Main > The Round Table

Chivalry and sexuality issues.

(1/2) > >>

Sir Christopher Warren:
Earlier this week I caught a segment about Captain Jonathan Hopkins of the US Army. He was decorated three times with the Bronze Star. His career was stellar beginning with graduating as #4 in a class of 901 from West Point, three combat tours to Iraq and was selected for early promotion to Major. In short he is the model military officer and what a country looks for in its professional warriors. He was discharged from the Army earlier this week for being gay.

Here is a link to his interview with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.
http://www.gawkk.com/fired-from-the-army-for-being-gay/discuss

While I do not personally agree with a homosexual lifestyle, I believe that a person's sexual preference has little to no bearing in his or her ability to defend their country and the people in it.

What are some of your thoughts on this?

Sir Brian:
IMO sexuality has no bearing whatsoever on a person’s prowess in battle, be it with swords or howitzers. I truly don’t care who a person has sex with as long as it is consensual and does not involve a minor, (especially children).

What I do not understand and have little tolerance for is a ridiculously flamboyant effeminate homosexual or masculine lesbian. I am not referring those men or women who (whether gay or not) naturally have some feminine/masculine mannerisms, I am referring to those homosexuals/lesbians that deliberately turn it on or off depending upon their social situation. – That to me is blatant hypocrisy and as such is dishonorable.

Sir Edward:
I agree; it has no bearing on their professionalism or competence, and therefore is of no consequence to the job. It's akin to gender discrimination.

Sir Christopher Warren:
Sir Brian,

I also agree with the "social circumstances" flamboyant homosexual that wishes to make some sort of point or has some sort of agenda. I have little tolerance for a person who feels that I must cater to them because they have a different sexual preference and feel as though they must shove it in my face or down my throat.

However, in the case of Captain Hopkins, I get the impression that he is not this sort of person and was in fact a true professional. These people I certainly have no problem with and have counted several as personal friends. Sexual preference is a private matter. If a person's private life does not interfere with a person's professional life then it should not be a case for that person's removal,
particularly in Captain Hopkins' case where it appears his only crime was being gay.
As Sir Edward pointed out it is very much like gender discrimination.

Sir Wolf:
I wonder if there was some under lying circumstance that was not released due to its sensitive nature that was the true reasoning and him being "gay" was the scape goat

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page