General discussion

Locked

Gays Serving in the U.S. Military - Who should decide?

By maxwell edison ·
Tags: Off Topic
Disclaimer: My personal position is two-fold:

One: A person's sexual preference and/or practice is his/her own business. I don't know whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice or birth, nor do I care. It's not my business what you do; it's not your business what I do.

Two: Serving in the military IS NOT a Constitutional right. The military can indeed discriminate for a variety of reasons (sorry, you have flat-foot), all of which are implemented for the purpose of maintaining the most effective military force possible. If you disagree, please show me the exact article of the Constitution that shows me to be wrong. The mission of the military is to be the most effective fighting force - no more, no less.

Having said that, whether or not gays are allowed to serve in the military is a question that I would pass on to the military experts; I'd yield to their opinion.

What's yours?

Edited to change the title and add the following content:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=337373&messageID=3376274&tag=content;leftCol

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

414 total posts (Page 1 of 42)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

"The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation"

by JamesRL In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. ...

Quote from one of Canada's former Prime Minister, Pierre Eliot Trudeau.

I'm sure there have been many gay people who have honorably served in the military throughout history. Alexander the Great was one example. I'm sure there are many others.

The argument that it may cause dissension in the ranks, I think should be behind us. Similar arguments were made about Blacks in the military and women in the military and yet many militaries around the world have coped, as have many effective militaries that allow gay people to serve.

In the Canadian Constition's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not allowed. I know that the US hasn't reached that stage yet. Perhaps its time it should.

Collapse -

Are race and gender really synonymous?

by maxwell edison In reply to "The State has no place i ...
Collapse -

I'll take a shot.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Are race and gender reall ...

In terms of legal protection, yes. No one has a choice in either, or about a physical handicap; and current psychological thought is that sexual orientation isn't voluntary either.

We bar discrimination on the basis of religion, a 100% voluntary choice. We should certainly extend that protection to those areas where no choice is involved. Obviously, physical requirements of a job may dictate some level of 'discrimination' on the basis of a person's inability to perform; if the job legitimately requires lifting 300 pounds onto a 7" shelf, I'm out.

Collapse -

I will go farther

by JamesRL In reply to I'll take a shot.

I am not one who is of the opinion that sexual orientation is a choice. Sexual behaviour is a choice, but I think you are born with an orientation.

But all are protected under our Charter in Canada, and in most of the "western democracies".

Collapse -

In this case they should be

by Oz_Media In reply to Are race and gender reall ...

Discriminating based on skin colour, should be as adversely opposed as discriminating based on shoe size, sexuality, eye colour or any other stupid reason to stop someone serving their country.

If they discriminate against gay's, there will still be and always has been, gays in the military. They just won't say anything about it, as always.

However, show me where personal sexual preference, specifically gay sexuality, has stopped a military body from operating effectively.

I don't mean soldiers getting PO's and not wanting to share quarters or fight beside them, that has nothing to do with the gay soldiers at all but the ignorance of others fighting with them.

Perhaps they should screen out members who can not accept the gay lifestyle instead?

Collapse -

Dissention in the ranks

by kevaburg In reply to "The State has no place i ...

The problem with gays in the military (and I have served for a considerable amount of time in the British military to now be able to form an objective opinion) is the same as the problem with having both sexes serving in the same forces.

Where these people work together in high risk environments, a high risk also exists of forming/establishing relationships at whatever level.

If the time comes whereby one half of a partnership has to make a decision for the greater good, could that person make the decision to the detriment of the partner?

Furthermore, could both partners be relied upon not to make decisions that could endanger their comrades?

This of course, is purely hypothetical, but does raise problems of relationships within the forces. The American forces have a "no relationship" rule whereby serving members cannot form relationships with other serving colleagues, but women are still allowed to serve. So why not gays?

Could the problem be that the American forces are full of sexual homophobics that feel there is quite simply no place for homosexuality as a priciple? If so, then they are practising a discrimination that I am sure is against something in their constitution. If not, then why not?

I am not homosexual. It simply does nothing for me. I am however, aware that there are people that are. Is it up to me to marginalise these people for their beliefs or opinions? We are not allowed to discriminate against people for religion (a personal preference) and we are not allowed to discriminate against people that have a polical opinion different to ours (against our rules of democracy) and to that end, even the Neo-Nazis have a party that is allowed to rally and vie for parliamentary seats. So why disciminate against gays?

Great minds, such a Alan Turing, have been lost thanks to societies complete lack of understanding for people that want to simply live their lives the way they want to.

Lets accept that not everyone wants what we want and get on with living and give everyone the same rights.

Collapse -

Might be more a case of lots of closet cases in the brass

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Dissention in the ranks

They want to pre-emptively shut up the recruits, so they don't start shooting off their mouthes about the readings on their "gay radars".
Well, it's as good an explanation as any, right?

Collapse -

Responses.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Dissention in the ranks

"If the time comes whereby one half of a partnership has to make a decision for the greater good, could that person make the decision to the detriment of the partner? Furthermore, could both partners be relied upon not to make decisions that could endanger their comrades?"

The same questions could be asked of married heterosexual soldiers with civilian spouses, (regardless of the soldiers' genders).

"The American forces have a "no relationship" rule whereby serving members cannot form relationships with other serving colleagues,"

Where did you get that? I know plenty of US service members who are married to other service personnel. I have two pairs of in-laws with both spouses having been on active duty while married. What they can't be is in each other's chain of command.

"Could the problem be that the American forces are full of sexual homophobics that feel there is quite simply no place for homosexuality as a priciple?"

Possibly. It's also possible the members of Congress who passed DADT (only a handful of which have been in the military) are the homophobes.

Collapse -

I think you missed my point

by kevaburg In reply to Responses.

I didn't word what I said about the "no relationship" rule very well did I? I see your point there but I wasn't referring to service personnel with a civilian spouse. I was referring to a situation whereby both partners are involved in the same conflict and fighting alongside each other. This happened in the first Gulf War where a soldier fell for a medic in his section. One of them knew where their duty lay but the other was more concerned about the partner. That isn't a situation you would encounter with a civilian spouse.

A policy of DADT is about as ignorant as a policy can get. Instead of discriminating against someone directly, we will tell people that it is OK as long as we don't know anything about it.

And as far as I can tell, most Americans seem to think that is acceptable!

Collapse -

What about The Natural Order of Things?

by carlo.di.giorgio In reply to "The State has no place i ...

One of the reasons US haven't sunk to the level of the rather small and too liberal nation of Canada could be that in USA there are still a good number of normal people who do not defy The National Order of Things. I find amazing to read this trendy expression called 'sexual orientation' invented by the liberals. Gender/Sex is not an 'orientation' but well defined physical and psychological structure, which is absolutely not subject to trendy liberal orientations, liberals cannot remake according to their distorted vision of human physiology and nature.
By the way, homosexuals too were born of a man copulating with a woman during Her ovulation days, women being subjected by nature to monthly menstruation. Both humans different in nature but equal in dignity were created with specific sexual organs, which become in time perfectly in harmony to copulate with each other. Also great geniuses can be mildly or heavily neurotics!

Back to After Hours Forum
414 total posts (Page 1 of 42)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums