And I imagine it would be so with many of those who currently serve. I believe that it will affect a unit's ability to get its job done effectively.
While I admit that there are some who would have a problem with it, most people don't care. Even the most conservative of people don't care. I have only met one person in my short 6 months at USMA who is entirely against gays serving, and he doesn't want to go into a combat branch.
One thing you will learn as you meet more gays is that they really are no different than straights. They just have different sexual attractions.
I understand what you're saying. However DADT didn't really allow gays to serve. It allowed them to not be denied from service right away. It was a compromise to go from "You can't serve" to "If you can keep us from knowing then we don't care."
Hypothetical: How do you know that some homophobe Marine might not snap on an openly gay Marine, and during a firefight and they start arguing, no matter who's fault it is, that is a distinct possibility. Say that homophobe is killed by standing up arguing? ... Maybe his religion prohibits homosexuality?
I interpret "snap on" as friendly fire.
As a future MP (hopefully) I find it absolutely abhorrent that any service member would willing fire upon his comrades. In fact, I hold such strong views on it that I see it as treason against the United States. Such a person, who would betray his country and his unit by murdering a fellow service member does not deserve to be in the service in the first place. Chances are that such a person has a psychological problem and is definitely not the norm.
I have not been in combat, so I don't know. But I worked in law enforcement for 3 years. I was once in a shooting with one of my partners. During that situation while I was helping coordinate radio traffic, it didn't occur to me that my partner might be gay. In fact, I've never heard of anyone in a life or death situation stop to argue anything let alone sexuality.
Maybe his religion does. My religion does. However there is a fine line between prohibiting the act, and working with people who commit the act. My religion also prohibits, alcoholism and fornication/promiscuity. It doesn't mean I'm not going to work with the soldiers around me who might have a drinking problem or who might have had sex before marriage. And I certainly am not going to stop to consider that while we're fighting a combat mission.
Beyond that, no religion prohibits you from working with people don't follow the religion. If it does, then such a person should not be working in a dynamic and diverse environment such as the military.
I really have no problem with gays as I stated way back in this thread, my argument has branched off toward the General Amos flaming...
Understood. And I'm fine with the fact that he disagrees or even if he is reporting what Marines have told him. Our very own General Casey stated that he doesn't think we should implement repeal at this time.
The difference is that Gen. Casey did not say that soldiers will die because of it. He didn't say "Down at Keller, there are injured soldiers. I don't want to have to go visit soldiers that were injured because of this distraction. I don't want soldiers dying because of this distraction."
I'm fine with Amos disagreeing, even publicly. My disagreement is with the actual content of his statement, not the fact that he made it. It is simply wrong to say that people will die because of this "distraction." I honestly do believe that to say such insults our military and does not present a clear and accurate picture of how troops on the ground feel.
Flyboy you have yet to serve as an AD member, but I will say that comment is completely false.
Nobody gives a rats behind if you are homosexual, heterosexual, female, male, black, white, Native India, etc when bullets start flying. All they care about is you cover their 6.
I would second this. Most people don't care as long as the person can do their job and (obviously) as long as the person keeps to the same rules of sexual harassment/assault that everyone is held to.
Being homosexual is a lifestyle choice, something that is chosen. Too many people try to compare gays and lesbians to African Americans, Women, and other minorities, when it's undoubtedly different.
While there is speculation on whether being gay is genetic or not, there isn't speculation on whether someone is African American or a female.
Isn't part of toleration being able to handle differing view points? Something that I think is forgotten by too many pro-gay activists and supporters.
I completely agree with you that it is different from being black or female.
However, I would be doing an injustice to those who have committed suicide or attempt suicide because of their sexuality if I did not say that you are entirely wrong that being gay is a choice.
There are plenty of gays who
do not want to have homosexual attractions. They fight against it, they resist it, and they try not to give in because they, for whatever reason (usually religious), do not want to be gay.
I was once of the opinion that it was a choice, then I got to work in suicide prevention and learned my lesson. It is definitely
not a choice.
While there isn't evidence of a gay gene, it is scientifically biological (as all physical sexual attraction is). I used to compare it to liking a certain food (as most do not choose to like certain foods). However, taste in food changes.
It is more akin to being like an allergy.*** You don't choose what you're allergic to. You don't choose to have a certain reaction to stimuli that trigger an allergic reaction. You simply have that particular allergy. Similarly, you don't choose you're physically attracted to. It's a simply your biological response to external stimuli.
***I am in no way, with this comparison, trying to say that homosexuality is like a disease or allergy that should be cured or treated with medicine.