After Hours

General discussion


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:;leftCol

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

James, like I said...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to This is so absurd

They talk between themselves, flat-earthers. They share cliff's notes on books with good material for presentation, in context or out of it. Obviously, for the use they intend for it, out of context is usually the case.
They all seem to have the same cheat sheets; like, they all have some bogus argument about evolution and the laws of thermodynamics.
Next they'll tell us homosexuality too violates that.

Collapse -

I think gays have always served in the military

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

They just weren't open about it because of repercussions.

We need to get past this issue in the military because there are a lot of gay people that want to serve their country and they should be welcome.

Its a matter of tolerance and the onus, to me, is on the people that don't like it. Its time for them to learn to tolerate and accept gay people that have the same goals as them.

I don't know what the military experts think and I would defer to them too, but I would find it hard to believe that they would exclude people based on their sexual orientation.


Collapse -

Always have, always will

by drowningnotwaving In reply to I think gays have always ...

To suggest otherwise is ignorant.

Widespread acceptance of homosexuality has moved on somewhat from the time of Edward II.

Collapse -


by AnsuGisalas In reply to Always have, always will

What would Osama say?
One has to ask, if not being *with* the US is being against them, isn't agreeing with Osama also being unamerican?

Collapse -

It's such as wicked web we weave

by drowningnotwaving In reply to WWOS?

with that confoundin' logic stuff. :)

Collapse -

It's how

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to It's such as wicked web w ...
Collapse -

One retiree's opinion.

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

Due to the current overseas deployments, it is difficult for the military to retain trained soldiers. This has driven a documented lowering of recruiting standards. Legal and educational backgrounds that previously would have barred enlistment have been lowered or waived.

In short, we've started accepting ignorant criminals. Barring better qualified applicants simply because of what they do in their off-hours is a bad policy. If I'm stuck in a muddy foxhole, I'm more concerned with another soldier's ability to kill the enemy than whether he's eyeballing me in the shower. Heterosexual servicemen have been able to control themselves around females for decades; gay ones can too.

Collapse -

Agreed, bad behaviour is bad behaviour

by JamesRL In reply to One retiree's opinion.

And it isn't just restricted to those who got in due to lower standards. I just have to reflect on the Russ Williams case in Canada, a top student who became a trusted pilot (flew the Queen and Prime Minister) who became the commander of the largest air force base in Canada, and yet is capable of shameful and despicable acts. He was a rising star, funny, charming and .....evil.

I am a little confused over the need for an act of Congress. Wasn't it Truman himself, as Commander in Chief, who ended descrimination/segregation of blacks in the US armed services?

Collapse -

". . . .the need for an act of Congress. . . . ."

by maxwell edison In reply to Agreed, bad behaviour is ...

Or the need for a court decision, for that matter.

The president is also the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military. If a military issue does spill over into the civilian and/or political realm, let the president make the call, just as President Truman did. But keep Congress and the courts out of it.

At least that's my opinion.

Collapse -

Congress, courts, president

by DelbertPGH In reply to ". . . .the need for an a ...

The "don't ask/don't tell" license to serve, which means it's okay so long as nobody tells your commander you're gay, was passed by Congress. Congress should therefore repeal it.

Courts have overturned the law, because (in our evolving conception of justice and citizenship, which changes over time) they believe it is unconstitutional, under terms of the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Civil law once divided homosexuals from the full rights of citizenship, just as it still divides criminals from full citizenship. Civil law and the public imagination have moved.

The President is obliged to defend the laws that Congress passes. That's why Obama's Justice Department is busy making court cases and filing to stay execution of that judge's decision, because the President is not at liberty to ignore the nation's laws. Until the case is affirmed by the Supreme Court, or until Congress liquidates its existing law, he's stuck defending something he wants to overturn.

Related Discussions

Related Forums