Top general calls homosexuality 'immoral'

georgeob1 wrote:

I would be interested to know just how much experience onboard submarines and aircraft carriers those of you who comment so knowingly really have.

Problems arising from sexual liaisions (straight or gay) among partners in law firms, analysts in investment banks and even coworkers in offices are common enough already, Many require action by the organization or firm to undue the damage done. I have experienced these issues in the consulting business I run. Now imagine that the physical environment has been made much more physically confining and isolated from the world; that the work, social and, in effect family lives of the participants have been combined to a 24/7 situation; that the work group is very young and understandably lacking in maturity; and that there can be great operational and national consequences of their collective performance of a sometimes very difficult operational role. Now ask yourself if this combination of circumstances might create conditions to which your ordinary intuition just might not be particularly applicable.

I don't disagree with this; I was just wondering if you could forsee a time in which we can deal with these issues without forcing ourselves to segregate.

I don't have any personal, first-hand knowledge, so let me Appeal to Authority: Can you tell us, George, what you know about the procedures that are in place on Aircraft carriers and Subs? It would be helpful to the conversation.

(I don't even know if they have mixed sub crews....)

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I've only been for six days on a sub - we didn't and don't have aircraft carriers. (And didn't have female soldiers in those days.)

The longest I've been on board without going on land with a little than three weeks.

0 Replies

Retired gay officers demand Pace apology, repeal of law by Andrew Bielak
Published: Friday March 16, 2007

Days after General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, created a minor firestorm when he justified his support for the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy by describing homosexuality as "immoral," a group of seven high-ranking veterans responded this morning with a call for Pace to apologize and for Congress to repeal the policy.

"Our community has a long history of serving our country in the armed forces," the group said in a joint statement. "Today, there are more than 65,000 lesbian and gay troops on duty. Another one million gay and lesbian veterans, including the seven of us, have served in our fighting forces. General Pace's remarks dishonor that service, as does the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law. General Pace must offer an immediate and unqualified apology for his remarks and Congress must take action to repeal the ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans who want to serve our country."

The veterans, who have all served atleast 20 years, "have earned scores of awards, honors and commendations during their careers," the US Newsire reports.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Retired_gay_officers_demand_Pace_apology_0316.html

0 Replies

Neither women nor known gays are assigned to submarines. Indeed a good deal of psychological and operational screening, and selective disqualification, goes into such assignments

The carrier I commanded had no women permanently assigned, though today such assignments are done routinely. I do know that to accomodate women in the crew, and the lower density and segregated berthing they required, the Navy had to reconfigure the carriers, eliminating one of the onboard squadrons -- a fairly significant reductiion in the combat capability of the ship - one that I am confident we would quickly abandon in a serious, protracted war. I have heard that the new arrangement works OK and there are real benefits from the greatly expanded pool of talent from which they can select. However, the incidence of the all-too-common headaches is high, and that there are costs in mitigating them. The political aspects of the issue make it unlikely that the Navy would ever voice any disagreement with the current policy, even if they opposed it.

0 Replies

From a report from 2000

Quote:

In May 1998, Britain permitted women to take command of warships in the royal navy. Similarly, the United States gradually has placed women in charge of secondary surface-warfare ships, including the guided-missile frigate Jarrett (piloted by Cmdr. Kathleen McGrath beginning in December 1998). The Australian navy has incorporated females into its submarine fleet. In 1998, 10 Australian women sailors and one officer commenced Collins-class submarine training and qualified during the spring of 1999. In Sweden, women have been serving on submarines for more than 10 years and have had no significant resultant problems. Privacy issues are managed by discipline rather than by reconstructing submarine space; women and men make due with the available room. And in the royal Norwegian navy, a woman already has commanded a submarine. In all cases, going coed has not reduced operational effectiveness. Rather, the reverse is tree.

0 Replies

I don't think the operations of the coastal Australian, Swedish, or Norwegian diesel submarine forces are at all like those of our long-range nuclear submarines. Can't speak for the British.

Again, I believe that under the current prevailing political views, no one is likely to object -- no matter what they really think.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't think the operations of the coastal Australian, Swedish, or Norwegian diesel submarine forces are at all like those of our long-range nuclear submarines.

Okay, an endurance of 50 or perhaps 60 days isn't that much.

(The 212 type can do 3 weeks without snorkeling, 12 weeks overall, btw :wink: )

0 Replies

But that isn't the way they really operate and you know that.

0 Replies

But I really had liked to have females on board :wink:

0 Replies

Me too. However I found my point of view changed considerably from when I was a junior officer to when I became Captain.

That is the hell of it ! Cool

0 Replies

Well, you know my opinion and it is a civilian one; I'll grant that there is room for argument about submarines, or some submarines at some time. Walter's quote is interesting, and to me points the way ahead.

However, I don't think that the occasional exception, if it were to be made, is a reason to have a blanket military No to people of other than, on whatever curve of sexuality, Kinsey or other, the very most heterosexual point. To continue this waste of human resources, this denial of opportunity to non heterosexuals, even the civil right to serve one's country... as a policy - seems incredibly foolish. Some could even call it immoral but I won't go there with the moral making. All these raucous uncontrollable twenty year olds need to be raised without repulsion or fear of their fellow citizens.

Perhaps the virulently biased are the folks who should be kept out.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I've only been for six days on a sub - we didn't and don't have aircraft carriers. (And didn't have female soldiers in those days.)

The longest I've been on board without going on land with a little than three weeks.

We routinely went over 100 days at a stretch without seeing dry land. Three weeks is more than enough to max out the horniness factor; but 100 days can create its own kind of desperation. I have memories of the port visits to Bancock, Phouket, Hongkong, Subic Bay and Perth that punctuated these cruises.

0 Replies

With the only "ship" I ever really commanded (that is as 'captain'), I was glad not to be farer away from land than 30 mins Laughing

(I've been 1st mate on the German navy's aircraft carrier, though: on several LCM's: carried once a complete [sic!] helicopter. :wink: )

0 Replies

The Article of War, 1806 (found at a web site of the 91st Pennsylvania) does not mention homosexuality, nor sodomy, nor any type of "sexual crime." There are 101 articles in those Articles of War, and where they do not refer specifically to uniquely military concerns, simply refer to violations of the laws of the locality in which a military post is located. They applied to the army, the marine corps and the navy.

The Articles of War were not revised until the eve of the Great War, more than a century later--i've not been able to find a copy of that version of the Articles of War, but i assure that they do not refer to homosexuality, either. The Articles of War were replaced in 1951 by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

As George points out, sexual relations among serving members of the armed forces at any time and under any circumstance can be antithetical to good discipline and order, and it is completely within reason to make such a policy. However, just as the Articles of War might once have punished "sodomy" because it would have violated the local laws, but that is no longer so--i consider it reasonable that even though policies might once prohibited homosexuals serving, the change in social attitudes mean that such policies should no longer exist.

Where troops are not serving in harm's way, nor at sea, there is no reason for their officers to inquire into their behavior when off duty. When members of the military are at sea, or going in harm's way, sexual liaisons, whether hetero- or homosexual, are reasonably prohibited, as destructive of good order.

This clown Pace is probably a narrow-minded, right-wing putz--but so long as he preforms his duty as he is required to do, and does not actively challenge the policies which are imposed by his civilian masters, he has every right to hold the opinions he has expressed, and to express them.

There have been some confused contentions made here--but the fact of the matter is that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy dates from the Clinton administration, and the Chiefs of Staff of the services do not determine such policy, but are simply required to assure that such policies are put into effect--whether or not they approve. If Pace felt that he could not in good conscience do so, he should resign. Those complaining here about Pace who cannot demonstrate that he is acting against the dictates of the policies of the civilian administration to which the military is subject, really need to get a grip and lighten up.

0 Replies

I've, as said, no expertise, not one wit. My dad was a full colonel in the forties, and later head of photography at the Bikini bomb tests, a giant operation at that time. It is a long term sorrow for me that he is not around, hasn't been for four decades, for me to talk with about this present matter and much else. I'm not military-hostile by definition... but have ideas on its actions, the decision making, at different times.

As a woman of my time, I see the no ask no tell stuff as retrograde, even if that itself was much of an improvement over what my previously described friend went through, also about forty years ago.

0 Replies

I agree with you, Set.

On Pace and his backing of the no tell, etc. policy, I see that as reasonable for him in his position, given his charge. I don't have to like it, but I see it as an understandable position.

On his view of homosexual activity as immoral, that is his right to maintain per his conscience.

My gripe is that I don't want to hear that as Chief of Staff of the Joint Armed Services or whatever his title, he names the nature of a goodly amount of his forces as "immoral", those forces busy keeping ostensibly quiet every day, all day.

Er, button it!

0 Replies

I fully (gasp!) agree with everything Setanta wrote - a balanced and rational take on the issue.

Getting anything done in life is a series of compromises, "muddling through" in the apt British phrase. Laws and moral principles are best applied as limits or constraints on what can be done, as opposed to a literal guide as to what must be done and how to do it.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:
Well, you're wrong...without question, I would consider documents like the Koran (even Mein Kampf) as vastly superior guides for one's moral decision-making than your completely unbounded "unnecessary suffering" basis.

It is at times like these that one finds that words alone are inadequate to express the full measure of one's astonishment. And so I respond thusly:

I have a friend who ate a worm. A big, dew-drinking juicy one too. He didn't want to do it, but ended up in this uncomfortable position because of a series of claims he had made earlier which he found himself emotionally unable to rescind.

You've ended up in seriously silly country here, slkshock. Your formulation now has your own reasoning and your own capacity to make moral decisions less dependable than anything in any book which would include, as you admit, the surprising examples above but also:

Mao's Little Red Book
The Satanic Bible
Heather Has Two Mommies
The Politics of Unreason: Right Wing Extremism in America, 1790 1977
The Joys of Sodomy

0 Replies

Here are some christians who may or may not believe that homosexuality is immoral. They do, however, believe that the war in Iraq is immoral.

Quote:

Thousands of Christians Protest Iraq War
By SARAH KARUSH, Associated Press Writer
2:30 AM PDT, March 17, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Thousands of Christians prayed for peace at an anti-war service Friday night at the Washington National Cathedral, kicking off a weekend of protests around the country to mark the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq...

John Pattison, 29, said he and his wife flew in from Portland, Ore., to attend his first anti-war rally. He said his opposition to the war had developed over time.

"Quite literally on the night that shock and awe commenced, my friend and I toasted the military might of the United States," Pattison said. "We were quite proud and thought we were doing the right thing."

He said the way the war had progressed and U.S. foreign policy since then had forced him to question his beliefs.

"A lot of the rhetoric that we hear coming from Christians has been dominated by the religious right and has been strong advocacy for the war," Pattison said. "That's just not the way I read my Gospel."

The ecumenical coalition that organized the event, Christian Peace Witness for Iraq, distributed 3,200 tickets for the service in the cathedral, with two smaller churches hosting overflow crowds. The cathedral appeared to be packed, although sleet and snow prevented some from attending.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top16mar17,0,7461091.story?coll=la-ap-topnews-headlines

0 Replies

I wager that Pace had no problem with our forces leveling the city of Fallujah, a city of 300,000.

0 Replies

Top general calls homosexuality 'immoral'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know