• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Poll: Gays should be allowed to serve openly in the Military

Which of the following statements best describes your views on this issue?

  • Gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military

    Votes: 41 85.4%

  • Gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret

    Votes: 4 8.3%

  • Gays and lesbians should not be allowed to serve in the military at all

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 3 6.3%
  • Total voters
    48
yuvgotmel

yuvgotmel

Well-Known Member
Tlcmel,

I hear what you are saying, and it shows that you are sincere in asking.

The military is an entire way of life (when on active duty status). The members are still human. And as humans, there are complexities.

The military members are not robots; nor should they be used a subject for group experiment.

...just my .02

Carry on.

I like you Tlcmel.
 
krashlocke

krashlocke

Member
Buttercup said:
Agreed. There's still a long road ahead. If the Christian population could grasp what discriminatory behavior this is....change would happen sooner.
Click to expand...

Or the Muslim population, or the Jewish population, or the LDS population, or...

We needn't single anyone out, I think most of the major groups discriminate equally when it comes to homosexuality.
 
Green Gaia

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
Tlcmel said:
Could I please ask a question, why does it matter whether or not somebody reveals their sexual orientation? Who cares...it's irrelevent, why would anyone need to be informed? It's not like their out looking for a date, their primary purpose is for the defense of our country.:confused:
Click to expand...
Could you have a career and work around other people everyday for years and never, ever mention your spouse or family? That's what gay and lesbian military personel have to do in order to keep their job. How is that fair?
 
yuvgotmel

yuvgotmel

Well-Known Member
OOPPSS....My computer jammed.. and the thing froze.. and I kept hitting submit, but it wasn't contining on..

SORRY...
 
H

Hacker

Well-Known Member
Maize said:
Could you have a career and work around other people everyday for years and never, ever mention your spouse or family? That's what gay and lesbian military personel have to do in order to keep their job. How is that fair?
Click to expand...
Good question I don't know.. and your right it isn't fair but how are we to change the minds of the individuals who are offended or touchy about this subject? You have prejudices about everything, everywhere you go, and sometimes certain things need to be kept secret unless that individual(who is gay) is up for some potential criticism, etc. Knowing ME personally, I probably wouldn't care what people would think, if I were gay. BUT, look at all of this debating and arguing over something that could be simplified by just keeping one's business to themselves. I dunno, this may require some more thought though, lol.:p
 
Radio Frequency X

Radio Frequency X

World Leader Pretend
It is an astonishing question. Should we or should we not persecute homosexuals. The fact that the question is of curiosity to some people is quite telling isn't it?
 
lizskid

lizskid

BANNED
The policy's implementation has resulted in a substantial increase in the number of discharges based on sexual orientation as well as high costs related to the discharges. According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, more than 9,000 service members have been discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy at a cost of more than a quarter billion dollars to U.S. taxpayers.

A 2000 Defense Department inspector general survey showed that 80 percent of service members had heard offensive speech, derogatory names, jokes or remarks about gays in the previous year, and that 85 percent believed such comments were tolerated. Thirty-seven percent reported that they had witnessed or experienced direct, targeted forms of harassment, including verbal and physical assaults and property damage. Overwhelmingly, service members did not report the harassment. When asked why, many cited fear of retaliation

Women and young adults ages 18 to 25 are disproportionately affected by the policy, according to SLDN. For example, while women made up 15 percent of the Army's forces in 2002, they represented 36 percent of the discharges under the law. Women constituted 7 percent of the Coast Guard in 2002 and 34 percent of the discharges. Overall, SLDN reports that women made up 15 percent of the armed forces in 2002 but accounted for 31 percent of those discharged under the law.

In 2002, 83 percent of those discharged from the Air Force under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" were 18 to 25 years old, although they accounted for only 35 percent of the force. While they constituted only 10 percent of the Coast Guard in 2002, service members under 26 accounted for 86 percent of the discharges under "don't ask, don't tell.". The 2002 Defense Department inspector general survey also found a "substantial" difference in responses according to level of service, which typically corresponds with the age of the service member. Seventy-eight percent of respondents stated that enlisted service members were harassed in violation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Only 2 percent said the same for officers.

Under the current policy, service members may be investigated and administratively discharged if they:
  • make a statement that they are lesbian, gay or bisexual;
  • engage in physical contact with someone of the same sex for the purposes of sexual gratification; or
  • marry, or attempt to marry, someone of the same sex.
So, you can see form the gov'ts own reports that what we have said is true...the act is not required, it is being used as a witch hunt tool, and the attitudes of many military staff...not necessarily those on this board ...are fostered and encouraged to be negative toward gays and lesbians.
 
yuvgotmel

yuvgotmel

Well-Known Member
Maize and all,

I hear your concerns. And I cannot say what is fair or not.

The regulars of this board are, from my observations, fairly intelligent and accepting people. And from the comfort of our own homes or offices many policies are made that affect people in already strained situations. It is easy for politicians to make blanket laws while not having to live in the conditions that they set the laws for. Like so, it is easy for civilians to make statements how things should be with the military without having to live in the very situations that they want to change.

I hope that I have not offended anyone today. It was not my intention. After my accidental duplicate posts (sorry about that), I feel as if it is time to step away from this discussion.

One last story:
While in the Navy, I was selected, many times over, to be on committees to set forth policies for enlisted personnel. I was often the only enlisted personnel on those boards. However, my supervisors, all the way to the captain, valued my opinion dearly. I was seen as someone who was level-headed and in-tune with the enlisted personnel and their needs. The captains (a couple of them) would seek me out, personally, to ask me questions and my opinions on many things. I was very well-liked from the captain(s) of my base to the Master Chief of the Navy and the many ambassodors that I met with from the varies Navies and militaries and other assorted governments throughout the world.

I am not someone who is speaking just off-the-wall. FYI

Thanx for the great afternoon discussion.

Love to you all.

...Carry On!...


Mel.
 
Green Gaia

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
Tlcmel said:
Good question I don't know.. and your right it isn't fair but how are we to change the minds of the individuals who are offended or touchy about this subject? You have prejudices about everything, everywhere you go, and sometimes certain things need to be kept secret unless that individual(who is gay) is up for some potential criticism, etc. Knowing ME personally, I probably wouldn't care what people would think, if I were gay. BUT, look at all of this debating and arguing over something that could be simplified by just keeping one's business to themselves. I dunno, this may require some more thought though, lol.:p
Click to expand...
So gays and lesbians should keep their business to themselves out of fear of being fired, but they should have to endure heterosexuals going on about their families and spouses with no repercussions? Or are you saying heterosexuals should be banned too from even mentioning things like if they are married or not?

There are people still in the country who are prejudiced against racial minorities, should we dance around their bigotry too and give in to them or confront it and try to foster an environment of peace and understanding?
 
H

Hacker

Well-Known Member
yuvgotmel said:
Tlcmel,

I hear what you are saying, and it shows that you are sincere in asking.

The military is an entire way of life (when on active duty status). The members are still human. And as humans, there are complexities.

The military members are not robots; nor should they be used a subject for group experiment.

...just my .02

Carry on.

I like you Tlcmel.
Click to expand...
Thanks I like you too Mel!:D
 
H

Hacker

Well-Known Member
Maize said:
Or are you saying heterosexuals should be banned too from even mentioning things like if they are married or not?
Click to expand...
I DO believe that it should be up to one's discretion about revealing their sexual orientation(gays AND heteros) BUT, we can't change the minds of those who are prejudice against gays etc. Like I said, I think people need to be more open minded and not so touchy about one's sexual orientation, but it's VERY infortunate that it isn't true in this case.
 
lizskid

lizskid

BANNED
yuvgotmel said:
Here's another story:
In every headquarters building, pictures of the chain-of-command, starting with the President of the United States are featured prominently on the walls, usually near the entrance (lobby area, Quarter Deck, etc.). When Clinton took office in January of 1993, the picture of the president was supposed to be switched immediately. However, at my command, along with many other locations around the Norfolk, Virginia area, the picture of Bush Sr. remained for months. At my command, the picture of Bush Sr. remained on the wall, listed as the president, for about a year. The ONLY reason that it ever got changed was because inspectors from Washington, D.C. were scheduled to visit our base (as part of the base closures). No one wanted our base to be closed down, so the picture was finally changed, right before the inspectors came.
Click to expand...

So, you are showing, for us, that commanders can set the tone and manner of those below them in command. That was one of my main points. You can choose to not follow policy and choose to disrespect the Commander and Chief. Interesting.
 
Green Gaia

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
Tlcmel said:
I DO believe that it should be up to one's discretion about revealing their sexual orientation(gays AND heteros) BUT, we can't change the minds of those who are prejudice against gays etc. Like I said, I think people need to be more open minded and not so touchy about one's sexual orientation, but it's VERY infortunate that it isn't true in this case.
Click to expand...

Yes, we can change minds, but not by sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the issue and pretending it doesn't exist by telling gays and lesbians to lie.
 
H

Hacker

Well-Known Member
Maize said:

Yes, we can change minds, but not by sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the issue and pretending it doesn't exist by telling gays and lesbians to lie.
Click to expand...
I agree, but what I'm saying is... changing the minds of those individuals who have prejudices against this whole issue that cause all of these stupid problems in the first place!:rolleyes:
 
yuvgotmel

yuvgotmel

Well-Known Member
Sorry, I said that I was going to step out of this thread, but I wanted to clarify something that lizskid quoted.

A "command" (in the Navy) simply means a location, such as the base itself is called a "command."

.....Also to continue on where I should have long-since stopped. I have a few last thoughts...

Upon reading a very sincere post by Maize, I realized that many homosexuals may not fully understand that others do NOT understand homosexuality.

Just because people can be accepting towards homosexuals does NOT mean that they “get” homosexuality. In other words, homosexuality is sort of a mystery (so to speak). So even if, in a comfortable setting, people can outwardly appear to remain non-hostile towards homosexuals in their surroundings, does not mean that their behavior will be the same in a stressful situation where the worst sorts of fears are often brought to the surface.

The military should not be a place to experiment. It is an already volatile environment, replete with many stressful variables. The military is still working on taming the instinctive and primitive natures (in humans) concerning the co-mingling of men and women. The military has yet to work out the kinks in the area of simple women’s lib issues. The military, up until recently, has been an all-male organization (except for the times when women were allowed to serve in temporary positions as nurses and in other areas where help was direly needed).

Unlike the attitudes commonly found on this forum, there is simply not a full-acceptance towards homosexuality in general among the larger public and especially in the military. Even though the polls may reflect that homosexuals are accepted in the workplace, does not mean that the persons polled “understand” homosexuality.

I cannot emphasize enough that—when placed in demanding situations for long durations—people, under such duress, often do exhibit abnormal behaviors. And if one of the factors thrown into the mix, during such a time, is homosexuality, then those persons, who do not “get” homosexuality, can and do act out their primitive misunderstanding through many ways, from the mildest (in the form of jokes and direct insults) to more abusive ways.

Many persons simply do not “understand” homosexuality. In normal circumstances, without being invaded (by exposure such as nakedness or simply “personal space”), many people may not feel threatened by homosexuals. However, in times and situations of great psychological stress, the same “normal” persons may feel threatened and act according to their most primitive natures.

Many people simply do not know if homosexuality is "ok". Many people still fear homosexuality and often lump it into the same categories as other so-called "sins."

The military has been consistently conservative for a very long time. Even though those attitudes are changing due to the current Bush administrations' failures, the attitudes of a lesser-political nature are fairly the same.


...The End... I'm going back to my regularly scheduled programming now.
 
Green Gaia

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
Tlcmel said:
I agree, but what I'm saying is... changing the minds of those individuals who have prejudices against this whole issue that cause all of these stupid problems in the first place!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Exactly. :)
 
mostly harmless

mostly harmless

Endlessly amused
I've always been for G/L openly serving. In the end, I think most people will not care who you're sleeping with as long as you pull your weight. Oh unless, of course, you are screwing your way through promotions. Nobody respects that! (and rightly so)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top