Something to consider this November

[Razor]

I don't know if everyone caught this, but both Dem runners that actually have a chance of being on the ballot (Gore and Bradley, for those who don't get out much) have stated that they only intend to accept new members of the JCS if the nominee(s) support(s) gays openly serving in the armed forces. They must really want the homosexual vote, and don't really care about the military (past and present) vote. I wonder, if they don't feel they need the military vote, if that indicates a general attitude about the military in general?

[Spotlight_Ranger]

I only heard Gore, and immediately e-mailed his campaign that I didn't know who I was going to vote for, but because of that remark alone, I would not vote for him. There are a lot of major issues facing the military, and the fact that those running for office see the major one as gays serving openly is incredible. Homosexuals have served in the military forever, it has been quietly recognized and pretty much left alone. The issue has become that they want to celebrate it, and now its a problem. For some reason, everyone is acting like the military is the occupation of choice for gays. These same politicians are saying they support the military. How? I don't particularly care how anybody votes, just vote. My attitude is if you want to scace the hell out of a politician vote.

[LRSC Grunt]

I dont think Gore or Bradley have any concern of the welfare or even give a sh@t about our profession entirely. There are certain laws(UCMJ) that govern our sexual conduct and there is good reason for them to be enforced. We cant commit adaultry, pedifile, statutory rape, rape, insibordination, sexual hurrassment, sodomy, beastiality, or homosexuality.

[Snake]

Is anyone else worried about the CinC politicising the Officer Corps? Thats all we need, a gang of Juan Peron's running around.
Argentina,1943 wasnt exactly a 3rd world state...

Snake
25th ID(L)

[Tracy]

Well, even the lofty perches of Special Forces has gays. I personally worked with two personnel (one each in 5th and 10th SFG) on A-Teams that "came out" after they retired. Shocked the hell out of us.

True, the Army has strict rules about public display of affection and sexual conduct; which are enforced as frequently as the haircut and mustache regs. In other words, it varies from unit to unit.

Estimates now run that 10% of the adult (meaning voters) population of the USA is gay. Here's some other stats: Gays have a higher average income, commit fewer crimes, have conservative attitudes/beliefs and have a LOWER incidence rate of HIV/AIDS than straights.

It's no wonder that politicians are pandering to them. It's ironic that Gays support a Republican Agenda; yet it's the Democrats who try win their votes. In November, the Gay voters could be the 'swing' vote needed to get Demos in office for another eight years.

I hate Democrats, but it scares me to no end to allow the Republicans back into office because of the heavy religious influence. I've seen first-hand the effects of theocratic governments; and it's just as bad as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

The separation of Church and State was one of the more brilliiant ideas our founding fathers came up with. I don't want it to fail now.

[pn]

I wish someone would just come out and say "Homosexuality is morally wrong, and that's why it shouldn't be allowed in the armed forces."

Personally, I don't care about sexual orientation. However, I do care about people making concrete, sincere statements about belief, vice mealy-mouthed implications and timid suggestions. Unless I'm reading the thread incorrectly, everyone's thinking the same thing but is unwilling to say it.

-pn

[Mike]

Will gays actually become officers? Seemed there are more gays in the enlisted ranks than officers. Imagine a gay as an infantyr officer saying "Charge!!".
Tracy: the Republicans believe in a small government and more money for the military (and less for social welfare). The Moral Religious groups have less influence now.

[Scout]

By who's moral standards? No, I'm not gay or pro-gay. I don't think gays should be allow to openly serve in the military. But who are you to say what a person can or can't do in their own bedroom? And who would you feel comfortable giving the power in invade your home? I certainly wouldn't trust any politician with that power. You do know, may states have laws that say oral, anal (ie. sodomy--its not just homosexuality), and any position other than missionary are immoral and illegal. Many want to make smoking and
owning guns immoral.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if a person likes to f@uck men, women, chickens, sheep, or rubber blow-up dolls, as long as they keep it away from work.

Maybe you've forgotten, but one of the reasons this country was founded was so one group couldn't tell everyone else what's moral or not--within reasonable limits, of course.

[Tracy]

pn wrote:
'I wish someone would just come out and say "Homosexuality is morally wrong, and that's why it shouldn't be allowed in the armed forces." '

If those morals are based on a RELIGIOUS dictate, then I disagree with the statement. SOCIAL dictates are changing; our US society has a growing (read majority) open acceptance of gays.

Here's my platform: 1) Admit gays to the military; they're not a risk to national security, nor threaten the good order and discipline of the force. 2) Enforce the rules already on the books (UCMJ) for accetable social behavior. I see a lot of heterosexuals violating those rules on a daily basis; much to the detriment of order and discipline.

Like Colin Powell said: "Get mad, then get over it."

Here's the funny part:
Homosexuals don't produce more homosexuals; HETEROSEXUALS produce homo, and hetero,-sexuals. Always have, always will.

Now, if we examine this problem from an SF analysis viewpoint, it's obvious you don't fight the force (gays). You attack the source (straights). So, now what do we do? We can recruit martyrs in uniform to crush the skulls of sleeping troops who we THINK might be gay; or screen all the straights to make sure they don't produce gays.

What's it gonna be? Keep in mind that skull crushing attracts a lot of unwanted attention; which is an anethma to SF types. And those martyrs will squeal on you as well. They'll definitely squeal when they get married to someone named 'Rocko' at Leavenworth.

Besides invoking the name of God to screen for possible gay-producing couples, are there any other ways to check? I can see it now: "You can't have (or produce) children because God told me they will be gay."

Maybe there's a BIOLOGICAL reason for being gay that can be identified? Maybe that's a way to screen candidates.

I don't understand the sexual preferences of others, straight or gay; but I'm finding fewer and arguments for excluding a group based on those preferences.

We have better things to do, like war-fighting, training and retention.

tracy.**********@60mdg.travis.af.mil

[Razor]

I have to agree with Tracy on the difficulty in restricting folks from serving because of sexual preference. However, I really don't want to know if a guy likes to have sex with sheep any more than I want to know who likes having sex with guys. Do what you want in your off-time (as long as you're within UCMJ and the other generally accepted standards of conduct), but please don't make a big issue of it while wearing the uniform. Like Scout said, if we strictly interpret the UCMJ, a bunch of us would be in prison right now.

[This message has been edited by Razor (edited 01-31-2000).]

[pn]

Quick clarification: I do not see any moral problems with homosexuality, nor do I think that it should be a disqualifier for national service, military or otherwise. The statement that Tracy quoted was my synopsis of the prevailing viewpoint (as I perceived it, of course).

-pn

[Spotlight_Ranger]

My point is that the military already restricts lifestyles in some form or another. It may have changed but a few years ago male soldiers were not allowed to wear earrings in or out of uniform. We can't wash our car in our front yard buck naked. These are a restrictions of lifestyle. We certainly give up constitutional rights as soldiers, and that is accepted when we sign up. We have rules of conduct and leave it at that. The military has bigger issues than the gay lifestyle, these wanna be CinCs better pull their heads out of their fourth points of contact and figure it out. I do think Clinton has appointed a fairly weak JCS. The problems the military is currently facing has little or nothing to do with the gay issue.