Acceptance of Open Homosexuality in the Military - Part Two

[Jassy Melson]

To recapitulate, I intend to explain and show in this article how acceptance of open homosexuality
in the U.S. military will weaken the effectiveness of it as a fighting force.

The main reason that the U.S. military is opposed to instituting the draft is because it knows that draftees' first and most important attachment and allegiance is to their home and their loved ones and families. It is not to the military or to their country. It is all well and good to say that the U.S. military is composed of an all-volunteer force now; but that may change in the future. The draft may be instituted again. What will happen then? If open homosexuality is accepted as policy by the military, the draft will not change that policy; it will remain in effect. Homosexuals will be drafted. They will demand that they be allowed to congregate, and to bed with their partners, and engage each other in sexual situations out in the open.. And that “right” will be accepted and instituted by the military.

Some may object and say that homosexuals can serve in the military and not be in combat zones. What! Are homosexuals going to be given preferential treatment? Or some may state that homosexuals can serve in combat zones and they will not engage in open homosexual acts. I assert that if homosexuals are allowed to openly serve in combat situations that they will indeed engage each other in sexual acts, in foxholes, in bunkers, anywhere they congregate.

Proponents of open homosexuality in the U.S. military may declare no, homosexual draftees will act just as their fellow “straight” draftees will act. They won't like serving in the military, but they will serve. To this I say no, homosexual draftees will not act in the same way. For how does a homosexual openly declare that he or she is “gay?” Do they make up a sign that states they are homosexual? Do they perhaps circulate a letter? Do they gain control of the media in the military and announce they are homosexual? Exactly how does a homosexual openly show or display that he or she is gay? They will do it through their actions. And of what will those actions consist? They will consist of performing homosexual acts with their fellow gays. What is a homosexual act? It always means a sexual act. It means nothing else. But the advocates of open homosexuality in the military want and demand nothing less then the full and open acceptance by the military of homosexuals performing their sexual acts in public. If the reader does not believe this, he or she is urged to Google “Homosexuals' U.S. Military Agenda.”

It all boils down to this: If the policy of the military changes to an open acceptance of homosexuality, then homosexuals will openly practice their acts in a wartime zone. Straights will object to homosexuals openly engaging in sexual acts, indeed being in their presence.. It will distract them from their main task—watching out for and engaging the enemy. If the straight reader were in the military in a combat zone would he or she want to be in close proximity to a homosexual? Would they want to be forced to associate with them? Congregate with them? Forced to be close to them as they engaged each other in sexual acts? Some may say that straight soldiers shouldn't object to homosexuals being in close proximity to them. But they will object. That is the problem. The radicals would say that straight soldiers should be given sensitivity training with both homosexuals and women in combat situations. I say maybe they should be given sensitivity training with the enemy.. See how silly it is.

The vast majority of soldiers in combat situations do not engage in any acts they know will distract themselves or their fellow soldiers from their main purpose. Most straight men and women in combat situations will vehemently oppose homosexuals engaging in open sexual actions. They will cause homosexuals to be forcibly removed from their presence. Some may say,why that isn't fair! They should accept homosexuals in their ranks. I say no, it isn't fair. But the military isn't fair! Its job is not to ensure that certain soldiers' feelings are not hurt. Its job is to kill the enemy. I can state without reservation that the potential for violence is great if straight men and women are forced to associate with homosexuals or be in close proximity to them. If the reader says that isn't right, that straight soldiers shouldn't be that way, I say but they will be.

If homosexuals were on the battlefield or in a wartime situation, how would they act and react if homosexuality was openly accepted as policy? Put directly, I assert that homosexuals would openly engage each other in homosexual acts. Would this affect themselves and their fellow straight military men and women in their effectiveness on the battlefield? I believe it would.

This writer has experience with the military, having been drafted and served two years in the U.S. army. I was in a combat zone. I saw no sexual acts being practiced openly. I saw no wild parties being held among my fellow GIs. There were two homosexual soldiers in my outfit. They furtively practiced sexual acts with each other. They were eventually forcibly removed from the presence of other GIs. The other soldiers felt distracted from their main objective.

If homosexuality is openly accepted in the military, it will be practiced openly. It will be practiced on the battlefield and in any wartime situation. It will detract from the aim and attention of military men and women to their main purpose: fighting. Does the reader think the writer exaggerates? I do not. I state unequivocally if homosexuals in the military are openly allowed to practice their homosexuality in public and in a wartime situation, it will result in many U.S. soldiers being killed because it will detract from their main goal and take their attention away from the enemy. Does any American want that on their conscience? Perhaps the radicals who are pushing the idea of homosexuals being allowed to openly practice sexual acts want that on their conscience. If they had a conscience, which I doubt they do.

Leaders in the U.S. military have advocated that more study needs to be done of the effect on the military of open homosexuality in its ranks. They have advised caution. I trust military leaders in this situation. The problem is that the radicals will not wait for more study. They are demanding in an increasingly strident tone that open homosexuality be accepted by the military now. Never before has the U.S. military been placed in such a defensive posture concerning homosexuals serving in its ranks.

Given the strength and speed of the radicals in pushing their agenda, it is likely that it will be accepted and put into effect in the military. The result will be the deaths of U.S. soldiers. The result will be disorganization, indeed even chaos. The result will be the weakening of the U.S. military. Its ineffectiveness as a fighting force will increase. Perhaps this is what the radicals want.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The main reason that the U.S. military is opposed to instituting the draft is because it knows that draftees' first and most important attachment and allegiance is to their home and their loved ones and families. It is not to the military or to their country. It is all well and good to say that the U.S. military is composed of an all-volunteer force now; but that may change in the future. The draft may be instituted again. What will happen then? If open homosexuality is accepted as policy by the military, the draft will not change that policy; it will remain in effect. Homosexuals will be drafted. They will demand that they be allowed to congregate, and to bed with their partners, and engage each other in sexual situations out in the open.. And that “right” will be accepted and instituted by the military.

Homosexuals will be drafted whether or not they can serve openly. You still have not said how homosexual men sleeping with each other will be a detriment to our military. And, what do you mean by "out in the open"? Do you envision gay men just having sex in front of everyone? I'm not sure if you know this, but the vast majority of homosexuals, like heterosexuals, prefer to have sex in private.


Some may object and say that homosexuals can serve in the military and not be in combat zones. What! Are homosexuals going to be given preferential treatment? Or some may state that homosexuals can serve in combat zones and they will not engage in open homosexual acts. I assert that if homosexuals are allowed to openly serve in combat situations that they will indeed engage each other in sexual acts, in foxholes, in bunkers, anywhere they congregate.

Proof? A homosexual's libido is no stronger than a heterosexual. Do you honestly homosexuals will just be having sex in front of everyone?


Proponents of open homosexuality in the U.S. military may declare no, homosexual draftees will act just as their fellow “straight” draftees will act. They won't like serving in the military, but they will serve. To this I say no, homosexual draftees will not act in the same way. For how does a homosexual openly declare that he or she is “gay?” Do they make up a sign that states they are homosexual? Do they perhaps circulate a letter? Do they gain control of the media in the military and announce they are homosexual? Exactly how does a homosexual openly show or display that he or she is gay?

The repeal of DADT does not mean homosexuals will have to declare they are gay. It means they do not have to deny they are gay if they are queried. The way it was before, if a gay man "came out," which could simply be answering "yes" of a fellow soldier asked him if he was gay, he could be, and in many cases was, dishonorably discharged from the military. This is wrong.

I've met plenty of gay people, and I can assure you they don't walk around telling everyone they're gay, just as straight people don't tell everyone they're straight. Many even still prefer to hide their homosexuality by choice, and I'm sure it will remain this way in the military for quite some time, as no law will erase the personal prejudices of people.

All the repeal of DADT does is make it so a heterosexual can not be punished for being a homosexual. If you think this is wrong, that's your problem.


They will do it through their actions. And of what will those actions consist? They will consist of performing homosexual acts with their fellow gays.

Yeah, and straight men and women never do this in the military. :frown2:

What is a homosexual act? It always means a sexual act. It means nothing else. But the advocates of open homosexuality in the military want and demand nothing less then the full and open acceptance by the military of homosexuals performing their sexual acts in public. [/quote]

Yeah, because I always see gay men having sex in public. It happens all the time!:skep:


If the reader does not believe this, he or she is urged to Google “Homosexuals' U.S. Military Agenda.”

Again, you're making the claims, it's your job to prove them, not the reader's.


It all boils down to this: If the policy of the military changes to an open acceptance of homosexuality, then homosexuals will openly practice their acts in a wartime zone.

Proof?


Straights will object to homosexuals openly engaging in sexual acts, indeed being in their presence.. It will distract them from their main task—watching out for and engaging the enemy. If the straight reader were in the military in a combat zone would he or she want to be in close proximity to a homosexual? Would they want to be forced to associate with them? Congregate with them? Forced to be close to them as they engaged each other in sexual acts?

It would not bother me in any way, no.


Some may say that straight soldiers shouldn't object to homosexuals being in close proximity to them. But they will object. That is the problem. The radicals would say that straight soldiers should be given sensitivity training with both homosexuals and women in combat situations. I say maybe they should be given sensitivity training with the enemy.. See how silly it is.

So, gays are the enemy?


The vast majority of soldiers in combat situations do not engage in any acts they know will distract themselves or their fellow soldiers from their main purpose.

So why would homosexuals?


Most straight men and women in combat situations will vehemently oppose homosexuals engaging in open sexual actions.

As they should. Open sexual actions are not appropriate for homosexuals or heterosexuals.


They will cause homosexuals to be forcibly removed from their presence. Some may say,why that isn't fair! They should accept homosexuals in their ranks. I say no, it isn't fair. But the military isn't fair! Its job is not to ensure that certain soldiers' feelings are not hurt. Its job is to kill the enemy. I can state without reservation that the potential for violence is great if straight men and women are forced to associate with homosexuals or be in close proximity to them. If the reader says that isn't right, that straight soldiers shouldn't be that way, I say but they will be.

Proof? Anyways, they already do serve in close proximity with them.


If homosexuals were on the battlefield or in a wartime situation, how would they act and react if homosexuality was openly accepted as policy? Put directly, I assert that homosexuals would openly engage each other in homosexual acts.

I literally laughed out loud. At this point, this whole argument has gotten ridiculous.


Would this affect themselves and their fellow straight military men and women in their effectiveness on the battlefield? I believe it would.

"Believe" being the key word here.


This writer has experience with the military, having been drafted and served two years in the U.S. army. I was in a combat zone. I saw no sexual acts being practiced openly. I saw no wild parties being held among my fellow GIs. There were two homosexual soldiers in my outfit. They furtively practiced sexual acts with each other. They were eventually forcibly removed from the presence of other GIs. The other soldiers felt distracted from their main objective.

So, your one personal, isolated experience is an example of how things would work throughout the whole military?


Perhaps the radicals who are pushing the idea of homosexuals being allowed to openly practice sexual acts want that on their conscience. If they had a conscience, which I doubt they do.

No one wants anyone, gay or straight, openly practicing sexual acts in the military. What an asburd assertion.

Though, I'm glad you're finally getting to the ad hominems. I new they'd show up eventually.


Leaders in the U.S. military have advocated that more study needs to be done of the effect on the military of open homosexuality in its ranks. They have advised caution. I trust military leaders in this situation.

Why don't you trust the ones who are advocates for DADT?


The problem is that the radicals will not wait for more study. They are demanding in an increasingly strident tone that open homosexuality be accepted by the military now. Never before has the U.S. military been placed in such a defensive posture concerning homosexuals serving in its ranks.

There will never be enough study for those who are against DADT. John McCain is a perfect example. He said if people in the military wanted to repeal DADT, he would be for it. When those people did, he said there needed to be studies. Now that there have been studies, those haven't been good enough. It will never be enough, because the truth is people like you just simply don't want gays serving open in the military. Whether or not it actually would be a detriment to the military is irrelevant.


Given the strength and speed of the radicals in pushing their agenda, it is likely that it will be accepted and put into effect in the military. The result will be the deaths of U.S. soldiers. The result will be disorganization, indeed even chaos. The result will be the weakening of the U.S. military. Its ineffectiveness as a fighting force will increase. Perhaps this is what the radicals want.

Not once in this whole little rant of yours did you present anything beyond speculation. This was a very weak argument.

[Lokasenna]

This thread, and the other thread that precedes it, are clearly offensive. This is blatant homophobia.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This thread, and the other thread that precedes it, are clearly offensive. This is blatant homophobia.

I know. I shouldn't have acknowledged it so throughly, but I always like arguing with the irrational. I guess I'm masochistic like that.

If these threads have done anything, though, they have shown what kind of person Mr. Melson is.

Also, Mr. Melson, if you do want to have a conversation about this, you should probably make your two posts into a blog, as these will undoubtedly be locked, as they should be since it is a clear violation of the "no political discussions" rule and has a vast amount of potential to offend many people.

[Jassy Melson]

So now, I have been called idiotic and homophoic. Both are absurd and I see no reason to continue this argument. My opinions are clearly stated in the post I made. If someone would like to write a counter-argument to mine without resorting to insulting personal attacks, that would be great. But I doubt that will happen. It seems that certain people have the idea that you can call a person a certain name and that somehow dismnisses his or her argument. It's ridiculous.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I've edited my posts, happy? Anyways, I'll quote your personal attack, which seems more offensive. And saying you're homophobic isn't a personal attack. It seem more of a factual observation. Anyways:


Perhaps the radicals who are pushing the idea of homosexuals being allowed to openly practice sexual acts want that on their conscience. If they had a conscience, which I doubt they do.

Anyways, I just think you're using the personal attacks, or what you perceive to be personal attacks, as an excuse to avoid arguing your weak points.

It's ironic, though, seeing as your whole OP is a personal attack against a whole group of people.

[MarkBastable]

I think what you're actually against is promiscuity in the military. Which may be fair enough, but it's not the preserve of homosexuals.

If I can manage to work with women (all of whom, it goes without saying, fancy me uncontrollably) without taking them roughly over a desk while at a client site, I don't see why serving miltary personnel shouldn't be able to exercise the same restraint.

[MANICHAEAN]

Mark
Hats off. You always get to the crux of an argument.
M.

[Jassy Melson]

Keep those cards and letters coming in, folks. I love it when something I write evokes feelings from readers. Even the negative insulting personal attacks on me are okay, because it shows that I have evoked a feeling from that person.

[MANICHAEAN]

Jassy.
There is no such thing as a negative virtue with regard to self expression. Keep writing.
M

[MarkBastable]

Keep those cards and letters coming in, folks. I love it when something I write evokes feelings from readers. Even the negative insulting personal attacks on me are okay, because it shows that I have evoked a feeling from that person.

A bit one-way though, isn't it? I mean, this is a discussion forum, not - in this part of the forest at least - a test-ground for provocative writing.

So I'd say it's incumbent upon you to discuss, rather than to so loftily permit us our feelings, lovely though it is of you to extend your largesse in this generous way.

[Lokasenna]

So now, I have been called idiotic and homophoic. Both are absurd and I see no reason to continue this argument.

Let's have a look, shall we?


The radicals know that if open homosexuality is accepted as policy in the U.S. military that the first and most important allegiance and attachment of homosexuals will be to their homosexual partners, not to the military or to their country. Homosexuals will congregate, and demand to be able to bed with their partners. The U.S. military will have no choice but to allow this to happen, because it will be the policy of it to accept open homosexuality.

This is statement is based on absolutely nothing. Are being gay and being patriotic/professional mutually exclusive? It is derogatory and grossly insulting. It is homophobic.


It will do this because the first and most important attachment and allegiance of homosexuals will be to fellow homosexuals and to their partners. It will not be to their “outfit,” or to the military in general. Some will say no, this will not occur, that homosexuals' foremost allegiance and attachment will be to their country's defense and to the U.S. military.

These nearly identical comment to the last one deserves the same contempt. It is homophobic.


They will demand that they be allowed to congregate, and to bed with their partners, and engage each other in sexual situations out in the open.. And that “right” will be accepted and instituted by the military.


They will no more engage in "sexual situations out in the open" than a heterosexual couple will - these are covered by public decency laws. As for congregating and bedding, they have (quite rightly) that legal right outside of the military - why should that be denied to them within it? It is homophobic.


I assert that if homosexuals are allowed to openly serve in combat situations that they will indeed engage each other in sexual acts, in foxholes, in bunkers, anywhere they congregate.

I'm sure they will be more interested in the people shooting at them. And again, you are making a general assumption about promiscuity among gay men. It is homophobic.


For how does a homosexual openly declare that he or she is “gay?” Do they make up a sign that states they are homosexual? Do they perhaps circulate a letter? Do they gain control of the media in the military and announce they are homosexual? Exactly how does a homosexual openly show or display that he or she is gay? They will do it through their actions. And of what will those actions consist? They will consist of performing homosexual acts with their fellow gays. What is a homosexual act? It always means a sexual act. It means nothing else.

This is abominable. Have you ever actually met a gay person? Your ignorance is shocking. If, in conversation, a person's sexuality is mentioned at all, it is usually a comment along the lines of "my boyfriend thinks..." or "I was with my girlfriend the other day...". Are you seriously suggesting that all homosexual men will try to declare their sexuality by attempting to have sex with every other man in sight? I'm almost at a loss for words as to how to respond to this. I have numerous gay friends, and not one of them has ever behaved inappropriately with me - it is the universal, civilised quality of mutual human respect. Homosexual people are as "normal" as heterosexual people. To infer otherwise is homophobic.


Straights will object to homosexuals openly engaging in sexual acts, indeed being in their presence.. It will distract them from their main task—watching out for and engaging the enemy. If the straight reader were in the military in a combat zone would he or she want to be in close proximity to a homosexual? Would they want to be forced to associate with them? Congregate with them? Forced to be close to them as they engaged each other in sexual acts?

I'm straight. I have lots of gay friends. I have lots of straight friends who are also friends with my gay friends. In a military setting, I would have absolutely no objection to fighting alongside homosexual allies. If a soldier does have an issue with gay allies, that is his problem, not their's. By asserting this position, you reveal your own homophobia.


I say maybe they should be given sensitivity training with the enemy..

I agree with MM's point - gay people are the enemy, are they?


The vast majority of soldiers in combat situations do not engage in any acts they know will distract themselves or their fellow soldiers from their main purpose. Most straight men and women in combat situations will vehemently oppose homosexuals engaging in open sexual actions. They will cause homosexuals to be forcibly removed from their presence. Some may say,why that isn't fair! They should accept homosexuals in their ranks. I say no, it isn't fair. But the military isn't fair! Its job is not to ensure that certain soldiers' feelings are not hurt. Its job is to kill the enemy. I can state without reservation that the potential for violence is great if straight men and women are forced to associate with homosexuals or be in close proximity to them. If the reader says that isn't right, that straight soldiers shouldn't be that way, I say but they will be.

Again, this a problem with the straight folk, not the other way round. They need to get over their homophobia. It's childish, and above all hateful.


If homosexuals were on the battlefield or in a wartime situation, how would they act and react if homosexuality was openly accepted as policy? Put directly, I assert that homosexuals would openly engage each other in homosexual acts. Would this affect themselves and their fellow straight military men and women in their effectiveness on the battlefield? I believe it would.


You're spewing the same stuff over and over. And it's still poisonously homophobic.


This writer has experience with the military, having been drafted and served two years in the U.S. army. I was in a combat zone. I saw no sexual acts being practiced openly. I saw no wild parties being held among my fellow GIs. There were two homosexual soldiers in my outfit. They furtively practiced sexual acts with each other. They were eventually forcibly removed from the presence of other GIs. The other soldiers felt distracted from their main objective.

This is disgusting. You, and your cohorts, should be ashamed of yourselves. If they wanted to conduct a relationship privately, that was their business, and you had absolutely no right to interfere. And how does their furtiveness square with your insistence that open sexual acts are all that gay men are capable of?

This is ignorant and prejudiced homophobia. There is not one valid point in your entire hateful diatribe. I'm going to wrap up now, as I'm having difficulty containing my anger.

[Jassy Melson]

Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals and homosexuality. Show me anywhere in my article where I express fear of homosexuals and homosexuality. Your "accusations" of homophobia are ridiculous.

[MarkBastable]

Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals and homosexuality. Show me anywhere in my article where I express fear of homosexuals and homosexuality. Your "accusations" of homophobia are ridiculous.

Do you think you could answer my point, concerning promiscuity?

[Jassy Melson]

I will answer by saying I don't agree with your statement.

[MarkBastable]

I will answer by saying I don't agree with your statement.

Well, it's difficult to see what there is to disgree with. It can only be that you think homosexuals are less able to contain their libidinous urges than heterosexuals.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If you're not even going to acknowledge other people's points, I'm just going to report this and have done with it.

[Scheherazade]

If you are not willing to receive criticism and/or have your views questioned,

please refrain from posting in the Forums.


And, as always, please feel free to ignore those discussions that are disagreeable to you personally.