Deleted by Hunter

I'm not really sure how being homosexual affects one's role in the army. I wonder if the officer would quit working in another institution (whether it be another government institution or a private one) if they accepted people who acknowledged that they were homosexual, or if he thinks this "standard" should just be adhered to in the armed forces.

Mind you, the officer has quite a conundrum, as he says:



and



What he is asking is that the values of his religion be adhered to (that homosexuality is not acceptable), and no one else's values. If these values were implemented by the government, this would make the government a theocracy, something the constitution specifically prohibits. So his idea of constitutional rights seems to be inconsistent with other people's constitutional rights, as well as the constitution itself.

Mind you:



He obviously has his ideas about the values that homosexuals have, as though they were part of a belief system or all had identical emotions. Bradley Manning has allegedly leaked 150,000 cables (plus 100,000 more) because of his emotions about the selfish stance of people like this officer, who believe their values include not being told that other people's value might be okay. Not really a good argument on this officer's behalf.

I believe that it wasn't until the early 1960's that blacks were allowed to serve on US Navy ships except as stewards, servants to the officers. The argument was that having blacks serving along side of whites would be damaging to morale and cause all kinds of complications. The same arguments were used later when women were alowed to serve on ships, and these arguments are now being used with regard to gays being denied equal opportunity. Is it the intention of those of you who are anti-gay to restrict only exclusively gay men and women or also bisexuals, and what about trysexuals who may very rarely engage in homosexual sex or are ambivalent about their sexuality?

McFate: "Bradley Manning has allegedly leaked 150,000 cables (plus 100,000 more) because of his emotions about the selfish stance of people like this officer, who believe their values include not being told that other people's value might be okay. Not really a good argument on this officer's behalf."

You should be working for the court system since you have such an amazing ability to determine the motivations of people involved in criminal acts.

I did my mandatory time in the military back in the early sixties. There were gays in our unit. The first clue was probably that they walked around holding hands with each other. But there was no issue made until the local police arrested them for some activity in the bathroom at the Greyhound Bus station. I didn't consider gays a problem then or now.

In my opinion, the officer who can't work with homosexuals should be released from military duty much like someone who decides he can't perform other duties. I would be one who would not serve under foreign officers or in a foreign uniform so, if faced with that, I should be relieved of my duties and given an honorable discharge.

FWIW, I found the attempts at humor in the OP tasteless.

This was the judgement of the officer quoted:

Deleted by Hunter

Nope, I have to agree with Patrick here. Maybe we live in a different Australia.

This pretended concern about “pro-homosexual indoctrination” and “compulsory behaviour modification training intended to counter religious convictions” is ridiculous.

All armies engage extensively in indoctrination of soldiers, seeking to inculcate respect for and adherence to values such as loyalty, duty, honour, obedience and comradeship, and to counter convictions – religious or otherwise – which would undermine this. One of the reasons why armies like to recruit young people is precisely that young people are more easily indoctrinated.

It defies belief to suggest that a Lieutenant-Colonel with 18 years service would be unaware of this; he must be intimately involved in it.

In fairness to him, nowhere in the quoted letter does this officer object to indoctrination or training as such. He doesn’t want to be included in the particular indoctrination/training which he expects to happen following the recent policy change, because it contradicts his personal beliefs. He doesn’t, though, suggest that the army shouldn’t engage in this indoctrination/training. He accepts that the problem is his, not the army’s, and he asks to be relieved of command, and to be posted to some other (presumably non-command) position until he completes the twenty years’ service required for retirement benefits.

He feels, in short, that he can no longer serve. While I might not approve of his reasons for being unable to serve, given the position he’s in I think he is taking ethically correct action in asking to be relieved of command.

His request to be allowed to complete another 18 months’ service in order to get retirement benefits while unable to serve in a command position is perhaps a little cheeky for a Lieutenant-Colonel. What use is a Colonel who can’t or won’t command? If, instead of suffering from homophobic convictions, he had developed pacifist convictions, would he expect to be accommodated like this? On the other hand his 18 years of service to date might entitle him to hope for some compromise from his superiors in dealing with his difficulty.

As for whether the US change in policy has any implication for Australia, I think not. Homosexuality ceased to be a disciplinary matter in the Australian defence forces twenty years ago. If the Army was going to be overrun by screaming queens, leading to the resignation of Real Men, I dare say it would have happened by now.

Deleted by Hunter

And yet more than twenty years ago the Australia defence forces made the transition which the Americans are now attempting – and they did it without “a major effect on voluntary recruitment”. So it can be done.

Bear in mind that the characterisation of what the American authorities are proposing here as “pro-homosexual indoctrination” and “behaviour modification training” comes not from the US authorities, or even from the unnamed colonel referred to in this story, but from Brian Fitzpatrick, the Worldnet Daily writer. You seem happy to circulate his views to us together with your own comments indicating that we should take his views seriously, without enquiring about his Australian Defence Force service record. I wonder why that might be?

There’s plenty of experience in defence forces around the world of this step having been taken, and successfully taken. If you know of a case where the step was taken and it did impact seriously on recruitment, morale or effectiveness, now would be a really good time to point to it. If you can’t find such a case, then I’m inclined to discount the views of Brian Fitzpatrick as simply another demonstration of the ideological prejudices about homosexuality which WorldNetDaily so consistently manifests.

Deleted by Hunter

Real world experience can include a wide range of experiences or a limited range of experiences.



You might have to define 'natural' for me? Are cars natural? Are guns natural? Is plastic natural, or mobile phones or computers or GPS devices? Are clothes natural? Do you 'accept' these things as 'natural'?

I think whether homosexuality is “natural” – whatever that means – is a bit of a red herring in the context of this discussion. Armies are not really concerned with what is natural. Long hair, after all, is perfectly natural – in fact, it requires artificial intentional intervention to prevent a young adult from having long hair – and yet armies have traditionally frowned upon it.

Even if you assume a concept of “nature” which excludes homosexuality, that wouldn’t provide a reason for armies to look with any disfavour on homosexuality.

Lets not be disingenuous we know what natural is, eg. mating with the opposite sex is natural and often produces more human beings. Mating with the same sex or the pet dog is unnatural and will produce nothing.
Let us tolerate deviations by all means, but let's not pretend they're healthy and natural.

No, I still don't see by what criterion you based your distinction. Is art natural? Are computer games? Sport? Fashion parades? They doesn't produce more human beings. Nor is homosexuality unique to humans (penguins are probably the most famous example). I agree with Peregrinus that the army as a whole doesn't care, but obviously to some individuals who have been in the army this is relevant.

It's a problem, but generally in the past it wasn't. I served in the Australian Infantry with homosexuals and so long as they kept their sexual activities within their own (so to speak) there was no problem. One did not put them in the same trench when maximum alertness was a priority but apart from that, if they did their allotted job and kept their mouths shut, no one really minded; problems arose when 'Gay' Liberation raised its head.
'Two man' tents raise obvious difficulties especally if they are of the variety that are constructed in halves and each man carries a half tent. One's preferences are likely to be noted; I had a list of sound sleepers/non snorers and non kickers.

OK mcfate, homosexuality as entertainment, yes that's fine by me no problem with that.
If gays kept their homosexual shenanegans as a fun hobby, and stopped forcing the whole world to take them so seriously, I'd be a lot happier.

What is sex without the purpose of procreating if not for entertainment?
What's wrong with taking them seriously? Homosexuals and heterosexuals are both found in loving relationships, which I contend you would take seriously, especially more seriously than just "mating". People take sport seriously - look at the Olympics, the AFL, the World Cup, and so on. People take cinema and literature seriously. Though, on second thoughts, I would assume you would not take art or literature involving homosexuality seriously.

And what's the difference between "taking them seriously" and not "taking them seriously"? The main thing I would think it affects is happiness, and not just individuals, but communities. And what is the dividing line between "taking them seriously" and "tolerance"?

Deleted by Hunter