• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

95% of Marines uncomfortable serving with openly gay troops

Conservative_ said:
I just don't understand why someone's sexuality deems them as unworthy of being a soldier. I've always wanted to join the military to serve my country but have been hesitant to because of the anti-gay sentiment in the military and I was afraid if the truth about my homosexuality ever came out I'd be harrassed and kicked out. If DADT gets repealed I'm going to join and serve my country as an openly gay man.
Click to expand...

This is not my post, how did someone co-opt my alias?
 
Conservative_ said:
I just don't understand why someone's sexuality deems them as unworthy of being a soldier. I've always wanted to join the military to serve my country but have been hesitant to because of the anti-gay sentiment in the military and I was afraid if the truth about my homosexuality ever came out I'd be harrassed and kicked out. If DADT gets repealed I'm going to join and serve my country as an openly gay man.
Click to expand...

I have never reported a post in the entire time I have been here but this will be the first time
 
roguenuke said:
The only spin is coming from you. Discrimination is allowable if the government has a legitimate reason to do so. You need to show the legitimate reason for discriminating against gays, whether it is the military or same sex marriage. I have given you a legitimate reason why the government can discriminate against people entering into multiple marriage contracts, so what is your legitimate reason for not allowing same sex couples to enter into marriage contracts? I, and others, have given you plenty of legitimate reasons for the military to discriminate against certain people when it comes to either not allowing them to serve or preventing them from serving in certain areas, so you need to provide legitimate reasons why gays shouldn't be allowed to serve or serve in certain areas.
Click to expand...

Not legitimate but discimination. How would multiple wives hurt anyone?
 
digsbe said:
The 95% number really seems dishonest to me. I don't see it being that drastically high.
Click to expand...

Especially since gays are suppose to be roughly between 1 in 10 and 2 in 10 Americans. 5% of gays are uncomfortable with other gays in the military? Really.
 
Deuce said:
"Concerned about the consequences" is not the same thing as "uncomfortable serving with." In fact, it could mean just the opposite.

If the number is accurate, we should disband the Marine Corps.
Click to expand...

Disband the Marine Corps? Even if the number was accurate? (Which I suspect it's not) 95% seems high, but I'll bet that it's pretty close to 80%. And, if you took a poll and asked people honestly what they thought of homosexual sex, not guys asked about lesbians, guys asked about other men kissing and having anal sex, I suspect the number would also be close to 90 - 95%. Of course, this would mean that the survey would be free from the thought police cracking down on you.. :) You know, kinda like you Deuce.. :)

Same goes for women, although they appear a little less vocal about it, but the number would still be fairly high IMO.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Disband the Marine Corps? Even if the number was accurate? (Which I suspect it's not) 95% seems high, but I'll bet that it's pretty close to 80%. And, if you took a poll and asked people honestly what they thought of homosexual sex, not guys asked about lesbians, guys asked about other men kissing and having anal sex, I suspect the number would also be close to 90 - 95%. Of course, this would mean that the survey would be free from the thought police cracking down on you.. :) You know, kinda like you Deuce.. :)

Same goes for women, although they appear a little less vocal about it, but the number would still be fairly high IMO.


Tim-
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter how many might be uncomfortable with serving with openly gay men. They certainly didn't join the Marine Corps to be comfortable. And there are certainly other Marines that are uncomfortable with serving alongside some Marines for various reasons. I knew some Marines who were definitely prejudice, in fact, I knew some soldiers who were too. I'm sure these guys, and probably others, were quite uncomfortable with any guys who dated outside their race. Heck, I knew a white girl in boot camp who was very friendly with the black girls, had no problem with them at all. And she was pretty friendly with me, up til I showed her a picture of my black boyfriend. After that, she acted completely different toward me. There are lots of people out there who are uncomfortable with others dating someone who is not the same race as themselves. There are also people out there who are uncomfortable working with people of different beliefs as them. How many Marines do you think would be comfortable working alongside a Muslim? How about an atheist? Or perhaps a person who is openly liberal?

Also, most people get more comfortable with people after they get to know them. It takes time, but it will happen. Once those Marines realize that not much, if anything, in their life has changed with gays being allowed to serve openly, then most won't have a problem at all.
 
roguenuke said:
It really doesn't matter how many might be uncomfortable with serving with openly gay men. They certainly didn't join the Marine Corps to be comfortable. And there are certainly other Marines that are uncomfortable with serving alongside some Marines for various reasons. I knew some Marines who were definitely prejudice, in fact, I knew some soldiers who were too. I'm sure these guys, and probably others, were quite uncomfortable with any guys who dated outside their race. Heck, I knew a white girl in boot camp who was very friendly with the black girls, had no problem with them at all. And she was pretty friendly with me, up til I showed her a picture of my black boyfriend. After that, she acted completely different toward me. There are lots of people out there who are uncomfortable with others dating someone who is not the same race as themselves. There are also people out there who are uncomfortable working with people of different beliefs as them. How many Marines do you think would be comfortable working alongside a Muslim? How about an atheist? Or perhaps a person who is openly liberal?

Also, most people get more comfortable with people after they get to know them. It takes time, but it will happen. Once those Marines realize that not much, if anything, in their life has changed with gays being allowed to serve openly, then most won't have a problem at all.
Click to expand...

By that logic, service members should be allowed to join orginizations, that are currently banned?

Or, are our servicemen not mature and professional enough to look past a person's personal politics and soldier on? They're not in the service to be comfortable, anyway. Right?

We can also start forcing females to share open showers with males. If they don't like it, then they can truck their asses right back where they came from.
 
apdst said:
By that logic, service members should be allowed to join orginizations, that are currently banned?
Click to expand...

Let's not start this again. It is already taking place in another similar thread, and I have given you plenty of reasons why the situations are different.


apdst said:
Or, are our servicemen not mature and professional enough to look past a person's personal politics and soldier on? They're not in the service to be comfortable, anyway. Right?
Click to expand...

No. It is not just the other servicemembers who would be uncomfortable serving with the one who is a member of the organization. If the organization declares that they have an agenda that includes mistrust and/or violence and/or bias against others just due to their race or religion or some other classification like these, and a servicemember is a part of such a group, then they are declaring that they believe in the principles and agendas of that group. This shows that that servicemember may be advocating mistrust, violence, or bias against one or more of his fellow servicemembers. This can cause harm.

apdst said:
We can also start forcing females to share open showers with males. If they don't like it, then they can truck their asses right back where they came from.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I could care less if I had to shower with males. I think my husband might have an issue with it.

The problem with this argument is that you have to take into account all of the reason that women don't share facilities with men, not just the fact that women might be uncomfortable with it. Men and women can't really hide their sex from the military and most can't hide it from fellow servicemembers. There are obvious, physical differences between men and women, not to mention biological differences. Gay men currently share showers with straight men because they are all still men. They all have the same parts and they all have pretty much the same bodily functions. A gay man isn't going to leave bloody tampons or maxi pads in the bathroom, a woman might (especially some nasty women). Straight men have to share bathrooms with gay men in civilian places, women do not have to share such facilities with men in most civilian places.
 
I am adamantly opposed to gays serving openly in the military.
 
roguenuke said:
Why? What are your reasons for feeling this way?
Click to expand...

I spent 22 years in the military. There is a machismo mystique prevalent, particularly in the combat arms, that will equate homosexuality with weakness. They will be ostracized and this will effect a unit's cohesion.
 
C-21 Cowboy said:
I spent 22 years in the military. There is a machismo mystique prevalent, particularly in the combat arms, that will equate homosexuality with weakness. They will be ostracized and this will effect a unit's cohesion.
Click to expand...

But they are already there. And there is nothing that will say that they have to be openly gay. I think this is the issue. Many guys think that every or even most homosexuals will "come out" just because they can. This simply isn't true. Many, and most in the Marines, will be smart enough to determine if their "coming out" to their fellow servicemembers will be acceptable or not and whether it would actually cause problems. If it will cause problems, then they will most likely still hide their sexuality from their fellow Marines/soldiers/sailors, but at least they won't have to fear being discharged just for being gay.

Also, there are currently Marines that are gay. If no one knows they are gay and still doing their job, then why would they somehow be weaker just because homosexuals are viewed as weaker? If some do see it this way, then maybe the Marines should institute training, including a little common sense training, that points out that if someone already showed that they are just as strong and capable of doing the job as you or any other Marine is, then why should their sexuality, if it does come out, be a problem just because now people know?
 
roguenuke said:
But they are already there. And there is nothing that will say that they have to be openly gay. I think this is the issue. Many guys think that every or even most homosexuals will "come out" just because they can. This simply isn't true. Many, and most in the Marines, will be smart enough to determine if their "coming out" to their fellow servicemembers will be acceptable or not and whether it would actually cause problems. If it will cause problems, then they will most likely still hide their sexuality from their fellow Marines/soldiers/sailors, but at least they won't have to fear being discharged just for being gay.

Also, there are currently Marines that are gay. If no one knows they are gay and still doing their job, then why would they somehow be weaker just because homosexuals are viewed as weaker? If some do see it this way, then maybe the Marines should institute training, including a little common sense training, that points out that if someone already showed that they are just as strong and capable of doing the job as you or any other Marine is, then why should their sexuality, if it does come out, be a problem just because now people know?
Click to expand...

Attending sensitivity training will only build resentment in the ranks as yet another sub-group is afforded victim status. Keep them in the closet, and despite the attempts by proponents of the repealing of DADT to paint a different picture, the military is not crawling with gay people. We're talking about less than 2% of the total force that is homosexual. Being gay is a behavior, it is not a race or religion. It deserves no special rights or recognition, and doing so will mean more problems down the road regarding harrassment charges and/or prejudicial accusations.

Hypothetical:

For example Airman "Smith" is passed over for promotion and decides to complain it's because he's homosexual.

Yet another reason to complain about not getting your way and playing the blame game.
 
Last edited:
C-21 Cowboy said:
Attending sensitivity training will only build resentment in the ranks as yet another sub-group is afforded victim status. Keep them in the closet, and despite the attempts by proponents of the repealing of DADT to paint a different picture, the military is not crawling with gay people. We're talking about less than 2% of the total force that is homosexual.
Click to expand...

They already attend tolerance training. They have to tolerate people of different races (and there are certainly racists in the Marines, I knew some personally). They have to tolerate people with different religious views (my husband was not a Christian Marine, but he was a good Marine). Tolerance training shouldn't be about making people victims. It should be about making those who have problems with someone based on a random characteristic, that is not in itself harmful to others, see that if the person is able to do the job, then that should be what matters. Anyone who can't/won't do their jobs are the problems.

And those 2% or less should not have to worry about being discharged for something that does not affect others unless those others are allowing it to affect them because of their own prejudices/biases/beliefs.
 
Since when has "discomfort" been grounds to infringe on equality? If a lot of people in the military are racist, do you fire all the black soldiers? If they're sexist, do you fire all the women?
 
roguenuke said:
They already attend tolerance training. They have to tolerate people of different races (and there are certainly racists in the Marines, I knew some personally). They have to tolerate people with different religious views (my husband was not a Christian Marine, but he was a good Marine). Tolerance training shouldn't be about making people victims. It should be about making those who have problems with someone based on a random characteristic, that is not in itself harmful to others, see that if the person is able to do the job, then that should be what matters. Anyone who can't/won't do their jobs are the problems.

And those 2% or less should not have to worry about being discharged for something that does not affect others unless those others are allowing it to affect them because of their own prejudices/biases/beliefs.
Click to expand...

That is being totally disingenous. You are comparing homosexual behavior with race. Think about it, by allowing gays to openly serve and affording them special rights to serve openly; essentially this is saying hey I like anal sex with other men, therefore the rest of you have to tolerate it and attend sensitivity briefings. It's total b.s., they deserve no special rights or recognition and if they can't accept serving while closeted than don't join the services. They won't be missed, the military is having no problems
meeting their enlistment quotas in this poor economy. There's no shortage of enlistees who are willing to accept the DADT policy as it stands now.
 
Last edited:
C-21 Cowboy said:
That is being totally disingenous. You are comparing homosexual behavior with race. Think about it, by allowing gays and affording them special rights
to serve openly; essentially this is saying hey I like anal sex with other men, therefore the rest of you have to tolerate it and attend sensitivity briefings. It's total b.s., they deserve no special rights or recognition and if they can't accept serving while closeted than don't join the services. They won't be missed, the military is having no problems
meeting their quotas in this poor economy. There's no shortage of enlistees who are willing to accept the DADT policy as it stands now.
Click to expand...

Serving openly is not a special right. And saying that you are gay is not saying that you like to have anal sex with other men. It is saying that you are attracted to other men if you are a man. This should not be a reason for a discharge. Especially when a guy can say that they like having anal sex with a woman and not get discharged no matter how many people are uncomfortable with such a statement. He may get charged with sodomy (although they would have to prove that he actually has committed sodomy since he was in the Marines), but he won't get discharged for it. A guy can also say that he likes having sex, period, with a woman who is 350lbs or with a woman that is a different race than himself and not be discharged for it, no matter how many people are uncomfortable knowing these things. I know there are plenty of people in the military who have issues with interracial dating/relationships. Also, the age of consent under the UCMJ is 16 (although it also depends on the laws of place, if the age of consent is higher than 16, then military members must abide by that). I knew a lot of people who were uncomfortable with this, particularly chiefs who had 16 year old daughters, because there are guys in the military who will specifically search for those girls to sleep with.

And there are some military jobs that are severely undermanned. The job I held in the Navy is one of them. DADT hurts these, and does no real harm to those other jobs, so it should be gone, and gays should be allowed to serve openly.
 
roguenuke said:
Serving openly is not a special right. And saying that you are gay is not saying that you like to have anal sex with other men. It is saying that you are attracted to other men if you are a man. This should not be a reason for a discharge. Especially when a guy can say that they like having anal sex with a woman and not get discharged no matter how many people are uncomfortable with such a statement. He may get charged with sodomy (although they would have to prove that he actually has committed sodomy since he was in the Marines), but he won't get discharged for it. A guy can also say that he likes having sex, period, with a woman who is 350lbs or with a woman that is a different race than himself and not be discharged for it, no matter how many people are uncomfortable knowing these things. I know there are plenty of people in the military who have issues with interracial dating/relationships. Also, the age of consent under the UCMJ is 16 (although it also depends on the laws of place, if the age of consent is higher than 16, then military members must abide by that). I knew a lot of people who were uncomfortable with this, particularly chiefs who had 16 year old daughters, because there are guys in the military who will specifically search for those girls to sleep with.

And there are some military jobs that are severely undermanned. The job I held in the Navy is one of them. DADT hurts these, and does no real harm to those other jobs, so it should be gone, and gays should be allowed to serve openly.
Click to expand...

B.S.
DADT is not causing any staffing issues. I want statistics on that, claiming it does not make it so. Staffing issues
are more related to enlistees who can't meet the height / weight physical standards, or do poorly on the ASVAB to qualify for more technical jobs. Gays are not crawling out of the woodwork to enlist and they aren't being booted out any more than other individuals who are deemed unfit for service; regardless of the reasons. It's pure propaganda illicited by the pro-gay agenda of which you apparently are a member.

Serving is not a right, it's a privilege and homosexuals deserve no special recognition to serve openly than someone who prefers sex with farm animals. Stay in the CLOSET. Period, end of subject...bottom line up front BLUF.

I believe we're done here.

Good day.
 
Last edited:
C-21 Cowboy said:
B.S
DADT is not causing any staffing issues. I want statistics on that, claiming it does not make it so. Staffing issues
are more related to enlistees who can't meet the height / weight physical standards, or do poorly on the ASVAB to qualify for more technical jobs. Gays are not crawling out of the woodwork to enlist and they aren't being booted out any more than other individuals who are deemed unfit for service; regardless of the reasons. It's pure propaganda illicited by the pro-gay agenda of which you apparently are a member.

Serving is not a right, it's a privilege and homosexuals deserve no special recognition to serve openly than someone who prefers sex with farm animals. Stay in the CLOSET. Period, end of subject...bottom line up front BLUF.

I believe we're done here.

Good day.
Click to expand...

You're not going to win this one. I have had personal experience with knowing people who were discharged for just being gay, that hurt our manning. The Navy offers Nukes $40K+ to reenlist and it costs over $1M to train one Navy Nuke. I personally received $30K, tax free, 7 years ago when I reenlisted and gave up $60K to reenlist again.

I knew 2 guys who would have been punished for what they were caught doing but still allowed to stay in the military if the military allowed gay personnel. I also knew a girl who signed the paperwork saying she was gay for the discharge because she found a job that offered complete spousal benefits for her partner. We talked often, and I know that she would have at least finished her enlistment had the opportunity not been given for her to get out under DADT. And if the military would have treated her partner the same that they do heterosexual partners, then she would have stayed in the Navy as her career. These are just people I knew personally. I'm sure there have been many others. And everyone knows that the military has discharged Arabic translators, who are vital while we're in conflicts with people in the ME, for being gay.

My department of more than 400 people aboard the carrier had at least a dozen guys that everyone knew were gay, including one of the two that I mentioned above. We had another 2 gay women and several women who were bi. All were open about their sexuality and no one cared. We were much more concerned with those people who weren't doing their job. Because that is what matters. It shouldn't matter who someone is attracted to or even how someone has sex in determining a person's ability to serve. What should matter is that the person can do their job and not interfere with others doing their jobs. And someone else being uncomfortable with a person being homosexual is the problem of the person who is uncomfortable with it, not the one who is homosexual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom