President Obama signs legislation allowing gays to serve in the military.
Good. We don't care what people do or who they date in their private lives. If they can do the job properly and honorably they deserve to serve their country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I'm not so sanguine on this as you. Object to homosexuals serving? Not as such, but a key part of military strategy for the past 200 years in the U.S. has been that service should be a decidedly nonsexual place. Since the integration of women into all but front line combat infantry and cavalry, officers are commenting that a key part of their leadership is to defuse the side effects of romantic relationships.
Integrating open homosexuality can only make this problem worse, which is why combat troops were pretty strongly against this move.
Perhaps if the military actually enforced "no fraternization" rules, this would work, but it seems that this is opening up a nasty can of worms. (not to mention that combat troops dislike this, and just might decide not to reenlist....there could be a nasty brain drain as well)
I used to lean more to your way of thinking, Bert, but I've met enough honorably-discharged gay veterans to where I've realized that they're already there, no matter what the official policy is. I think you've got the right idea - strictly enforce the no-fraternization policy and keep thinks professional.
Besides, as I heard a local radio commenter say the other day, you don't often see "screaming queens" lining up to enlist ;)
WV: moonati. What you don't want Spanish soldiers to be doing. (moon - a - ti = moon at you)
Sorry, it's been a long day.
You are failing to comprehend what the idiot in chief actually signed today...... and what it has changed.... Before he signed this, gays WERE allowed to be in the military, they just needed to keep it private...and there are many gays in the military........ What has changed is now they can be OPENLY gay, not a good thing at all in a combat type situation, I promise you, there is going to be a MAJOR shortage of re-enlistments in the near future, among other bad things that are going to happen.... There goes much of our experience troops out the door never to return, and you think this is a good thing?
I have over 25 yrs with the military, and this is a VERY BAD DAY for our country and military.
Forgot to add that I have/had no problem with gays serving, in fact, I knew some, and kept my mouth shut about them.... they have just as much right to serve as I did, like you said, but the open thing is going to cause so many problems, and even deaths that it is extremely stupid to even have been considered to begin with.
Thanks for commenting and for your service, Harry. I just didn't think it would be a huge difference, but I will defer to your experience on this one.
Like you said, I guess we're going to find out soon enough what the ultimate fallout's going to be.
Harry & Bubba,
Why would this cause a brain drain on the military? If soldiers are already aware that their are homosexuals serving in the military, why would it now cause them to not reenlist? I totally agree that the military needs to be a place where sexual relationships do not occur; there is a reason the barracks are not co-ed. I feel DADT helped homosexuals serve; they no long had to A.) lie, and hence deny who they are and B.)tell the truth and be rejected. DADT seemed to say something along the lines of, "we know we can't stop gays from serving, nor do we want to, but we want to avoid sexual interaction, therefore we want you to keep it quiet while you serve." While soldiers are back at home on leave, that is 100% their business, and they should be able to do whatever they like in the privacy of their bedroom. While you are serving your country, you should have no sexual preferences.
It would cause the ones who do not want or like gays to not re-enlist, not the gays.
Very few non-gays know who the gays are... if they did, the gays would at a minimum be exposed and kicked out (not anymore, because of this stupid law) now they will probably fall down the stairs in some tragic mishap...... or worse......
Just because most liberals and the liberal politicians have no problem with openly gay people, it does NOT mean that the majority of the military (who are mostly from rural area's) are ok with them. Being openly gay is not a help in a combat zone, it is a major distraction and hindrance. Worrying about the person next to you will get you killed, you need to be able to trust your buddy with your life. (I am in no way saying that gays cant be trusted)
As much as it is wrong/not politically correct to dislike gays, it is a fact that most people dont, and consider it an abomination against nature/God. That is a just a fact that cannot be legislated away, no matter how bad you might want it to happen.
See that response just seemed like a lot of opinion. Personally, I do not care for homosexuals and the lifestyles they tend to live. I would not want my child or a family member to be gay. I do feel it is against nature, and not in a religious way. However, if soldiers already know they are gays in the army, what difference does it make that they will now know who these gays are, and not just that they exist in the army? If you are gay and in the army, I do feel it needs to be kept private unless you are at home on leave. Now days you need more than just religious reasons to justify a claim. Although I agree with your conclusion, your justification is not going to win any liberals or Democrats because they tend to not view religion as a legitimate reason. I do feel there are plenty of reasons to oppose homosexuality without citing the Bible.
While I don't have the years of service that Harry does, I am currently serving now. My biggest gripe about this is more of personal one. I understand that if I'm attractive to some gay guy, he's probably going to check me out...but, I'd rather not know about it. This also opens the door (so to speak) of getting more openly ogled in the showers. That aspect of things has me a bit uncomfortable. By no means would this keep me from working with a gay person.
I see where Harry's coming from. He has a valid concern. Many people do come from rural areas where homosexuality is either less prevalent or rejected (more oft than not from what I've seen/heard). This could cause considerable backlash. In our hate, we as people are seldom rational. 'Accidents' are likely to happen. While I certainly hope that this isn't the case, we will see as Douglas pointed out earlier on...
All of the objections sound a LOT like the arguments against integrating the armed services -- many people would leave, people would be killed, ... What happened was a few hardcore racists left and things settled out rather quickly.
Post a Comment