With all the frevor on my CNN and my Daily Show lately, I've come to wonder how my fellow men feel about gays in the military and also about women in the military. I never quite made up my mind on the matter and the recent news coverage has got me thinking again. I tend to lean towards the liberal side myself, especially in civil issues, so my first instinct is to say "let 'em all in and let 'em all fight!" However, one of my male friends, who is an army veteran and for whom I have a large amount of respect, has a partially different view. He thinks that anyone should be allowed into the military but that women should stay off the battle field; I don't recall him talking about homosexuals in the military. Another male friend of mine, who is admittedly a tad bit homophobic, and who is currently a very young marine, has a considerably more conservative view. What do you guys think?
On another note, it might be interesting for AoM to put up a piece about politics and/or news talk shows. I don't really know how common it is, but me and my dad used to watch the talking heads together quite often. For some reason he loved the McLaughlin Group and we both liked Meet the Press. Good background for some solid male bonding. My dad calls politics "soap operas for men." Not too shabby of a venue to pass on some moral wisdom either!
Fuck equal outcome. It's equal OPPORTUNITY that is important. Woman wants to play badass? Let her. If she can hang with the badasses...let her. She makes it through Seal Training, adhering to the same rigors the guys do? Let her.
I believe (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that the rationale behind the "gay ban" was something about "unit cohesion"..in other words, if troops were uncomfortable having a gay man in their midst, combat effectiveness would be adversely impacted. Or, in other words, letting prejudices dictate policy. Most people I know in the military say they really couldn't care less if their fellow service members were gay.
I don't know that I'm a big fan of us withholding an individual's privilege of service to the country based on a possibility or probability of a relationship within the unit. I see where you're going with your point, I just don't think I agree necessarily.
If I were being shot at, I doubt I'd care if my squad-mate was straight, bi, triangle, liked llamas, etc, as long as they could function well enough to get us out of the jam.
I had one commander (There aren't many) that enforced the UCMJ concerning sexual conduct. If you came back from liberty bragging about getting laid and your weren't married you received NJP for having sex with someone that you're not married to. Punishments could include loss of rank, pay, and confinement of no more than 30 days. Adultery was a big thing for him as well. Adultery is punishable with a maximum of one year confinement. Sexual relationships with subordinates can lead to a less than honorable discharge and dismissal. I have long felt that the UCMJ standards for sexual conduct needed to be more hardily enforced in the military and not overlooked as oft happens. To the point however, I don't care what the sexual orientation of a person is when serving with them. I would expect them to adhere to the same standards that I was held to. A BAM once grabbed my butt and I punched her. That standard applied to any person that took sexual liberty with my person. As long they don't expect to receive any different treatment I don't care what gets them off. Serve away.
Alexander the Great was homosexual or Bi-sexual (accounts differ on which). Either way.......pretty sure being gay doesn't preclude a homosexual from planting a .222 squarely in the chest of the enemy. Does it cause other issues within the group? Maybe or maybe not.
I spent a few years in the Army. In one unit there was a gay soldier working with me. No problem, he knew where I stood. I wasn't worried about what he did or would try to do as I knew exactly where I stood and what I would do. Probably no different than working with women, you are faithful to your spouse or you are a lousy cheat. Oh yeah, you probably don't shower and sleep in confined spaces with your women co-workers.
I have also been in line units (combat units, infantry). It would be a very very rough existence for an openly gay soldier that displayed feminine traits.
It is unwise in the extreme to take down fences before really examining why they were erected in the first place. Why are the FBI and those who profile criminal psychology able to pin-point with startling accuracy when a violent crime has been committed by a homosexual if there's basically no difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual man other than his orientation? The fact is, homosexual orientation comes out in other areas besides just the bedroom.
It is irresponsible, fool-hearty, and amazingly reckless to base policies on the social-statements that are chic at the time. Right now, there are vocal elements in society trying to legitimatize homosexuality as just an alternate lifestyle--but stop and think: even if it were, does that make it okay to put openly homosexual men in close personal proximity with our soldiers? These guys bunk in the same quarters, undress in the same areas, and need to feel comfortable in confines spaces with one another--now, common sense question, everyone---should these men be having to undress, shower, sleep, and live in close quarters with someone who openly shows that he's sexually attracted to other men? I'm afraid this is an issue whether certain elements in society want to discount it or not.
What I took out of it was that he was using an example from profilers. He neglected to mention that yes, they probably can tell if a crime was committed by a heterosexual. But his other line was, "The fact is, homosexual orientation comes out in other areas besides just the bedroom." Hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, Todd.
I'm not meaning to imply by this that most violent crimes are committed by homosexuals or anything like that--please don't misunderstand me on that. My point is that homosexuality is not just isolated to ones sexual practices--there are typical behavioral patterns, mannerisms, and emotional responses that are related to homosexuality that go beyond sexual behavior choices in the bedroom. I know that it's not chic from a politically-correct perspective to recognize this, but even in law enforcement, experts can find signs in the way crimes have been committed that fit the typical profile of a homosexual--enough that they can often predict that the person who committed a crime is a homosexual just from those tell-tale signs, and no, I'm not talking about sexual crimes.
Regardless of one's feelings or beliefs about homosexuality, I don't believe that our men serving in the military need to be worried about the possibility that the guys they're undressing and showering around may have a sexual interest in them, nor should it be assumed that homosexuals are going to be "just like everyone else", aside from their sexual behavior. There needs to be a certain amount of predictability as to how the other men are going to react during crucial moments of stress and emergency, life or death situations, and our men in uniform shouldn't have to think twice about it. I DO NOT believe that openly gay men belong in the military, and these are only a couple of the reasons.
"I was the initiator earlier this week at the gym. It was late and I was the only person there for quite a while so after some warm up sets the shirt came off. Later on a guy comes in, we exchanged greetings and then continued with our work outs. He…"
"Meanwhile, you're an "intense purveyor" of ad hominem, white knight-ing, condescension, CNN conspiracy theories and virtue signaling. I don't remember the last time you actually contributed anything worthwhile to a thread. You…"
"If her husband is sometimes shirtless, too, it's probably okay if you are, but, if you want to be sure, continue to put a shirt on when she comes around until and unless she or her husband tells you not to worry about it. "
"Shane was an intense purveyor of ad hominem, racism, conspiracy theories, and generally un-sound thought that was increasingly of the alt-right (aka racist/fascist right) variety. His presence stirred a lot of participation, but it wasn't very…"