Homosexuals in the army "immoral".

[allhart]

okay that made absolutly no sense whats so ever, and not just becuase of the bad grammar and spelling.

But from what I could gather you're saying that gay people shouldnt be allowed to be open about it cuase it would destroy some universal law that states that ever single person in the military need to have(or at atleast appear to have) the same ideals and values.

Not trying to hurt anyones feelings here but that is [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].

If nothing else that entire statement falls on the fact that every single military force in the world except the US allows for open gay people and it havent cuase any huge cosmic collapse.

Homo- and Bisexual people are already serving in the military and forcing them to lie over something so simple as their sexuality just becuase some people are stuck in the 17th century is once again [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].

US military is supposed to be the "Guardians of Freedom and Democracy" so it's about damned time they started showing that.

Be nice now. I will agree to disagree

 

[loudatheist101]

okay that made absolutly no sense whats so ever, and not just becuase of the bad grammar and spelling.

But from what I could gather you're saying that gay people shouldnt be allowed to be open about it cuase it would destroy some universal law that states that ever single person in the military need to have(or at atleast appear to have) the same ideals and values.

Not trying to hurt anyones feelings here but that is [wash my mouth]

If nothing else that entire statement falls on the fact that every single military force in the Western world except the US allows for open gay people and it havent cuased any huge cosmic collapse.

Homo- and Bisexual people are already serving in the military and forcing them to lie over something so simple as their sexuality just becuase some people are stuck in the 17th century is once again [wash my mouth]

US military is supposed to be the "Guardians of Freedom and Democracy" so it's about damned time they started acting like that.

Wash your mouth. Just say fudged up like I do. I agree with you btw.

 

[Shemjaza]

NO! In the military you are government property and there is no escape from ones duty to this country when we are called and there must be a standard that is in place.Just as there is health requirement and other that i have mentioned. The asks don't tell keeps the issue out of bounds.You will not change the problem only deepen it.The sexual orientation of nature has been set.Even the strength of a women and a man is set even though they try to measure up.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I fail to understand your point.

Young Soldier Boy A has a girlfriend back home and Young Soldier Boy B has a boyfriend back home... why is A fit to serve and B not?

They are both disciplined, well trained, patriotic warriors. They both will cooperate with their squad and obey orders from their superiors.

Can you please explain to me why there's a problem with the gay boy?

 

[allhart]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I fail to understand your point.

Young Soldier Boy A has a girlfriend back home and Young Soldier Boy B has a boyfriend back home... why is A fit to serve and B not?

They are both disciplined, well trained, patriotic warriors. They both will cooperate with their squad and obey orders from their superiors.

Can you please explain to me why there's a problem with the gay boy?

As a people we can't even get along on the forms let alone in the field of war. Let standards be a standards and everyone wants it there way.

 

[loudatheist101]

As a people we can't even get along on the forms let alone in the field of war. Let standards be a standards and everyone wants it there way.

1. Yay! No grammer mistakes!

2. What are you talking about?

 

[Museveni]

Yeah but what is there that says that the standard has to be "Straight people only"?

Why not set the standard at "No sexual subjects at all"(okay so I talk against myself there) or "Everyone can be open about their sexuality and respects their fellow soldiers sexuality"

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Serving homosexual here... although, granted, not in the American Army...

Here in Oz, our military has a "no fraternisation" policy, which basically means, when you are in uniform, there is NO sexual interest in ANYONE... after hours you can do what you like with whom you like, but even married couples in the military, in uniform, arent to show any public displays of affection.

If the US military had a similar policy, I don't see how anyone's sexuality would be in the least bit a matter of concern.

 

[KRAZYCAT]

Serving homosexual here... although, granted, not in the American Army...

Here in Oz, our military has a "no fraternisation" policy, which basically means, when you are in uniform, there is NO sexual interest in ANYONE... after hours you can do what you like with whom you like, but even married couples in the military, in uniform, arent to show any public displays of affection.

If the US military had a similar policy, I don't see how anyone's sexuality would be in the least bit a matter of concern.

AMEN! I was wondering when someone was going to say this. Just like when we go to work any normal working day. When at work you work and what is at home stays at home. I think it is that simple, or at least could be. Why does it all have to be mixed up and a mess?

 

[loudatheist101]

AMEN! I was wondering when someone was going to say this. Just like when we go to work any normal working day. When at work you work and what is at home stays at home. I think it is that simple, or at least could be. Why does it all have to be mixed up and a mess?

True, it's like getting fired from your buisness because you are open about your homosexuality.

 

[allhart]

True, it's like getting fired from your buisness because you are open about your homosexuality.

 

[allhart]

Serving homosexual here... although, granted, not in the American Army...

Here in Oz, our military has a "no fraternisation" policy, which basically means, when you are in uniform, there is NO sexual interest in ANYONE... after hours you can do what you like with whom you like, but even married couples in the military, in uniform, arent to show any public displays of affection.

If the US military had a similar policy, I don't see how anyone's sexuality would be in the least bit a matter of concern.

Have you guys seen MASH! This discussion reminds me of that show. He was dressing up in womens close trying to get discharged lol

 

[ImaginaryVoyager]

Here in Oz, our military has a "no fraternisation" policy, which basically means, when you are in uniform, there is NO sexual interest in ANYONE... after hours you can do what you like with whom you like, but even married couples in the military, in uniform, arent to show any public displays of affection.

Sounds like a perfect solution to me. We should learn from our friends 'Down Under'

 

[KarateCowboy]

Ok, this really disgusts me. Patriotic Americans fighting for their country in time of War, will not be allowed to serve, because of their sexuality.

I think this policy itself is immoral. It's embarrissing and pathetic how messed up this country is. This reminds me of discrimination against blacks we had in World War 2.

We're the only country in the world with a stupid policy like this. Pathetic and embarrissing. Other countries must think we are just stuck in the Dark Ages. They must think that we think homosexuality in the Military, is worse then winning the war with Gays' support. I think I might have move to Spain or Great Britain if this country does not seriously progress.

Link to MOD HAT POST

Well, if pedophiles were barred then it too is because of their sexuality. Sexuality is a broad term. If someone sleeps their way up the military ladder and is expelled for it then it is because of their sexuality also.

All said and done it is good that someone in the military is standing up for integrity. At least you cannot say he is ignoring corruption in the government!

 

[RealityCheck]

Well, if pedophiles were barred then it too is because of their sexuality. Sexuality is a broad term. If someone sleeps their way up the military ladder and is expelled for it then it is because of their sexuality also.

All said and done it is good that someone in the military is standing up for integrity. At least you cannot say he is ignoring corruption in the government!

No. And No.

Pedophilia is a crime. Being gay is not a crime. Sex between two consenting adults is not a crime.

Sleeping your way up the ladder has nothing to do with "sexuality". That is an unethical abuse of power. "Unethical" behavior is punished (or supposed to be) in all circles, including military, corporate, and government. Being gay is not unethical any more than being married is unethical. But using sex to gain power IS unethical, and that is a recognized standard in our country.

 

[KarateCowboy]

No. And No.

Pedophilia is a crime. Being gay is not a crime. Sex between two consenting adults is not a crime.

Sleeping your way up the ladder has nothing to do with "sexuality". That is an unethical abuse of power. "Unethical" behavior is punished (or supposed to be) in all circles, including military, corporate, and government. Being gay is not unethical any more than being married is unethical. But using sex to gain power IS unethical, and that is a recognized standard in our country.

Of course being happy is not a crime, but I don't see how being gay has anything to do with homosexuality

The point I am saying is it is good that the military still has sense and to see our leaders standing up for what is right and integrity and not just pandering to interests. God bless the guy.

 

[RealityCheck]

Of course being happy is not a crime, but I don't see how being gay has anything to do with homosexuality

The point I am saying is it is good that the military still has sense and to see our leaders standing up for what is right and integrity and not just pandering to interests. God bless the guy.

Well, I see him standing up for bigotry and out-dated fear and narrow-mindedness.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Well, I see him standing up for bigotry and out-dated fear and narrow-mindedness.

Looks like that reality check just bounced. To claim that military men have some sort of fear of homosexuals is ridiculous. They are concerned with keeping order and integrity in the ranks, and preserving function and order. When that is your mindset then you will see the common sense of man and woman being made for eachother. The pro homo lobby does not see that. They think that their feelings dictate reality

 

[trunks2k]

It's amazing how similar the arguments against letting gays serve openly are to those used against integration of the armed services.

 

[Obsequey]

...To claim that military men have some sort of fear of homosexuals is ridiculous.

Strange, one would think if there was no fear of homosexuals, there would be no policy against them. Your logic doesn't jive.

They are concerned with keeping order and integrity in the ranks, and preserving function and order.

So are you saying that homosexuals will disrupt the integrity and function of the ranks? If so, could you please explain how?

 

[RealityCheck]

Looks like that reality check just bounced. To claim that military men have some sort of fear of homosexuals is ridiculous. They are concerned with keeping order and integrity in the ranks, and preserving function and order. When that is your mindset then you will see the common sense of man and woman being made for eachother. The pro homo lobby does not see that. They think that their feelings dictate reality

If they don't fear homosexuals, why should they not be allowed to serve?

How will homosexuals disrupt order and integrity?