Homosexuals In The Armed Services

[Sojourner]

I think it's important to remember that there is a cost associated with don't ask/don't tell; [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302373.html"]here's an interesting article along those lines[/url].

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1215668' date='Mar 18 2007, 11:41 PM']Sexual "orientiation" falls under "psychological" (Though I realize this will likely start the repeat of another old debate).

And if one never acts on his homosexual inclinations, then this is not an issue under "don't ask-don't tell."[/quote]

I understand that you don't want to rehash an old argument and that's cool (I don't wanna repeat old topics either). But, if that's the case, then the "psychological" aspect is flawed. Quite simply, I just don't think that it being gay has any impact on your ability to serve and protect the country. Whether or not the "being gay" portion comes into play at birth or by choice.

I would agree with your second assertion; however, the person who is homosexual (unless they are Catholic and trying to live with the cross God has given them) will most likely act up on his/her inclinations.

[Anomaly]

The 'big deal' is because acting on homosexulaity is intrinsicly disordered and violates 'natural law', it throws a huge monkey wrench into the interpersonal relationships of a military squad that needs to depend on each other to make life or death situations.

The Catholic Church is quite clear on it's teachings in it's writings, but not clear in what Bishops and Cardinals say or behave, homosexual acts are gravely disordered. But since the RC Church is becoming to politically sensitive, it allows Bishops and others to disagree openly and provide support to political groups that support homosexuality as a 'normal' choice. It's the slow slide from 'tolerance' to acceptance.

Terra. What does it matter that it costs money? Is it a moral / safety issue, or not?

[Red Knight]

My two cents, as a military officer, is that the Unifrom Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prohibits a large array of sexual acts, regardless of the genders involved. For instance sodomy and oral sex are forbidden by the UCMJ. Even a married couple within the military is not authorized such behavior. It is this group of regulations that bans "practicing" homosexuals from active service in the military.

Don't ask, don't tell actually complicated matters by adding the "non-practicing" aspect to it.

[RezaMikhaeil]

It's important to add that men and women in the armed services, though they have seperate living quarters, do spend most of their time together, therefore if you were "in the trenches" [as someone else mentioned] women would be there too so the distraction situation would be the same.

Reza

[Sojourner]

I'm spending a little time this week with two of my brothers and their wives, all of whom have military background. Brother 1 is USMC and just got back from Iraq a couple weeks ago after a seven-month tour; he'll probably be going back in a year for another seven months. His wife is former USMC.

Brother 2 is USAF and spent a year in Korea; his wife is former USAF. Over lunch today, I broached the subject of gays in the military, and here's the responses I got from everyone but Brother 2, who was working:

Brother 1: Doesn't care about sexual orientation of men in his unit, as long as they can do the job. Had there been a policy allowing gays in the military at the time he enlisted, it would not have made one bit of difference one way or the other. He's been in for 10 years now, and will be in for at least another three.

Wife 1: She said there were several women she knew during her time in the USMC who were lesbians, and it was a problem at times. She said had there been a policy allowing openly gay people in the military, she would not have joined -- the closeness and forced intimacy of the living situations can be very uncomfortable, particularly if there is a high potential of unwanted sexual advances. She also said that during boot camp every effort was made to keep sexual thoughts off the brain -- men and women were kept totally separate, took no classes or training together. Inserting homosexuality into that equation would make training even more difficult than it already was.

Wife 2: Knew several lesbians, but did not feel that they were overly threatening or aggressive toward her, so does not have as strong an opinion on keeping gays out of the military.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Terra Firma

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1215751' date='Mar 19 2007, 08:50 AM']I understand that you don't want to rehash an old argument and that's cool (I don't wanna repeat old topics either). But, if that's the case, then the "psychological" aspect is flawed. Quite simply, I just don't think that it being gay has any impact on your ability to serve and protect the country. Whether or not the "being gay" portion comes into play at birth or by choice.

I would agree with your second assertion; however, the person who is homosexual (unless they are Catholic and trying to live with the cross God has given them) will most likely act up on his/her inclinations.[/quote]
Soldiers/Marines in active duty live in very tight quarters under extrem conditions, and sodomy and sodomistic "relationships" within the ranks compromise the integrity of the fighting unit. It is also disgraceful to the honor of a soldier or Marine.
I know I would not wish to be in a platoon with active homosexuals.

And what positive good would come out of reversing the military's time-honored policy and allowing active homosexuals in the military?? (other than being "politically correct")

Why are you, as a self-professed "Catholic", defending the condoning of an unnatural sin condemned clearly by God and the Church?

Edited March 20, 2007 by Socrates

[catholicinsd]

I still think my plan is the best.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1216115' date='Mar 19 2007, 07:58 PM']And what positive good would come out of reversing the military's time-honored policy and allowing active homosexuals in the military?? (other than being "politically correct")[/quote]
One positive good could be to lessen the financial impact (millions of dollars) of kicking gay soldiers out of the military, after resources have been poured into training them.

Another positive good could be opening wider the pool of potential soldiers. (Although, allowing gay soldiers might have a deterrent effect on people like you or my sister-in-law who otherwise would be inclined to join, so that one might come out as a no positive gain.) But given that recruiting goals in recent years have only been met by lowering standards on aptitude and education, it seems to me that we should think carefully about kicking out those who are willing and able to serve.

[RezaMikhaeil]

If you dont allow homosexuals to serve in the military, then you shouldn't allow them to be citizens of our country either. Those that serve in the military, is to protect the freedoms [even the freedom of religion and sexual preference] that we're given in this country.

I know that it's been brought up but I'm going to bring it up again: Gay and Straight people both, violate the military's military code, if someone is gay or straight, it shouldn't matter as long as they can keep in line with the military's moral code.

Reza

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1216346' date='Mar 20 2007, 03:41 AM']One positive good could be to lessen the financial impact (millions of dollars) of kicking gay soldiers out of the military, after resources have been poured into training them.

Another positive good could be opening wider the pool of potential soldiers. (Although, allowing gay soldiers might have a deterrent effect on people like you or my sister-in-law who otherwise would be inclined to join, so that one might come out as a no positive gain.) But given that recruiting goals in recent years have only been met by lowering standards on aptitude and education, it seems to me that we should think carefully about kicking out those who are willing and able to serve.[/quote]
Isn't allowing open homosexuals to serve in the Military conedoning and accepting an immoral choice of lifestyle? Or is being actively homosexual not immoral in your opinion?

Edited March 21, 2007 by Anomaly

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1216811' date='Mar 21 2007, 07:56 AM']Isn't allowing open homosexuals to serve in the Military conedoning and accepting an immoral choice of lifestyle? Or is being actively homosexual not immoral in your opinion?[/quote]
How is it condoning an immoral choice of lifestyle?

We allow people who openly engage in premarital sex to be in the military. And although adultery can in some cases be prosecuted, many times it is not and people who have committed adultery are allowed to serve. Are we condoning their lifestyle choices by allowing them to serve? Or is premarital sex and adultery not immoral in your opinion?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1216823' date='Mar 21 2007, 08:12 AM']How is it condoning an immoral choice of lifestyle?

We allow people who openly engage in premarital sex to be in the military. And although adultery can in some cases be prosecuted, many times it is not and people who have committed adultery are allowed to serve. Are we condoning their lifestyle choices by allowing them to serve? Or is premarital sex and adultery not immoral in your opinion?[/quote]
How is it condoning an immoral choice? Here's how:
People are asking the military to create, put in writing, and enforce a clear policy that addresses open and active homosexuality as not being immoral and being perfectly acceptable within the military code of conduct.

Comparing open homosexuality to premarital sex is a bit of a stretch from the Roman Catholic perspective. Premarital sex is immoral because it is sex outside the marriage, strictly for pleasure. Homosexual sexual sex is considered intrinsicly disordered in addition to being sex outside the marriage.

By your own admission, adultery can result in prosecution. Ther are 'morals' standards with the military code of conduct. Yes, it is wrong that people commit adultery, but within the military, there is no requests for the military to create, put in writing, and enforce a clear policy that addresses open and active adultery as not being immoral and being perfectly acceptable within the military code of conduct.

The old addage "Two wrongs don't make a right" applies here. Also, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander" is appropriate. The military does not ask if a person is an open and active adulterer. The military does prosecute many cases of adultery. The kooky female 'astronut' who drove to Florida is facing morals charges for having an affair outside her marriage because it violates some of the regulations.

Terra,
You bring up good points. We should treat homosexuals with empathy and kindness and love. But we should put in the effort and thought needed to figure out a way to love the sinner without condoning or encouraging them to remain in their "sin". That takes discussion and tough question.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1216346' date='Mar 20 2007, 03:41 AM']One positive good could be to lessen the financial impact (millions of dollars) of kicking gay soldiers out of the military, after resources have been poured into training them.

Another positive good could be opening wider the pool of potential soldiers. (Although, allowing gay soldiers might have a deterrent effect on people like you or my sister-in-law who otherwise would be inclined to join, so that one might come out as a no positive gain.) But given that recruiting goals in recent years have only been met by lowering standards on aptitude and education, it seems to me that we should think carefully about kicking out those who are willing and able to serve.[/quote]
As to the "financial" argument, this would be reason for keeping the original ban on homosexuals, as opposed to "don't ask/don't tell." And I see this as more a problem of our litiginous society.
And sorry, I was forgetting that dollars and cents is more important than honor and morality.

And your second argument could be used for all kinds of lowering of standards - pretty weak, unless you view soldiers simply as cannon-fodder.

It's pretty disheartening that many on here claiming the name "Catholic" seem to be doing all they can to assure that the grievous sin of homosexuality is condoned by law and society with no restrictions.

[dairygirl4u2c]

First, let me say that I find validity to the argument that if you are against homosexual activity, then writing and endorsing gay marriage laws is condoning an illegal activity, and so shouldn't be done. (i don't think the same can be said about actually making a constituational amendment banning the possibility a local government might do it, but that's another topic)

That said, I don't see how allowing gay marraige would be wrong. If you don't have to write policy endorsing it, that is. I don't see how you would have to because you just shouldn't bother caring about their tendency.

Also, if you make gays who act on their behavior to get out, then it'd seem you'd have to make straights who act on it with female counterparts.
Also, the idea that gays would be distracted is somewhat a valid argument, but I doubt it's as serious a problem as people make it out to be. Is there any evidence for this assertion other than speculation? Plus, if you allow men to serve next to women, shouldn't that be banned? (then it'd all crumble)
Also, gay in the military is different than the priesthood, I might think, because priests are going for purity, and are in a time of discernment and don't want distracted. I think they are different animals.
Also, as to the idea that you should allow fornication type things because they are less wrong, is essentially the argument. They are still grave sins, even if "less" wrong. Catholics usually aren't willling to speculate into those types of things, why do they here?

So overall, unless you are against women in the military, which I might find to be valid after consideration, I don't see how it's in anyway consistant to think gays shouldn't be allowed.