Wednesday, October 06, 2010

Warskyl:The New, New Army: Home for Perverts?

Thinking about enlisting? You might want to take a look at this.

We can only pray that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" does not go the way of our enemies. But, in the end, I'm afraid that even then it would only be a delay of the inevitable.

It pains me more than I can say to see what is happening to our military. It really does.

Spencer

9 comments:

olde.fashioned said...

I'm not surprised. Yet another reason to stay out of the military; sadly, it's come to that.

Nathan said...

This strikes an especially worn nerve for me because the whole gay rights issue exploded again in Utah this week (and I imagine many other places; I haven't gotten to look yet) as a result of the LGBTists getting offended over a talk in the LDS General Conference on Sunday. There have been protests, and I have seen and heard of several open letters being signed and sent to the leaders of the Church the past few days. But those things won't do any good; we're not going to be like, "Oh yeah, you know, the Lord said this, but that doesn't matter. Sorry we hurt your feelings." It doesn't work that way. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah!

The Warrior said...

What was the talk, bud? I'd like to hear/see it.

And thanks for your comments. You're right on the button on this one.

Nathan said...

http://new.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng&media=video

Jonas said...

Not going into the whole "is it right or wrong to be LGBT", do you think a man would be a worse soldier for being homosexual?

The People's Will said...

It is very dangerous for any nation's military to get tangled up in what should be strictly civilian concerns. As mentioned, it must discriminate to function. If (and I don't know whether it is the case or not, but I would imagine so) most members of the US military are comitted Christians, then open homosexuality seems bound to cause problems. Imagine, analagously, how the effectiveness of the Taliban would be nullified if they started recruiting non-Islamists. However, your military has massively bigger problems to deal with than 'don't ask, don't tell', as does ours in the UK. It's designed to fight Russia in Europe, and that's just not going to happen any time soon. The US military would better serve itself and its country by focusing on adapting its structure to post-conflict and guerilla warfare situations, two things which in Iraq and Afghanistan it has demonstrated that it is woefully bad at, than worrying about gays.

The Warrior said...

Some good points, TPW. Thanks for stopping by, I always appreciate your comments!

Jonas, good question, thanks for posing it. While I'm not the best qualified person to answer, here's an off-the-cuff (so don't take it so seriously, haha):

One, an army largely comprised of males is going to have conflict when male-loving males enter the scene (we shouldn't have women in the armed forces either). I don't think most homosexuals have the mettle, either; I mean, so many of them are more "girly" than girls! The lifestyle and sexual habits of homosexuals are also unnatural and unhealthy, not to mention prone to disease (even forgetting AIDS and HIV). Now with a guy bleeding out on the field....

Just the first few I could think of. Anyone else?

Nathan said...

Not going into the whole "is it right or wrong to be LGBT", do you think a man would be a worse soldier for being homosexual?

I love a good, thought-provoking question. I'm no expert, myself, but moral position aside, my own answer to this particular question would have more to do with the group than the individual.

Assuming a homosexual soldier is equally as good at his job as a heterosexual one, my view is that a major issue would simply be unity within the group. I believe that the military is at its best when the soldiers are united in and focused on the same purpose. Even in civilian circles, word can spread quickly when someone is found to be gay, and with the way society is, anything different like that can distract people from the real matter at hand (especially considering the fact that there are still many in the military who are opposed to homosexuality, whether morally or otherwise).

In other words, I think that if there is a group of soldiers and maybe one or two of them happen to be gay, and the rest of the squad knows about it, that could possibly be a detriment to the mission at hand because those opposed to homosexuality will have that stigma hindering them to some degree from truly standing strong with their gay comrades as a brotherhood of soldiers. Even if they want to be united, it's likely something a lot of them would struggle with. And in the case of a battlefield, that can easily mean the difference between victory and defeat, life and death.

Just my (in no way professional) two cents. :)

Jonas said...

"One, an army largely comprised of males is going to have conflict when male-loving males enter the scene (we shouldn't have women in the armed forces either)."

That's a point. I do think he could have the mettle though; consider for example Afghanistan, where he'd probably get brutally executed for his homosexuality, in contrast to America where he's tolerated (if not liked) - that could breed quite the motivation for fighting for his country and its ideals, wouldn't you think?