Posted on 02/14/2010 5:24:07 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
exactly my point
if they can be open then they will make remarks, suggestions crude comments and even approach.
How is a guy who is straight supposed to deal with another guy who is doing this openly and maybe the officer is even a open homosexual?
we all know this is a step for them to say they should be married and get kids.
just another step around to further their agenda
Actually he said that he wouldn’t second guess the military leadership and that if they think it’s possible to do and not harm the mission he is ok with that. He also called it a generational issue. I’m not for it but kids today are. The problems are coming though when a gay soldier complains that he’s being asked to do too much and is discriminated against.
I hear what you’re saying. This is about demoralizing and unstabilizing the military just as the left has done by their gay pride celebrations, their vitriolic attacks on the Catholic Church and Boy Scouts, marriage, etc.
It is opening the door to having discrimination lawsuits left and right when some flaming homosexual makes a pass at a marine in the shower. Gay or straight, someone makes an unsolicited pass at me, I don’t like it and I don’t tolerate it.
Have a friend who is gay. He smokes pot on a regular basis, engages in promiscuos encounters with both men and women, and loves to shock people with classless sexual remarks about his lifestyle. I don’t know any heterosexuals who do that.
How is a guy that is straight supposed to deal with a gay that is in the closet?
You don't think closet gays make passes?
At least if you know which way they lean, you can give them a wide berth.
As to officers, it is the same as a male straight officer having straight females under his command. One sure way to have your military career come to a screeching halt is to try to fraternize with a subordinate under your command.
we all know this is a step for them to say they should be married and get kids. just another step around to further their agenda
My point is that they are ALREADY in the military and have been, legally, since the early 1990's.
My preference is to know so I can be at the other end of the shower room.
If you are in a common military shower full of naked guys, would your preference would be:
A. Know that the naked guy right next to you is gay so you can go to the other end of the room.
B. Not know if the naked guy right next to you is gay so you can wonder.
This is a bad one, not just a RINO but its mud wallow hole along with it.
Unless there’s a rule that all gays must congregate at the east end of shower rooms, this is silly.
Oh, and who says they’re going to advertise their “availability” to the whole squad? You still might not know.
Sad day in the Republic when even supposed conservatives back stupidity like this
Gay “integration” will be implemented according to a Obama liberal Democrat model. Your relief in knowing who the gays are (so you can avoid them in the showers) will be more than offset by the special privileges and protections accorded to gays, the endless touchy feelly indoctrination sessions you’ll be forced to attend, and the abrupt curtailment of your promotion chances if you don’t enthusiastically get with the program.
Two ways come to mind. (1) "Don't tell" requires that a service member hide his or her orientation, and pressures them into deceiving others. It is immoral to pressure someone into committing deceit. (B) Because an openly homosexual is discharged, all homosexuals must remain closeted. This creates a blackmail risk--a foreign intelligence service may take pictures of a closeted homosexual and threaten to release them unless the service member becomes that service's agent. The service member discloses this to his command and is discharged, or he starts working for the adversary. Either way we have lost him.
Allowing homosexuals to serve openly solves the ethical dilemma and removes the threat of blackmail. So that's two benefits right there.
I would imagine that most of the people who agree with Cheney on this position would never support him if were young enough to become a presidential candidate. I guess Cheney is a “Robert Gates Republican.”
Let's hear them.
“Supposed conservatives” — that’s what 90 percent of them are!
The Joint Chiefs are political animals and work directly with the current president. Ask the middle rank officers and enlisted.
So what's changed?
Shaliksashvili:"Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."
In short they need more warm bodies -- any bodies, gay, straight, whatever, just more.
The only reason to change the policy is to do a bit of social engineering in the military. Dick is into social engineering because of his daughter.
There is no rationale for changing the policy, the only acceptable rationale would be to increase unit cohesion and discipline. I have seen no such argument put forth by anybody and Dick Cheney didn't make one today.
“No comment” is deceit?
If they wanted to create a modern “black sheep squadron” of gays and don’t-cares, I’d hold my nose but say go ahead and do it if you must. It’s when they are mixed with those who are definitely not don’t-cares that the trouble happens. You have de facto sexual harassment of the straights.
The backbone of our military forces is, and has always been, socially conservative Scots-Irish males from the South. How do you think this sort of social experimentation will affect their willingness to stay in the military?
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.