a for-crying-out-loud shower, never mind the million other much more pertinent considerations involved with military service.
Honestly, the fact that you folks are even arguing this suggest right up front that you aren't willing to consider any other position on this issue. The utter disruption it would cause on so many levels is so obvious you'd have to be willfully blind not to see them. And considering this is the military, the one institution you wouldn't want to disrupt just to make a point...
Really, why do you think anyone would bother?
Yes, I know; I think you're posted that twice now. What I'm looking for is an explanation for how exactly that would occur.
Men and women don't serve alongside in combat, and I've never once encountered a situation like the one you just described that was referred to as disruptive by those I know who serve and have served.
This argument is grounded in paranoia more than anything: for the last time, not every gay person in the world wants to have sex (or views sexually) every other person of the game gender that they meet. Why is this so hard to understand?
If the Israelis of all people can handle this I suspect we can, too.
Heteros and homos forced to cohabitate, that's how. This really didn't occur to you? :squint:
Men and women serving together in the military hasn't caused any problems? Really, Granite?
It's easy to understand. It's just also completely irrelevant. Every gay person in the world doesn't need to have to want sex with every other person in the world for this to cause a problem. Would you argue that men and women should share a shower because not every man in the world wants to have sex with everyone else in the world? Why is this so hard to understand?
By all means, tell us how hetero men and women should be forced to share barracks. Because that would be no problem at all, right?
Who cares what the Israel's have managed to handle? Why should we have to "handle" anything? Is catering to homos so important to you that you'd force the military to "handle" something just to please them? I say no. And let them get the hell over themselves. This is our military and we shouldn't undermine it to score political points.
Ten Reasons to Oppose the “LGBT Law” for the Military
Congress approved the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, usually mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” with bipartisan veto-proof majorities. Federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of the law (Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C.) several times. President Barack Obama has promised lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered (LGBT) activists that he would repeal the 1993 law. For reasons summarized below, Congress should reject pending legislation to impose a new LGBT Law on the Military:
1. Current findings remain valid. The 1993 law states “there is no constitutional right to serve,” and the military is a “specialized society” that is “fundamentally different from civilian life.” In living conditions offering little or no privacy, homosexuality presents an “unacceptable risk” to good order, discipline, morale and unit cohesion--qualities essential for combat readiness.
2. Open-Ended “LGBT Law.” Legislation sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) would require acceptance of professed (not discreet) sexual minorities, banning discrimination against “homosexuality or bisexuality…whether real or perceived.”
3. Effects far-reaching, retroactive. If passed, the LGBT Law would affect all military branches and communities, to include Army and Marine infantry, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, surface ships, and submarines, on a constant (24/7) basis, with retroactive effect.
4. Violations of sexual privacy. Separate housing would be impractical, hugely expensive or unacceptable to LGBT “civil rights” activists. Pretending that sexual tension does not matter would create a “hostile work environment,” tantamount to forcing women to live in close quarters with men.
5. Increased misconduct, both consensual and nonconsensual. Because human beings are not perfect, male/male and female/female incidents, in addition to problems already occurring, are predictable. Unit commanders will be burdened with personnel turmoil, accusations of bias, and potential career penalties that have the effect of weakening trust and team cohesion.
6. Involuntary losses and “zero tolerance” of dissent. Assigning “civil rights” status to LGBT personnel would impose a corollary “zero tolerance” policy, forcing career penalties on anyone who disagrees for any reason, starting with chaplains and personnel of most major faiths.
7. Voluntary personnel losses. Many personnel will not complain of problems, even in cases of assault or abuse of rank, due to fear of career penalties and questions about their own “attitudes.” They will simply decline reenlistment. Potential recruits will avoid the military.
8. Mandatory LGBT Training. To make the new law “work,” the Defense Department will modify mandatory sensitivity training programs to include LGBT curricula at all educational institutions and schools.
9. Family housing and benefits. Military family housing likely will include same-sex couples, increasing pressures for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Declining family retention would leave fewer, less skilled troops to face more deployments and potential combat.
10. No case for repeal. If the proposed LGBT Law does not improve recruiting, retention, and readiness in the All-Volunteer Force, it should not be passed.
(source)
/debate
Nice to see that you have freely and openly chosen to be part of the 'godless' army. May you find some luck on your brief journey upon this earth.
lucy
New member
lucy
New member
One does not have the same rights of expression in the military as does the general public. Get over it.
I think these post, as well as many others, belong on the "Why is Christianity so Offensive" Thread. Heck they belong on a "why are religious people so offensive" thread, because all religions have these type of disrespectful types among them.
No, I don't think it's ok to be gay. But for religious people to sit and talk with this kind of hatred and disrespect is a bit disgusting. Who are you doing it for? God? I'm sorry, but I think the Almighty is more than capable of defending his own self and disciplining those who are not living right if it a matter so concerns him. It seems to be more of a self interest to be so nasty towards others, rather than a Godly reason.
Unless those people are hurting you, I don't think it is any of our business what sexual preference they have. People could have relations with a horse, fish, rooster, or whatever else they choose, and it would not affect me; therefore, I don't see the need to call them names or discriminate.
As I understand it, the military is the United States Military, not the Official United Military of God.
Discrimination is wrong no matter if you are religious or not.
When religious people carry on like this it gives merit to when people say things like:
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." --Steven Weinberg
If religious people want people to respect religion and see a purpose in it, then we religious people should not be the leaders in discrimination, hate, or hate speech.
You want people to keep their sexuality in the closet, then maybe you should keep your religious opinions in the closet, because both of those are personal preferences.
God needs no police, I'm sure that if he wanted gays gone as much as religious people think they should be gone, he would do something about it himself. Until God does something then it is not my place to say or do anything to them, unless they are directly affecting me--as with anything else that affects us which we have the right to speak about. And no gay person being married, serving in the military, or being my doctor, has ever affected me, or my relationship with God, nor my service to God.
Lets remember we are the judged and not the judders.
- Status