If a General's Family is Attacked by a Terrorist, what if their rescuer was a Gay man?

Question

Listening to the Republican Debate, one of the questions concerned Gays serving in the military. Not one Candidate welcomed Gays in the Military, although John McCain and Romney approved Don't Ask Don't Tell. Huckabee and other candidates said they did not approve of this at all, because of the disruptive behavior that might ensue.

I just wondered if Huckabee's family or any military General's family were attacked by a terrorist, would they turn away a Gay man trying to rescue them? Would they fear contamination of their children, or "disruptive behavior," or would they thank God that this man was heroic enough to risk his life for their families? Just wondering!

Answer 1

If the rescuer told the General he was gay, then I guess they would turn him away.

In a time of war, the armed services are discharging on average 2 people every day because of their sexual orientation. It just doesn't make sense.

Answer 2

The main thing with Gays in the Army is if you have high testosterone males in a force, and then throw women in with them. Lets say a man that's pretty stressed over being shelled in a fox hole has a female with him?

And yes things like that happen, if at times civilians are raped, why not women in the same force? Even the Russians in WW2 had huge problems with soldier rape. And could you imagine the discipline problems if men where whistling and goggling at the women and not following orders? Not to mention emotional attachment given the attack. After all if ones significant other is under fire, he is far more likely to save that one person and likely fail, than do his duty.

Now replace the woman with a man, and the normal men with flamboyantly gay men. Also most gay men have a gender imbalance in there mind and may be to "soft" for the horrors of combat. Even in the push button age, men still must drive bayonets into the chest of his fellow man. And then kick him, off sling the blood off and repeat.

Civilians don't understand military things and are often out for number one. Soldiers put the nation and the team well before themselves, your hypothetical situations is a perfect example of Civilian interference that has resulted in the weakening of Western Military might.

Answer 3

I'm sure that is not the context in which the question would be asked. Surely the family would appreciate the help and classify that man rightly as a hero. But in a large scale operation with hundreds of thousands of men in close proximity, a gay man would have many more physical temptations than a straight man would. And it would not be like separating men and women, since gay and straight are both men, they would house and shower together. Thus it would lead to large scale disruptions in morale and attitudes.

Answer 4

This is just a stupid question.

You do realize that heterosexual soldiers have as many restrictions on their sex life as homosexuals do.

I've seen many, many, many more soldiers get slammed for heterosexual violations of the UCMJ (adultery, unlawful carnal knowledge, et al) than slammed for being gay. By several orders of magnitude, and before the leniency of 'dont ask, dont tell'.

Don't be such a pussy. If you want to serve, understand that there are places and activities that are off-limits -- just as they are off-limits for heterosexual soldiers.

Is isn't the performance of duty of an individual soldier that keeps gay men out of the military, as your questions suggests. It is the good order and discipline of the unit that is the problem. It is unreasonable to allow 1 soldier to make 99 uncomfortable, no matter how good a soldier he is.

Answer 5

The question you should be asking is how will you replace the people who either choose not to join military service or choose not to re-enlist if you allow in open homosexuals.

The fact of the matter is that the people who agree with your political opinions are not the ones willing to protect you.

Answer 6

i did not listen to the republican debate, but I know that they were spewing the same *bs* that goes with any political debate. The Evil Vice President's Daughter is gay and you do not hear him either for or against the issue. the point is that the Republican candidated are a bunch of hipocrates. Get them off the record in honest and candid conversation and I bet they would not surprise you about their feelings concerning the gay issue either way. They would just as easily shake a gays hand as the hand of a heterosaxual. So the issue really is not one of for or against Gays serving openly in the military, but a question of what happens to be the most politically popular issue to beat on at the time. Since this is the season of the presidential elections, everything is politically popular to everyone right now.

Now, if a general's famly is rescued by someone that happens to declare themselves gay, I do not think the general will be thinking that at that time.

Republicans=HIPOCRACY AT ITS BEST AND WORST!!!!

Answer 7

If the Fonz could learn to be appreciatve that is was Potsie who saved him from fire, then a General could be tolerant of a gay rescuer.

Answer 8

Ask Larry Craig

Answer 9

Have you ever lived on a ship? Would you want to live in the same close quaters of a ship with a person of the same gender who was sexually attracted to you? It is a tough question.

Answer 10

any man or woman, gay or straight, volunteered for their service. Who could honestly care if the person that rescued them was gay? I understand you're point. I'm a moderate republican, but I think it's hillarious that old politicians are so out of touch with society. Why are they so afraid of gays? I'm straight, but if a guy is willing to watch my back(no pun intended,lol) so be it. It's a disgrace to all those that fought for our nation, to deny enlistment based on sexual orientation.