Why would anyone care if a soldier was gay?

Some people can't look at someone based on their performance and conduct/character. They just look and see a 'fag', and define them by who they have sex with. Some people are not anti-gay necessarily, but are just not used to the idea of gays, and feel uncomfortable with them being around. Quite similar to how people from segregated areas sometimes felt uncomfortable around black people back in the last couple of centuries.

In certain circles it's not only normal to bash gays verbally, but almost seen as strange if you don't. A lot of guys seem to see it as a point of pride to insult 'queers', question their manhood, say they make them sick etc. That's prejudice for you.

DADT was catering to the idea of this potential discomfort amongst some grunts, who have a reputation (perhaps unfairly) for not being the most tolerant. The idea was that it might impede unit cohesion if there were disputes over gay people being there. However, this was proven wrong by surveys of the military, with most saying that it didn't matter, what they cared about was whether they could shoot well, do the job etc. Hence the repeal. Plenty of other armed forces have this policy, with no apparent ill effects. All militaries in the past have had gay soldiers, and commanders, some openly.

 

Marines call it fighting hole. Look it up.

 

i was on the Tarawa and the Iwo. i attached to the Marine Amphibious Units aboard. That's what Fleet Marines do. Squids clean the head. Marines do not. Had you served your country you would know that.

And we call it a FIGHTING HOLE. Of course you wouldn't know. but you soon will.

 

Aboard a ship?

Where did you dig that hole at?

 

And we were issued this as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82n46AqpkPY&feature=related

You gotta' admit it Doc, fighting hole in reference to this thread is priceless. Semper Fi brother. Don't let'em get ya' down.

 

+1

It's the same concept as say a high school gym class or showering at a fitness club etc. Straight guys are just supposed to treat everyone equal and not be bothered by it, but it's no different than a straight guy showering with a woman. Ask a woman how they feel about showering with a straight man they don't know.


Off topic but sort of along the same lines:

Women want to be equal, this includes women sports reporters who feel they should be allowed to go into the men's dressing room to interview athletes etc. But if a man reporter wanted to go into a women's basketball team dressing room after the game, while they were naked, showering, etc., that guy would be prohibited from doing so firstly, and likely labeled a pervert if he pressed the issue.

 

I know I thought it was pretty funny myself.

Sempers brotha.

 

The objections about showering, etc are beside the point. People today are used to being around gays.

Obviously the goal here was to put the government's seal of approval on homosexuality as morally equivalent to normal sexuality, which is exactly why the gay activists are so obsessed with it. Do you really think the majority of gays are just dying for a chance to sign up and maybe get killed? No more than any other liberals, which is to say not much.

But they know that the military is probably the most culturally conservative area of society. Adultery is a serious offense under the UCMJ and is grounds for separation and punishment. The percentage of evangelical Christians in the military is high. Whatever the Pnetagon claims about its survey of attitudes on homosexuality, the vast majority of soldiers consider it perverted and abnormal and certainly would not want their commanding officer to be gay. They also wouldn't want gay couples living next to them on base housing or dancing cheek to cheek at the NCO club.

Implementing this will cost a lot of soldiers their careers. Every military unit will now have a GLBT officer, responsible for imposing PC doctrine and punishing noncompliance. Chaplains will probably be ordered not to teach what the Bible says about homosexual conduct. Many will quit in disgust. Soon there will be the inevitable complaints that gays are being discriminated against and that affirmative action is needed to ensure the promotion of gays.

Anyone who says this will not hurt the military is either being dishonest or is totally clueless. The fact that democrats and 8 republicans were content to pass this anyway shows just how powerful the homosexual lobby is. They are openly gloating today and see forcing homosexual marriage on unwilling states as a slam dunk now.

 

"Obviously the goal here was to put the government's seal of approval on homosexuality as morally equivalent to normal sexuality, which is exactly why the gay activists are so obsessed with it. Do you really think the majority of gays are just dying for a chance to sign up and maybe get killed? No more than any other liberals, which is to say not much."

Obviously a lie.

Seal of approval?

How about simply acknowledging that gays have a God given and Constitutional right to be stupid and join the military to fight in unnecessary wars...

I have no doubt that back in the early 1860's you would have been saying the same thing about black men being able to serve in the military with white men...

 

Susan Estrich: Military can lead way toward equal society
Susan Estrich
Opinion - syndicated columns – February 1, 2010 - 5:00am

I don’t get it.

Since 1993, more than 13,000 soldiers have been discharged from the military under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy. Countless others are effectively denied access to mental health and other services because they can’t tell.

In 2006, a blue ribbon commission concluded that the policy — at that point — had cost the military some $360 million because of the loss of qualified and trained soldiers and the need to replace them. How much it has cost the men and women who love this country and want to serve and protect it is just incalculable. At a time when our military is strained fighting two wars, why would anyone exclude a person simply because of who they are?

The president’s call to repeal this cruel compromise was met with cheers in the hall, but within hours, the old men were lining up to oppose it. I have the greatest respect for John McCain an his service to this country, but what made sense for the military 40 years ago is not necessarily what makes sense today. Military leaders from Colin Powell to Mike Mullen to John Shalikashvili — current and former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — have all spoken against the policy. As Gen. Shalikashvili wrote in 2007: “Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.”

DADT punishes soldiers if they so much as reveal their sexual orientation. Under the policy, as explained by the Pentagon, “the military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender.” A gay soldier who says he is gay is subject to discharge.

Morale? That was the excuse I kept hearing from members of Congress on the airwaves attacking the president. But in 2008, responding to a soldier’s question at West Point, Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made clear that “Congress is responsible for (DADT).”

This isn’t about the military. The Pentagon has made clear that they are willing to work with the president to repeal the policy. It is about politics.

Every argument being made today to exclude gays from the military was made in the past to exclude blacks. And yet, once the military was integrated, it became a model of real integration for our nation — one of the few places where minorities are indeed fully integrated, equal if not more successful in attaining leadership roles. Freed from the requirement of discrimination, the military has shown that it can judge merit without regard to race or gender. Freed from the requirement of discrimination, the military could lead the way to an equal society.

When President Clinton first proposed eliminating the ban on gays in the military, he pointed to the extensive evidence of harassment suffered by soldiers who were thought to be gay. By all reports, that harassment has not ended. Why would it? The policy embraces the unacceptable and unfair premise that being openly gay is inconsistent with being qualified to serve your country. That premise is a cancer that is not limited to the military. It needs to be fought, not appeased.

Some 20,000 active and former service members belong to an organization of gay soldiers. The issue is not whether gays serve in the military; they do. The issue is whether they get the respect and protection they deserve when they put their lives on the line to serve this country. Shame on us.

Someday, gays will be equal citizens in this country. The trend of history is clear. There will be a day when every American will be equal. Why not now?