Posted on 02/27/2010 9:46:30 AM PST by Maelstorm
Yes, quite - uhn, defensive, one may say....
Actually Sparta survived for more than a thousand years even under the Roman Empire. Interestingly, the Romans made Sparta a stop in any gentleman’s tour of Greece, as they admired the military virtues of the Spartans. The last recorded military action of the Spartans were against the Goth barbarians in 376 A.D. in which they kicked butt and took names.
Why didn’t the Spartans die out after one generation? The males were required to marry at age 30...Of course, the young teenage bride was introduced to the groom in total darkness with her hair cut short.
At any rate, Sparta proved that homosexuals could form very effective military units, but I’m not saying this should be the model for the U.S. military, which has as its model, the Christian Knight of the Middle Ages who fights for his Lady Fair.
I served in the Army back in the Cold War days (82-86), and I can unequivocally say that if a homosexual tried to sodomize me, I would kill them, and damn the consequences.
I daresay that a vast majority of my barracks mates would agree with me.
I believe no military member should EVER have to have the fear of an attack by a FDRQ in the back of their minds...and ESPECIALLY if they are in a combat situation. In my day, if a combat situation arose and one was found to be a fruit, they would likely receive a round in the head and be listed as a combat casualty. Case closed.
Yep...I have STRONG feelings about this, and I have good reason to.
Homosexuals in the military is a yes, it's not a proposition. There are homosexuals in the military, they may not be asking or telling right now, but they're there, just like there are illegals aliens in the country right now. The question is what to do with them. I say you have to keep them because it's just not possible to root out every last one of them to have an all-straight force.
Homosexuality, unlike legal residency status, isn't a trait that can be tested for or proven through a priori knowledge (it's not like you can play some showtunes at the smoke pit and arrest anyone who starts singing along). Other than who they find sexually attractive, homosexuals are often indistinguishable from heterosexuals physically and mentally. Not every gay man is a twink, not every short-haired woman who never wears makeup a lesbian.
Homosexuality can only be observed through actions and despite the opinion of some posters on this thread, homosexuals are capable of 'keeping it in their pants' just like heterosexual men are able to work around women without constantly raping them.
My position is that if you can't test for it, you can't discriminate upon it. Prior to DADT, there was a question on the military entrance paperwork, essentially an sworn statement that one was not a homosexual. DADT didn't move the bar much, it only removed the entrance question and discriminated against gay servicemen upon the commander's knowledge of homosexual acts, which is testable but widens the blackmailing and contract escape loopholes.
Permitting homosexuals to serve with their command's knowledge of their orientation doesn't mean in any way that gay men would be allowed to show up to formation in nail polish and eye shadow and give limp-wristed salutes. Rape and sexual harassment laws don't just magically go away when its a same-sex incident. It does mean that the kids who claim that they're gay to get out their contracts (a good portion of DADT cases volunteer themselves to leave service) will be held to their contracts instead of getting very expensive training and then leaving without the military getting its money's worth out of them.
It also means that a gay serviceman with a security clearance would no longer be such a juicy target for espionage by our nation's enemies. This, more than anything, is my reasoning for allowing gays to serve openly. I agree that it's not in the military's interest to allow gays to serve openly as a social experiment, nor as a way to shoehorn marriage rights to homosexual couples, but it certainly is in the military's interest to keep our nation's secrets safe. If there's a way to keep gays out of any job that would risk national security (a no security clearances for gays policy), it would make sense. I don't think it's possible, since a lot of families have no clue their child is gay until after they leave the home, or if they do, hope that a stint in the military will straighten him out, asking "is Johnny gay" during a background check isn't going to work. It would be a witch hunt (or queen hunt) at best. Out of a lack of reasonable alternatives, I find myself on the 'yes' side of the should homosexuals serve question.
I’ll use your example.
“...but they’re there, just like there are illegals aliens in the country right now. The question is what to do with them. I say you have to keep them because it’s just not possible to root out every last one of them to have an all-straight force.”
So we also legalize all illegal aliens following your line of reasonong to it’s logical conclusion. Real good.
“It does mean that the kids who claim that they’re gay to get out their contracts (a good portion of DADT cases volunteer themselves to leave service) will be held to their contracts instead of getting very expensive training and then leaving without the military getting its money’s worth out of them.”
The army figured out a long time ago it is easier, better and cheaper to get rid of trouble makers rather than keep them in. If some guy wants out he’s going to get out.
“I agree that it’s not in the military’s interest to allow gays to serve openly as a social experiment, nor as a way to shoehorn marriage rights to homosexual couples...”
Your way ensures both of those happening.
“If there’s a way to keep gays out of any job that would risk national security (a no security clearances for gays policy), it would make sense. I don’t think it’s possible...”
If it’s that serious a matter than a simple lie detector test can be used.
“Out of a lack of reasonable alternatives, I find myself on the ‘yes’ side of the should homosexuals serve question.”
I wonder how the heck the military managed to survive for two hundred years operating with a “lack of reasonable alternatives”?
If it isn’t broken don’t fix it. Your way will break it for sure.
“Actually Sparta survived for more than a thousand years even...”
Yeah, I know.
My goodneth, you are a savagth beasth.
But, if obama allows gays to serve openly, what it will do is greatly "empower" the gay military members, and they will become openly bold under obama's protection.
Being typically bold and outspoken anyway, their newfound boldness will - I believe - cause them to make "advances" they would not otherwise make, and any resistance they encountered will be reported as "gay bashing" and it will be the heterosexual, or ones who resist that will be in trouble.
I believe you are absolutely correct...
As to someone who is already in the military, I would guess they would have to dress and act like the man or woman they were expected to be when they first joined all the while they are in the military. If they could not continue to do so, they would then have to seek help from I would guess by either telling the Chaplin and/or seeing a medical doctor / psychiatrist who would then be able to tell whether they are truly transgender / transsexual or someone who is just trying to b.s. that they are.
Since it requires a medical diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria or Gender Identity Disorder for a doctor to write a prescription for cross-gender hormone therapy, it would mean that the person gets a medical discharge.
Kind of an interesting question (though I suspect you asked tounge-in-cheek) so I looked around online and found this:
http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/3/4/534
A transgender / transsexual person who is applying to join the military who is clearly a gender that they were not originally born into would not pass the physical.
https://www.hrc.org/issues/4553.htm
"...the military considers transsexuality to be a disqualifying psychiatric condition..."
And they ought to know, as the Human Rights Campaign (http://www.hrc.org) is the largest and most well-funded LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) group pushing for the repeal of DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell).
LOL, there are a few of us around here. I must admit though, sometimes I feel like "a pearl in a 'full' toilet bowl" (I just hope that I'm not here when God decides to flush).
Stay safe in that liberal pus hole.
Being that I'm not a defenseless unborn baby developing in a "progressive" woman's womb, I have no worries.
They will have to carry a supply of latex gloves like the police do in urban areas.
IATWDZ
(In after the well-deserved zot.)
There’s another that should be but hasn’t been.
Not all trolls receive equal treatment...
Thanks for the funnies - always need a good laugh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.