toldailytopic: What do you think about the new openly gay military?

[jwp98]

I emailed two people I trust who have extensive military experience. One expressed minor concerns about "openly" gay servicemen and women. The other had no concerns. In fact, he even praised his Army for being historically way ahead of the curve in social reform for women, minorities, etc. So much for rampant homophobia.

 

[Buzzword]

I emailed two people I trust who have extensive military experience. One expressed minor concerns about "openly" gay servicemen and women. The other had no concerns. In fact, he even praised his Army for being historically way ahead of the curve in social reform for women, minorities, etc. So much for rampant homophobia.

It's always been my experience that the men and women on the ground know what's good for them a helluva lot better than anyone in Washington.

 

[kmoney]

The Daily Show

A Few Gay Men

 

[Nick M]

The Army does not exist for social reform. They exist to give God's wrath a place. Having sodomites is the end. Which is what that commie from Kenya wants.

 

[Granite]

The Army does not exist for social reform. They exist to give God's wrath a place. Having sodomites is the end. Which is what that commie from Kenya wants.

The end of what, exactly?

 

[Nick M]

The end of what, exactly?

The end of the free world you nitwit. :hammer:

 

[Rusha]

What do you think about the new openly gay military?

It's about time ...

 

[Stripe]

Somebody has your back.

Yeah, there's how to run a country. Don't bother worrying about security because if someone invades, the USA will save us.

Idiots.

 

[Granite]

The end of the free world you nitwit. :hammer:

Oh, right. As usual this comment of yours makes absolute and complete sense.:yawn:

Yep. End of the free world. You actually believe this?

 

[Stripe]

Oh, right. As usual this comment of yours makes absolute and complete sense.:yawnYep. End of the free world. You actually believe this?

Oh, speaking of gay.... :shut:

 

[rexlunae]

It doesn't really matter what I think about it. However, God makes it clear what He thinks about it.

(Rom 1:27) ...Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I guess I'll mark that down as you having no opinion then. So, unless God shows up to cast his vote, seems like a moot point.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The Army does not exist for social reform. They exist to give God's wrath a place. Having sodomites is the end. Which is what that commie from Kenya wants.

What do you mean by "the army" exactly? You think the American military are there to dispense God's wrath?! Geez, you really are a flaming idiot, and not just for thinking that Obama was born in Kenya....

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

The end of the free world you nitwit. :hammer:

It's folk like you who would have 'free world' become an anathema dude. Not that I expect the irony of such to be apparent to that brick wall of a head of yours....

lain:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I served ten years. The first seven of those years was before DADT. Basically DADT was that gays could serve as long as they didn't advertise the fact and the Brass could turn a blind eye. It was one the dumbest things Clinton ever did. Morale instantly began to drop. Then, I was serving in a P3 Orion unit. The Unit couldn't expel someone that was obviously homosexual and it killed the morale of the unit. Celebrations were muted after that.

DADT was the wrong thing to do. Allowing openly gay people to serve while flaunting their lifestyle in the open is even worse. A military with homosexuals in it isn't as cohesive or effective a fighting machine. The soldiers, airmen and sailors have to trust one another. Given the record that many in the homosexual community have, that trust cannot be built.

My husband has told me several accounts of how homosexuals behave toward their peers in the armed services. Here's one. A gets B drunk and rapes him in a bar. This happened in my husband's unit more than once. No amount of sensitivity training or political correctness is going to fix this problem.

Well said Kett. Now let's talk about blood. Being that homosexual males aren't allowed to donate blood in the US (and up until recently, in every civilized nation in the world) due to the high rate of HIV/AIDS, how should the armed forces deal with a situation out in the field where an openly homosexual male might need to give blood to a fallen comrade?

More about blood transfusions:

"In fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with jurisdiction over the blood supply, says, “Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today’s highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.”

This is one reason why gay males, or men who have sex with men (MSM), are prohibited from donating blood.

The FDA also says, “Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called ‘window period.’ The ‘window period’ is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person….FDA’s MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the ‘window period’ of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.”

In addition:

"...a federal notice has reiterated that male homosexuals “have an increased incidence and prevalence of several currently recognized transfusion-transmitted diseases”—Hepatitis B virus, HIV, syphilis, and cytomegalovirus."
http://newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff425.htm

 

[aCultureWarrior]

My husband has told me several accounts of how homosexuals behave toward their peers in the armed services. Here's one. A gets B drunk and rapes him in a bar. This happened in my husband's unit more than once. No amount of sensitivity training or political correctness is going to fix this problem.

I overlooked that statement:

A Family Research Council analysis of publicly available documents–the Pentagon’s own report on sexual assault in the military for Fiscal Year 2009, and published decisions from military courts of appeals over the last decade and a half–have shown that there is already a significant problem of homosexual misconduct in the military. This problem can only become worse if the current law is repealed and homosexuals are openly welcomed (and even granted special protections) within the military, as homosexual activists are demanding.

Rates of Homosexual Assault in the Military Are Disproportionately High.
http://americansfortruth.com/2010/0...assaults-in-military-disproportionately-high/

 

[Ktoyou]

How many straight men and women want to take showers with openly gay persons looking at them? What is next, all closed in private showers? What about dorm rooms, do we separate them? Some gay will protest ( separate but equal) and some many find it party time. It all seems so stupid to me, why not keep the personal, personal?

 

[Ktoyou]

It's folk like you who would have 'free world' become an anathema dude. Not that I expect the irony of such to be apparent to that brick wall of a head of yours....

lain:

Then Anathema is a fine music group, as big as the Roiling Stones, some say?

 

[jwp98]

There will IMHO be a short term cost and a long term benefit.

That cost will include loss of American blood for political reasons. Not the first time, eh?

The issue is, as many know better than I, unit integrity and morale.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

There will IMHO be a short term cost and a long term benefit.

That cost will include loss of American blood for political reasons. Not the first time, eh?

The issue is, as many know better than I, unit integrity and morale.

How about we make that "morals"?

As seen in early America, morality was a big part of our military:

"Since moral behavior was necessary for society in general, it was even more necessary for military personnel in whose hands rested the security, and thus the future, of the nation."
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101

 

[jwp98]

Amen to moral troops. But alcoholics have served, wife-beaters have served, murderers; selfish men have served. Women have served, with distinction. Sinners all. With whom will you climb into a foxhole?

I found this on another forum:

1) a small segment of the force (existing and future) will use this to push a political agenda

2) a small number of marginal performers will use this to game the system for purely personal advancement

3) a small number of otherwise productive soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen will be forced out of the service due to disciplinary problems stemming from an unwillingness to put up with 1 and 2 and an inability to productively articulate thier disgust.

4) a number of productive soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen will depart the service rather than deal with 1, 2, and 3

5) all remaining leaders at all levels will be significantly distracted by 1, 2, 3, and 4.

And still the brave and free march on, obeying orders...how can they not?