Accodring to the military "gays" are contrary to good order and discipline. Is this true?

Question

If so how, If not how?

Answer 1

It's based on two assumptions, one false, one sadly valid.

The first assumption is that homosexuals cannot keep their hands or other body parts to themselves. So, if someone is homosexual, they are going to automatically try and make it with everyone around them. In case it's not clear, this is the invalid assumption.

The second assumption is that many other soldiers would object to serving next to a homosexual. This may be because those soldiers are making the first assumption above. Or it may be because many people simply are prejudiced and choose to hate people who have a certain characteristic, be it race or gender or sexual orientation.

Sadly, the second assumption is valid, and there are many soldiers who would object to serving with homosexuals. Just as decades ago there were many soldiers who objected to serving with women, and decades before that many soldiers who objected to serving with people of a different race.

Prejudice dies slowly. And sadly, in the modern military, it's one of the few things that does.

Answer 2

Well it's like this, I served in the military and there were some guys that people highly suspected were gay but because of the rules in the military, if they were gay they never went around bragging about it or engaging in open displays of homosexual affection. There were probably others who were gay that no one suspected. People like that didn't cause any problems with order or discipline.

But while I was at technical training school a couple of guys were caught having sex with each other in another squadron. That squadron was the butt of many jokes because men in the military are supposed to be macho fighting machines and it brought down the morale of the squadron to whom those guys belonged before getting kicked out.

Another problem with known homosexuality is that it multiplies the problem of the opportunity for discord to be sown in the ranks if a person who was say a "gay officer" and was in charge of handing out promotions seemed to favor men and especially men who were also gay.

The military isn't like a civilian job where everybody goes to their own house at the end of the day and the only workers who might get killed as a result of the job are those who get in a car wreak on their way to or from work.

People are forced to live an work in close quarters and risk their lives battling hostile forces. It's no place to experiment with political special interest games and "societal fairness" standards. If someone wants to be a soldier and they're gay then they have to keep that part of their life separate from their military service career.

Answer 3

Don't fcuking bash any "gays", I mean I am not gay, but I am all for gay rights. FYI- for over 5 yrs. the DoD has had to honorably discharge etc. over a 1000,00 of talented military personnels because of the DADT policy and it sucks for both, because you can't replace a ***** surgeon, or an intelligence officer, like you can with a driver etc. And, when you need a doctor to diagnose something or operate on you, well, he/she might not be there anymore because of that policy and they could be the ones that save your lives etc. think about it-your one man short. And, in battle it won't fcuking matter what your fcuking gender preference is, b/c all that matters is that you get the job done.

Answer 4

E-a million, E-2 etc by ability of E-9. then you really have WO-a million, WO-2 and WO-3. After that, you've O-a million, O-2 etc by ability of O-10. Now, in case you want to understand what those ability, it might want to rely upon the branch of provider you're talking about. interior the Air rigidity, you've Airman effortless, Airman, Airman first-type, Sergeant, crew Sergeant, Technical Sergeant, carry close Sergeant, Senior carry close Sergeant, and finally chief carry close Sergeant. Then the WO's or warrant officials, yet there aren't any interior the Air rigidity, changed into once, yet no longer from now on. The for officials, you've 2d Lieutenant, First Lieutenant, Captain, significant, Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel, Brigadier ordinary, significant ordinary, Lieutenant ordinary, and finally ordinary. each and every branch of the protection rigidity has their own names for each paygrade, however the paygrades are all a similar.

Answer 5

I do not believe so. Gays have had a HARD ENOUGH time without more persecution such as the BAN ON MILITARY SERVICE or the BAN ON MARRIAGE. Then, there is the gay bashing. While I am not gay, I support gay rights and have gay friends that are some of the nicest people in the world.

But, people in the military say they want people watching their ARSES and not STARING AT THEM. Why, oh why? As long as my **** is covered, I don't care WHAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION or GENDER the individual doing it is. Personally, I like having a CHICK cover my 6 and lying about it to my superior officers after the fact. But, she is hot and I love her to death and beyond.

Answer 6

Of course. For now. Not because such behavior is "evil", "nasty", or anything like that. It's just that it's a controversial subject: people get worked up about it, and that in and of itself is "contrary to good order and discipline".

Just like integrating blacks into previously all-white military units was, at the time: "contrary to good order and discipline". They got over it, and now nobody thinks anything about it. Being a good soldier is not about the color of one's shin. This has been proven conclusively.

Given some time, people will realize that being a good soldier is not about one's sexual preference. They'll get over it, in time.

Answer 7

Well thankfully, here is Britain we have grown up. It is now perfectly acceptable for Service people to declare their homosexuality. Why not? Is a Gay man more likely to hit on a Subordinate than a straight man? Of course not.
Homosexuals and Lesbians have been serving this country well under a cloak of secrecy for a long time...but not anymore! We now have people in Uniform marching in our gay Pride rallies. My husband, a Senior Officer is fully supportive of this. He needs people who are committed to the job, and has no interest in what they do in their private life, just as no one has any right to question what we do behind our bedroom door!

Answer 8

Gays are allowed to join as long as they do not say they are gay. I agree with it completely.

Think of it with this example...

I was stationed in Korea. We had to share a room with an individual with the same sex....

If I am not allowed to share a room with a female then would it be right to put me in a room with someone that was openly gay...plus I would not feel comfortable with it...

So basically the military would have to build seperate dorms on the base to house people that perfer the same sex and even then it wouldnt work cause you would have to room gay guys with gay girls. Which then you are going to run into the problem of people saying they are gay so they can room with the opposite sex....

See where Im going with this......it just couldnt work.

Answer 9

In the Canadian Armed Forces we have had Gay members marry each other. Nothing changed, no big deal. The same argument was made about people of African descent and women at different times...

Answer 10

no see what happens in reality is that many in the military or at least high up believe that gays will be distruptive to the military action in the heat of combat, thats also why they dont allow women ointo combat roles since it will distract the men fightin, or so they believe