It's a touchy topic because of all the PC aspects of it. I'm sure I can guess what direction the comments will go on this "military" forum.
I just came back from an FOB in Iraq and I can testify to the problems simply having women there created, and they were segregted with their own quarters and latrine facilities. I can only imagine the issues that would arise with openly homosexual troops mixed into this.
It's unfortunate that the military can't be left alone by politicians to run the way it must in order to do its job. This isn't a traditional career choice, there are aspects to military life that are unique to the military alone. But... everything has to be a social experiment or a concession to special interests to DC politicians.
This Op-Ed is excellent and brings up some very vital points. The military is not only a different environment but a disciplined environment and not only should, but must remain so. All "alternative" lifestyles are just not compatible with military environment and service.
Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. Money we waste on logistics comes out the pay, readiness and care of the troops. Several American universities added special toilet units for transgendered people with privacy concerns costing $2500 each at one university. Extrapolate this cost to all the posts camps and stations of our military, the ships at sea and under the sea. Then add similar facilities for lesbians, gays and bisexuals. Considering the past price of military toilet seats, the cost could be significant. Privacy expenses are only a tip of the iceberg.
The Isreali's, British, and other countries have allowed gay people to serve openly for quite a while now - and I've never heard anyone question the effectiveness of the IDF (for example). For a realistic outlook on what the costs are - look at what they've done differently from any other army: almost nothing.
Originally posted by SK3Rick: This Op-Ed is excellent and brings up some very vital points. The military is not only a different environment but a disciplined environment and not only should, but must remain so. All "alternative" lifestyles are just not compatible with military environment and service.
It’s good to see some articles in favor of keeping homosexuals out of the military. It seems like there is a big tide coming, and there’s nothing we can do about it… Allowing Homosexuals in the military will have to add that category to the Equal Opportunity program. There will be coming out day, EO classes, posters, LGBT month, and straight indoctrination of their specialness. Repealing ‘Don't ask; Don't tell' is more about being open than actually serving.
It doesn't matter if every other military on earth allows it. We're the most capable military in the world because of our traditions, discipline and intelligence. Allowing this would be terrible, wrong-headed policy that will degrade our military disciple and add tremendous burden for our leaders in dealing with these issues. Not to mention it is flat out immoral! Our military is based on service to God and Country. Let the rest of society play their social experiement. The military is a cut above them.
Originally posted by Intermodal: It doesn't matter if every other military on earth allows it. We're the most capable military in the world because of our traditions, discipline and intelligence. Allowing this would be terrible, wrong-headed policy that will degrade our military disciple and add tremendous burden for our leaders in dealing with these issues. Not to mention it is flat out immoral! Our military is based on service to God and Country. Let the rest of society play their social experiement. The military is a cut above them.
Which god, yours? Why is that someone must always bring up their "god" or morals as they see them. Our military is based on service to country, period. If you want to serve god, go be a preist or pastor. Please leave your god out of this. The issues brought up by the author(disease, mental health,fraternazation etc.) are nothing new and are things that afflict people who are straight as well so that part of the argument is not valid. The issues of unit cohesion, and possible harrasment are legitimate issues however.
I have to agree with Rogues22's statement on this. This isn't a decision that should be based on "God's will" or personal or even "national" morals, but on what is best for ALL members of our military. Personally I have never had a problem with someone based on their sexual orientation, nor, if I was still active in the military, would I have problems serving along side them, if I knew for a fact their preferences were different from my own. My opinion in that holds true for their religious beliefs or ethnic backgrounds as well. However, allowing for "open" enlistment and service, for lack of a better term, seems to me to be a case of just inviting trouble. I say this because I believe that there is still too much of a negative view by the vast majority of people in this country against those who are in any way obviously "different" in their personal or religious beliefs or their "lifestyles", and that to allow for men and women in military service to openly express their sexual orientation, when it is viewed by others as "outside of the accepted norm" is to leave those men and women open to both emotional and physical harassment, something which would in fact have a negative affect on them and all those serving along side them.
I fully support all of the men and women in our armed forces, no matter what God or Goddess they worship, or who they chose to sleep with, or where their parents may have been born, but I think the number one priority in this case should be the personal safety of ALL those men and women, and sadly, in some cases they could face even more persecution and harassment from a few of their own fellow servicemen and women and the good ol' folks back home then from the "enemy" if they were allowed to be open about their sexual lifestyles and preferences. That's the real tradedy about the whole situation in my mind.
"...President Obama is intent on introducing homosexual conduct into military barracks" When did the president say that? He hasn’t! Try sticking to facts. President Obama has promised to work with Congress and the Joint Chiefs to end DADT… not to introduce any kind of sexual conduct into anything. "...opening our barracks to homosexual conduct will improve readiness" Again, when did General Shalikashvili say that? He hasn’t! I would like to remind everyone that there are already strict policies regulating conduct within military barracks. Most are written to cover a broad range of sexual conduct to include hetero and homosexual. Very little, if any additions would have to be made to existing policies. "...health care providers in both active duty and veteran facilities would require extensive and costly retraining as they encounter disease and mental health issues unique to the LGBT community on a considerable scale for the first time" Military healthcare providers are already treating a broad range of sexual diseases in heterosexual service members to include HIV/AIDS. The mental health issues unique to GLBT people are no different from health issues of the straight population with the exception of those stemming from repression , guilt, and self-loathing as a result of discrimination.
"A quad sexual American military would also require extensive, difficult and complicated sensitivity training for our decidedly masculine troops" This statement is downright offensive; not just to GLBT service members, but to straight ones as well. It implies that (1) straight, female service members are masculine; (2) heterosexual service members lack the professionalism to adapt; and that (3) GLBT men are not masculine. Further, this statement is inaccurate. The Equal Opportunity and Sexual Harassment training that is currently in place already covers homosexual conduct. At most, one or two paragraphs would need to be added to the training we already receive.
This entire article is predicated upon the notion that homosexuals are not currently serving in the military, and that Obama will some how start forcing units to accept them. This is simply not true. Homosexuals have always served, and are currently serving in the military. Being homosexual is not the same thing as constantly acting in a sexually inappropriate way. Plenty of inappropriate hetero activity takes place all the time. As a male, I would feel just as uncomfortable if say some female publically acted in an inappropriately overt sexual way at work as any gay guy. Would not I, again as a male, if I didn’t respond to the female’s advances in like kind, then be under suspicion of being homosexual? My point is that any inappropriate sexual behavior, whether it be hetero, homo or anything in-between is just that, inappropriate, and should not be tolerated.
The last two comments hit the nail on the head! I don't get what the big deal is. Are you just upset because a "homo" might get a better APFT or range qualification score than you? C'mon...No one is going to look at your willie in the shower. No one is going to make a pass at you....Don't flatter yourself. We've got a mission to accomplish.
TO 20372426: You miss the point...how about this....MOST people are straight, get over it.
To the author. Great article. Right on the mark.
To the rest. I promise, the day they allow the GLBT into the military, all seven of my family will be leaving at our first opportunity. And guess what, I stop being a spokesperson for our military. Can't wait for the liberals to run the military. Glad I'll be long gone when the real crap hits the fan.
I fully recognize that most people are straight, and I am quite over it. It's of no concern to me how straight people live their lives and conduct their business.
P.S. It'll be a great day when you and your bigoted brood of seven are "long gone"...By all means, take the rest of the haters with you.
Originally posted by CAPN_BOB: Quad-sexual? Hell, I know about males and females. What are the other two sexes? I give up, it's time to retire!
Captain Bob, you are so 50s. Having joined the US Navy in 1957 and watched the social experiments brought about by ADM Zumwalt and his successors, we all know there are a number of sexes. As a boat sailor during this period, we only knew of two, with a sprinkling of a third who didn't last long in the confined spaces of submarines. Actually I sympathized with them because the screening didn't do their job. Retirement won't help, its worse out here. Nice to have you on board and maybe see your posts on other threads.
Just what would Obama know about anything that is going on in the military? Oh that's right he played basketball with some. Who cares what the other countries do, we are the USA!!
