Study: Gays Don't Harm Unit Cohesion

[Ranger Bill]

My take is just leave the issue out completely and just make sure that the UCMJ is adhered to in regards to ethics and morals. In other words if you get caught smoking pole you get kicked out.

It was already mentioned, but bears repeating: According to the UCMJ, oral and anal sex with a person of the oppostie sex is sodomy. If you ever had head, you have violated the UCMJ. And yes, armpits are okay becasue they are not a body opening.

[Chiron]

My take is just leave the issue out completely and just make sure that the UCMJ is adhered to in regards to ethics and morals. In other words if you get caught smoking pole you get kicked out.

It was already mentioned, but bears repeating: According to the UCMJ, oral and anal sex with a person of the oppostie sex is sodomy. If you ever had head, you have violated the UCMJ. And yes, armpits are okay becasue they are not a body opening.

Okay now what? If you change the laws then you open "a can of worms" or as some would say "Pandora's Box".

[Silverback]

It was already mentioned, but bears repeating: According to the UCMJ, oral and anal sex with a person of the oppostie sex is sodomy. If you ever had head, you have violated the UCMJ....

The UCMJ is as outdated/obsolete as many state and local laws that are still on the books....

But it is still the law service members are judged by

[Squidward89]

First, about this recent survey, there are many problems with it. This is from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF10K01" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The military member survey ignores important questions and has serious flaws.

•It fails to ask whether the homosexual ban should be repealed and whether the respondent is homosexual.
•It asks numerous questions about the impact perceived homosexuals have on unit performance and for a variety of undefined military concepts like readiness. The poll fails to corroborate the validity of the perceptions.
•It presents homosexuality — which is not defined — as a neutral factor and privacy questions only offer accommodation answers.
•Only one in four members randomly selected to participate in the survey actually participated.
The military spouse survey has similar flaws.

•It fails to ask whether the homosexual ban should be repealed and the impact of open homosexuality for military children.
•It does not address religious and moral objections to homosexuality nor define homosexuality.
•It does not address privacy and spousal concerns about open homosexual behavior in the military community.
•It assumes homosexual couples will receive the same benefits as married heterosexual military couples—although granting such benefits would likely violate the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Any survey that doesn't specifically ask if DADT should be repealed, is obviously flawed, in my opinion.

Second, people make the assumption that allowing homosexuals to serve OPENLY will be the same as when homosexuals served 'in the closet'. Here's a few things that will change:
-walking hand in hand with their partner off duty (but on base).
-kissing with their partner off duty (but on base).
-openly discussing their sexual exploits.
-chaplains being able to preach from their Holy books about homosexuality being wrong (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim).
-activist homosexuals joining in large numbers to push their agenda in the face of the 'old guard'.

Any and all of this will effect how people function in a unit and it won't be helpful. I see a few things happening.
1) People either getting out early or leaving the military when their enlistment/commission is up.
2) People staying in, but working 'under the table' to force homosexuals out (which would be basically illegal harrassment).
3) Any illegal harrassment allowed by senior enlisted or officers opens the door to other lawlessness.
4) Too much exodus from the military in this time of war, may be enough to get the liberal Democrats to push the Draft.
5) If you have a Draft, how many conservative Christians, Jews, or Muslims will conscientiously object, leaving most draftees to being....what, I don't know. Would a Draft be the way an out of control government gets it's own enforcement arm which is primarily separate from the morals and principles of a large segment of America?

Third, I'm sure that some of the sailors I served with might have been homosexuals, but as long as they didn't promote it, tell me about their conquests/desires, and did their job, I was fine with it. (Granted I'm guessing on who I think may have been homosexual, I never knew nor cared to know). While I know that homosexuality is a sin (by my Christian/Biblical beliefs) and I find homosexual acts disgusting, I never sought to find the homosexuals and administer my own punishment (when my Dad was in the Navy, he bragged about beating down homosexuals in California, but that isn't my way). However, if the military drops DADT, you will have homosexuality OPENLY displayed in the faces of everyone, and you all know that a few will resort to administering their own discipline. Just that alone will cause unit breakdown.

In short, if there isn't a clear case that it's going to make our military stronger or better at destroying things and killing the enemy, then we shouldn't be experimenting with it. Anyway, that's my three cents worth.

[RangerX]

[Squidward89]

:o

I realize the thread was dead, but the subject is still quite alive and current. I suppose if the interest in rehashing this topic is dead, then it will re-die. ( Kinda like shooting a zombie in the head, they are alreay dead, but you are just finishing them off)

[CloakAndDagger]

Nothing like re-opening an old topic... although I suppose it's better than starting a new one from scratch everytime something pops back into the news.

One question I had about the survey, did it separately address attitudes towards male and female homosexuals? (Yes, this is mostly a rhetorical question, as I'm guessing it did not.) In all seriousness, the known lesbians I encountered in the Army still "got the job done", while the gay males did not, and generally had issues with some of the most basic soldiering skills.

Generally, the lesbians occasionally mentioned the fact that they were lesbian, but never mentioned any more details nor blatantly involved themselves in those sorts of relations. This, combined with generally good job performance, meant nobody bothered to report them. About half of the suspected gay males I encountered, eventually reported themselves in order to get an "early out" (this includes one I was stuck with as a roommate. I found out about it after I left that unit, but I should have figured out that he was gay if I hadn't blocked the possibility from my mind).

[panthersix]

(this includes one I was stuck with as a roommate. I found out about it after I left that unit, but I should have figured out that he was gay if I hadn't blocked the possibility from my mind).

And which one of you had the "top" bunk?

[Squidward89]

One aspect that I'm sure is impossible to gage, but how will the Army units REALLY deal with this issue if DADT is lifted?

Let me try to explain what I mean. When I was in the Navy, we had a saying that went something like, "There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Navy way." In other words, the "Navy way" sometimes skirted between what the 'Text book Navy' officially dictated and what was officially opposed. So, even if DADT is lifted and officially the Army can't kick out someone for being a homosexual, their unit can come up with other infractions which will get them kicked out of their unit, if not the Army all togather.

I know of a few guys that came to my boat (submarine) that their division either just didn't like or didn't trust and they razed them so bad that they either went AWOL or hit someone or got lost in the bottle or weed, which got them kicked off of the boat.

Now, I'm not advocating this, but just pondering out loud, how much this unofficial removal will go on.

[CloakAndDagger]

(this includes one I was stuck with as a roommate. I found out about it after I left that unit, but I should have figured out that he was gay if I hadn't blocked the possibility from my mind).

And which one of you had the "top" bunk?

The bunks remained unstacked and on opposite sides of the room, thank you very much!

But, in all seriousness, that guy was a "piece of work", I still to this day can't figure out how the fuck he made it through basic training. It was more like him being gay was a symptom of his problem(s), not the cause.