Wow. Just wow. And I know these people.

[The Straight Story]

I posted this on facebook recently, and some of the replies follow:

'Gays' in the military? Back when I worked at chase one of the folks I worked with was gay and had been kicked out of his position because he was gay. He was arabic and a translator. After 9/11 we needed people like him to examine incoming intelligence - but he was let go. Which do you think is more important to your national security, someone's sexual orientation or their ability to serve?

--------------------

"Well , maybe you should check your history. How is Gays bein allowed in the military any different than Blacks or women? It isnt a command coming down from the top, it is a social issue that needs to be addressed in the rest of the count...ry and accepted before it stretches to the military. Blacks served the military honorably until society said it wasnt right, then they werent allowed. Women still arent allowed to serve in combat arms fields, a lot of gays are feminine, so should we allow them to serve the same way? And no amount of ordering troops around is going to get them to change their personal opinion, troops arent ordered to accept gays, it is congess debating whether to kick them out for being gay or not. A law coming down from congress does not constitute an order coming down the chain of command."

----------------

"I must confess, I am astonished at the arrogance of some who believe THEY know better than then lessons we have learned through history and that continue to be presented to us day to day. Where history shows us over and over and over again ...that a certain idea is not a good one, these prophets from on high dictate that "it should not be so" and "it must be fixed." They order us to make changes to our society against experienced advice to the contrary.

The mere fact that we are even having this discussion, with this much passion, is proof that society is still divided on the place of gays within it. It is a fair conversation to have, for society to have. It is NOT a fair conversation for the military to have. For as long as society is having this conversation, the military should not. Once society is accepting of gays as a whole, the military will be too, and it will be a non-issue about whether or not they serve. THEN, their service will be dependant upon all the things cited previously by others in this thread, their desire to serve, their warfighting abilities, and so on. But, society must change first.

Once again, for the arrogant prophets who seem to miss the point, the military is NOT the place for social engineering. It is NOT the place of the military to be politically correct or whatever. They exist to fight and win our wars, and that's it. The more we throw in their way to hinder that, in ANY way, the more we degrade their ability. The more we degrare their ability, the more we put our nation at risk.

Leave the social engineering elsewhere in society. Continue the conversation about how they fit into society, or how they should fit."

---------------------------

Ok, I'll say this more blatently. I am a member of the armed forces, I personally dont have a problem with gays. However, many people in our society, and more so in the military are not accepting of that lifestyle. Relationships may or may ...not make a difference, what matters is that gays serving openly would cause problems with unit cohesion because many people do not accept them. You can't just kick out the people who choose not to accept gays because you WILL LOSE HALF THE FORCE! this isn't an issue that should be decided by civiians or congress, it is one that requires an up or down vote by the very people it will affect, the soldiers. You all can have your opinion on this matter, but in the end, if don't ask don't tell is repealed you don't have to deal with the consequences, we do. Hazing is bad enough now for some soldiers, to the point that they kill themselves in record numbers, imagine what it will be like for openly gay soldiers. Its like throwing a lamb into the lions den. It will not end well. It's not about following orders, its about personal choice. We are not told who we can and can't accept, and unfortunately some people pay the price for other peoples views.
As far as other countries military accepting that, we are not other countries. We have the most powerful military in the world, putting all others to shame. We win where we fight. Maybe they are not as good because they allow openly gays to serve. Just a thought...

---------------------------------

whether you claim my assertions to be absurd or not, history is on my side. Romantic bonds are very different from cameraderie and loyalty. Romantic bonds disrupt unit cohesion and erode combat effectiveness. They have done so for thou...sands of years. Why would we suppose homosexual romantic relationships today to be any different? Are we that arrogant?

And, even if they are NOT disruptive, the present military leadership believes they are, as do many who currently serve. Why would we foist upon them a leadership challenge that is not necessary.

Again, the military is NOT the place for social engineering. It is absolutely the wrong place for that.

[pinboy3niner]

1. Wow again! The ignorance...it burns...

The blatant bigotry, too. I hope these aren't close friends. I sure wouldn't want to take them anywhere, no matter how they dressed up...

[The Straight Story]

2. Just got a reply from one, and my reply:

if the choice has been made, as you say, then why are we even having the discussion? If it is a non-issue, then why is it being made an issue?

My point is, as long as we make it an issue, it will be, and it is.

As long as it is an iss...ue, it does not belong in the military.

Why do you want to degrade the warfighting capability of our armed services by introducing "issues" into it?

------------------------

Why are you so afraid of someone not like you? How is that freedom thing working out for you - you know, freedom to be yourself, to have your own religion and make your own choices, freedom to be YOU and not have that as a condition when it... comes to serving?

It should not be an issue, and the only reason it is is because SOME folks in the military are not serious about defending our country and freedoms, they are more worried about those 'freedoms' when it comes to their own personal freedoms - every one else is up the creek without a paddle.

Seriously? You think a gay person serving along side of you is going to make you less able to do your job? Are you that weak that you cannot do your job because of someone else's sexual preference?

You cannot take orders because of that? If so - just make it known that you are unable to serve the US and protect it if there are gays, blacks, indians, etc helping you protect the US and it's ideals.

If you cannot serve with honor with your Fellow Americans then you have the problem, not me. Because I can live and work with them daily here without a problem. That is part of being an American.

[pinboy3niner]

3. Good reply, Straight

I like the way you turned it back on them, into a question of THEIR commitment to serving. The notion that they may be weak, and the implication that they may be without honor, earn you bonus points. You sure know how to hit them where they live, at least in terms of their self-esteem. :)

:patriot:

[haele]

4. It's no more social engineering than allowing women or blacks to serve with "regular troops"

Other than the Oath-keeper types, everyone knows there's a big chance they're serving next to someone that's gay and has no problem with it. I'm not sure if the OP is your personal opinion, or if you are repeating it, but here goes my argument to that post -

I joined the Navy in 1977, was part of that great social experiment to put women on ships and served 20 years, and am still working with the military now. I knew gay people in the Military, heck, my company commander in Boot Camp was almost a stereotypical Lesbian, one of my chiefs in my first command had a long-time male partner that just happened to get jobs wherever he was stationed, and one of my rent-mates when I made enough rank to get BAQ/VHA off the ship was an out and out Lesbian who's "wife" (an Army Master SGT) moved out when she retired. (I tended to be viewed as everyone's smart little sister until I hit 30, so I never got hit on)

Look at the ones who can't "deal" with it. For most, it's not a trust issue, it's a gay issue, just as it was a "woman" issue when I went aboard my ship in 1979. In my day, they ended up getting over it. But the majority of the sabotage, the poor performance issues, the harassment seemed to come not from the women, but from the men who couldn't get over themselves and be professionals.
There's still a few whining about women in the military, but most of those also whine about those lazy, over-privilege youngsters, too.

Truman said it best. "If you can't follow orders and be professional about it, the military doesn't need you."

Look at who's digging their heels in about the issue. In my experience, it's pretty much those who have a religious reason to oppose gays in the military, rather than an actual professional reason. Seems to me the social experimenting is on the side of those military members, not the professionals.

As for Esprit d' Corps - again, my experience as part of a social experiment where they got it wrong in the beginning by being to patronizing and wishy-washy in the first place, it's a given that there are already Gays in the Military. If everyone knows the rules concerning sexual harassment, rape, and all the other issues that are the gender-based minefield in the military are taken care of.
A Bully is far worse to Esprit d' Corps than someone who is gay or black or muslim or a woman is.
If someone can't control themselves around their fellow soldiers and sailors, then they don't need to be in where they can be harming their own. A bully will find anything to harass his or her victim, the gender, just like any other perceived weakness - just makes the target of the bullying weaker.

Get rid of DADT. Don't let a full 5% of the military be lying about themselves to serve with honor. We have enough li'l gang-bangers, Aryan Nation and other fanatics in getting their "training" so they can be part of some sort of rebel army when the Liberal Apocalypse comes, let's try to get more people who honestly want to serve their country in the armed forces.

Haele

[The Straight Story]

5. I just got this reply, and here is mine

are you challenging MY position on gays? If so, ...

I don't recall ever presenting my position one way or the other. If you are challenging me, why do you assume to know what it is? Your presumption is rather offensive. Your turning th...e conversation into an ad homenim attack on me is even more offensive. It is sophomoric and intellecually dishonest on your part. Your are trying to attack me and not my argument.

If not ...

Maybe it should, maybe it should not be an issue. Like it or not, though, it is. That's all I am saying. And, for as long as it is, it should not be foisted upon the military.

You seem to be of the mind that having gays in the military would not be disruptive. Or maybe that whatever disruptions that might come with it are overridden by the interest (the rights of those who want to serve) in allowing gays to be there.

You might be right. You might be wrong.

There are people who disagree with you. There are reasoned, experienced, and intelligent people who believe romantic relationships in a combat environment degrade unit cohesion. They believe romantic relationships are not the same as cameraderie. Where cameradierie brings loyalty, romantic relationships bring other tensions. They believe gays, and the behaviors that some bring with them, are disruptive. They do not like being "forced" to accept any idea that is not tried and true. They do not make their decisions based on what the rest of the world does or on what liberals think. They make their decisions based on their own experience and what has been found to work over the years ... on what has been found to keep them as the greatest military in the world. They believe gays in the military presents an unecessary challenge to leadership.

They might be right. They might be wrong.

But, as long as the two opposing sides are opposite, my argument is only that it is not one we should FORCE the military to have. The military should focus its energies on winning wars and nothing else. They should not be focused on how to integrate groups into their ranks that the rest of society has not yet fully accepted. Doing THAT is a challenge to leadership. Warfighting is challenging enough. We should not challenge leadership in our military any more than that. To do so is foolish.

------------------

My Reply:

Indeed you are right: "But, as long as the two opposing sides are opposite, my argument is only that it is not one we should FORCE the military to have. The military should focus its energies on winning wars and nothing else. "

If people in the military are focused on anything else then it is their own fault. Upset with gays, etc, being in the armed forces? NOT your job to worry about. Do your job, the one you were hired to do.

End of discussion. If your Commander in Chief says gays can serve, you deal with it. Period. And do the job you are being paid to do.

[haele]

6. ***clapping hands****

That's what ended up happening with Women, Blacks, Phillipinos, etc in the Military.
If you are given an order that is legal under the UCMJ, you follow it. Your Comrades in Arms follow it. And you don't have to approve of or like the person that stands next to you, you just have to trust them to do their jobs.

Haele