XCR Forum banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,835 Posts
You know, I am not a homophob and I know that the military isn't a democracy but why don't we leave this one up to the military? All of the services have a portal webpage and every service member is required to have an account. If we held a simple vote where service members were given a few days to a week to get online and vote and it was mandated from higher then I think the military would get what it wants/needs instead of some politicians looking out for their own needs and doing favors for groups.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
I am not a homophob and I know that the military isn't a democracy but why don't we leave this one up to the military? All of the services have a portal webpage and every service member is required to have an account. If we held a simple vote where service members were given a few days to a week to get online and vote...
As you said, the military is not a democracy. Members do not get to decide policy issues. That's for the (civilian and military) leadership to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,835 Posts
Yeah but the civilians don't always know what is best. Lots of the higher ranking individuals are so out of touch with the Army they have no clue what PFC Snuffy needs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I think the biggest concern as I see it is a possible disruption in unit cohesion. It'll probably ruffle some feathers (just like the acceptance of women did and continues to do), but the vast majority of people will get over it given some time. I personally don't care if they do allow openly gay people in the military. Anyway, I just wanted to see what everyone thinks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,284 Posts
OPENLY GAY MAY NOT BE A GOOD IDEA. BEFORE THE GAYS CAME OUT OF THE CLOSET, I'M THINKING AFTER VIETNAM. THERE WAS PROBABLE A BUNCH OF GAYS IN THE SERVICE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
Yeah but the civilians don't always know what is best. Lots of the higher ranking individuals are so out of touch with the Army they have no clue what PFC Snuffy needs.
That's often true, but sometimes what PFCs (and Non-Coms...and Generals, too) want is not what is best. A couple examples come to mind:

1. In the years after WWII, the Army evaluated the T25 rifle, which had a straight-line stock for improved controllability. The troops doing the testing complained that the stock design and the necessarily tall sights caused their heads to be "too high" and exposed to the enemy. As a result, when the M14 entered service it had a traditional, drop-comb stock, which was poorly suited to full-auto firing. Yet, a decade later, when the Army was forced to adopt the M16, its straight-line stock and tall sights proved to not be a problem in battle. This shows that Private Snuffy was wrong on the T25 stock issue.

2. The civilian leadership directed the Generals to adopt the M16, otherwise the Army might still be using the M14. This shows that the civilian leadership was right, and the Generals were outmoded.

Since homosexuals are currently allowed to serve under "don't ask, don't tell," I fail to see how allowing them to serve openly would be significantly adverse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
390 Posts
Anyone who chooses to serve this country is a truly remarkable individual. If they can do the job then, men, women, gay or straight, all get my applause.

My 2c
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,835 Posts
I personally don't have an issue with it. I don't have an issue with lots of things, as long as it doesn't spill over into the work place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,623 Posts
This isn't something I've sat and pontificated,but I do remember my grandfather telling me that on the boat they were on going to Korea,the crew found out a certain person was homosexual.He said when they got there,that person was no longer on the ship.If you do the math you can figure out the rest.
Do not misunderstand I'm not condoning such acts.The one and only thing I'm going to say is this,if it would make,in any way make it harder to fulfill your duties,or possibly endanger lives,I say NO.I'm referring to combat,and the same thing can be said for women. You make the call.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,835 Posts
I am also prejudice against stupid people and they still let them in. Heck, they shouldn't even let them breed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
the problem is the "open" part.. there have always been plenty of gays in the service, most people keep their PRIVATE life private and there are few problems.. but when some overt queen feels like making a point the system stops working.
just like in the civilian sector.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,623 Posts
the problem is he "open" part.. there have always been plenty of gays in the service, most people keep their PRIVATE life private and there are few problems.. but when some overt queen feels ike making a point the system stops working.
Unclemonkey,I agree with that,out of sight,out of mind.

AZ,I have always said stupid people shouldn't breed,If I could find it on a bumper sticker.I would hang it everywhere....lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
the problem is he "open" part.. there have always been plenty of gays in the service, most people keep their PRIVATE life private...
Really? The Armed Forces must have changed a lot since I was in. Most of us quite frequently talked openly about our wives, girl friends, and various sexual experiences.

AFAIK, the only service members who have usually kept "their PRIVATE life private" are the homosexuals, due to fear of reprisals. Heterosexuals were (and presumably still are) subject to no such inhibition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,395 Posts
Let's face it....this has nothing to do with equality or unit cohesion or anything of the sort.

It has to do with Obama paying back gay supporters with a symbolic guesture for the votes/money they were able to gather for his campaign.

Nothing more, nothing less. Let's just call a spade, a spade.

Sean
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
Let's face it....this has nothing to do with equality...
Sure it does. Heterosexuals can openly discuss their sex life or spousal problems, and not be penalized. Homosexuals are booted out of the military for doing so, and then there is also the matter that in most states they are not even legally allowed to marry the person they love.

Personally, I find homosexual acts repulsive, but I place higher value on the concept of equal treatment for all Americans.

Let me amend that statement. I find guy-on-guy sexual acts repugnant, but two chicks together can be a bit of a turn-on. ;D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,395 Posts
Let's face it....this has nothing to do with equality...
Sure it does. Heterosexuals can openly discuss their sex life or spousal problems, and not be penalized. Homosexuals are booted out of the military for doing so, and then there is also the matter that in most states they are not even legally allowed to marry the person they love.

Personally, I find homosexual acts repulsive, but I place higher value on the concept of equal treatment for all Americans.

Let me amend that statement. I find guy-on-guy sexual acts repugnant, but two chicks together can be a bit of a turn-on. ;D

I agree with your point....but you missed mine. Obama isn't doing this for equality....it's pay back; plain and simple.

Sean
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
Let's face it....this has nothing to do with equality...
Sure it does. Heterosexuals can openly discuss their sex life or spousal problems, and not be penalized. Homosexuals are booted out of the military for doing so...
I agree with your point....but you missed mine. Obama isn't doing this for equality....it's pay back; plain and simple.
No, Sean, I didn't miss it. I just didn't see any need to comment on it.

I can't read Obama's mind to know his motives. Even if he is not genuinely concerned about equality, and this is, as you insist, solely a matter of payback, what's the problem? That's why people support one candidate over another, to get desired political/legislative results.

Stan
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top