Gays in the military

[GitNoLuv]

It's official, you can no longer be kicked out of the military for being gay. So instead of Don't Ask, Don't Tell...it's now just "Don't Ask."

This presents a large stem of problems, most of which are societal based (IMO.)

I don't have a problem with gay people any more than I do straight people. I have a problem with idiots. Gay does not equal idiot...but a gay idiot will get underneath of my skin just as quick as a straight one...but the gay will claim it's about his/her sexuality (much like Racial idiots pull the race card!) It's their trump to their own idiocy.

The problems will present themselves in several patterns.

Open Barracks/Tents may cause some discomfort for the homosexual/heterosexual combination.

First it will be the idiot (on either side) that is stuck near someone not on their side of the fence. It may be the straight guy trying to cause trouble for the gay one...or it may be the gay hiding behind the "hate card" but causing their own trouble. As if the tents won't make for enough problems, a lot of bachelor quarters/schools have 2-3 man rooms. That's where the real problems will show up at.

Straight guy goes to the 1SGT discussing the issue with said gay Soldier talking about how he stares while showering/getting changed for bed and making comments and such. 1SGT talks to gay Soldier and gay Soldier denies it.

1SGT can't give the gay (or straight) guys their own room. That would be showing favortism/discrimination. However, if two gay guys (especially if they are together) get a room together, the straight guy with a girlfriend will want to have a room with her...because it's not fair that the two gay guys get a room together.

This is just one small example...but it will come up...and not just once or twice...but multiple times on virtually every base across every branch.

Unfortunately, there is no good answer...because our society demands that we not have a good answer. Yes, our own society is a part of the problem.

This will be ugly...very similar to when we first allowed women to serve...when we first had blacks with whites...when we allowed the Japanese Americans to serve during WWII. It will be ugly...but it needs to get ugly...before it gets better.

The best answer is to just strip down the gender barriers and let people learn to live with members of the opposite sex (or sexual preference) all together. The reality is, we go to war together. When the shit hits the fan, I see Soldiers, not men, women, black, white, gay or straight. Why should it be different when the coast is clear?

[7SteelGal43]

very good points, GitNo. Like I've said before, it should be decided by the military (mostly the enlisted grunts/combat soldiers) and NOT congress or the courts. PERIOD

[steelerdude15]

Well I think it's good that gays should be allowed into the military. As I always say.... black men should have the right to vote, women should have the right to own property, and gays should be allowed into the military.

[JonM229]

Well I think it's good that gays should be allowed into the military. As I always say.... black men should have the right to vote, women should have the right to own property, and gays should be allowed into the military.

Three issues we disagree on

[Wallace108]

I don't have a problem with gays in the military. I respect ANYONE who's willing to stand up and defend our country. But I think it should be up to the military to decide. They're the ones who are putting their lives on the line.

[steelerdude15]

Three issues we disagree on

[GitNoLuv]

I wouldn't necessary leave it up to the military to decide. The military (collectively) is slow to make social changes...slow to adapt. On the battlefield, we may be quicker to adapt, but this isn't a battlefield issue. I think that too many people would just prefer the Don't Ask, Don't Tell...because it does keep things simpler.

If these types of issues were left up to the military, there'd be nobody but white males in the military right now.

[zulater]

I wouldn't necessary leave it up to the military to decide. The military (collectively) is slow to make social changes...slow to adapt. On the battlefield, we may be quicker to adapt, but this isn't a battlefield issue. I think that too many people would just prefer the Don't Ask, Don't Tell...because it does keep things simpler.

If these types of issues were left up to the military, there'd be nobody but white males in the military right now.

Where does that come from? The military has offered a level playing field for minorities and woman to advance going back to the 60's. How many industries can claim the same?

[BnG_Hevn]

Not a battlefield issue? So what you're saying is that gays in the military will never see combat?

[Akagi]

A guy or gal wants to put his/her life on the line to defend me and my family, that person can knock boots with whomever he/she wants to.

[smokin3000gt]

A guy or gal wants to put his/her life on the line to defend me and my family, that person can knock boots with whomever he/she wants to.

Says the guy that doesn't have to bunk with the gay soldier or put his life his hands.

[GodfatherofSoul]

I have mixed feelings about this. My dad was in the Army for 23 years and I went through the entire ROTC program myself, so I've seen first and second hand how it affects unit cohesion. The problem is the close-quarters issue. It's the same reason we have separate male and female restrooms. Spooning for warmth with my buddy Joe in a foxhole in mid-February takes on a whole different context if Joe is getting aroused. Another issue that the Pentagon is worried about is the drop in recruitment for people who aren't going to want to be in close quarters with gay men and women.

But, the kicker for me is what happens to gays trying to get promoted. We all know that in war time promotions and medals get handed out like candy, and if you're not allowed to serve or you're not allowed to serve in combat, it will definitely unfairly disadvantage your career if you're gay. Just too many issues here for me to figure out.

One thing I don't believe in is letting the Pentagon make their own decisions. We have civilian leadership for a very good reason in this country. Letting the Pentagon make the call is the reason we had a 300% troop increase in Afghanistan (and how's that working out?).

[Wallace108]

One thing I don't believe in is letting the Pentagon make their own decisions. We have civilian leadership for a very good reason in this country.

You had me until right there.

Our civilian leadership did a fabulous job in Vietnam. Oh yeah, and in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. Had the military been running the show, those wars would have been long over and we wouldn't have lost NEARLY as many American lives. No thanks, but I'll take the military over jackasses in Washington.

Besides, have you taken a good look at our civilian leadership lately?

[The Patriot]

Spooning for warmth with my buddy Joe in a foxhole in mid-February takes on a whole different context if Joe is getting aroused.

I guess war is hell, right?

[GodfatherofSoul]

You still think it was hippies and soft politicians that lost Vietnam?

[Wallace108]

You still think it was hippies and soft politicians that lost Vietnam?

Don't forget Jane Fonda.

[NJarhead]

You still think it was hippies and soft politicians that lost Vietnam?

Wasn't it?

[Craic]

You still think it was hippies and soft politicians that lost Vietnam?

Since the fall of soviet communism, we have learned that the Soviet Union spent twice as much money and who knows how much more manpower on the American peace movement than the entire Vietnam war. While the Soviets were backwards economically, they were top of the class in subversion and intelligence work.

The American politicians moving against the war did so precisely because of the pressure put on them by the peace movement.

N. Vietnam military now admits Tet was a failure and decimated their troops. When we came to negotiate they were shocked, because as far as they knew, the war was almost over, with them as the losers.

Yes. The hippies as dupes of the USSR and the soft politicians are exactly to blame.

EDIT: Sorry for the spelling and punctuation... I was typing this originally on my phone, and it didn't like "Soviets" So, it became... Sockets

[zulater]

Since the fall of soviet.communism, we have learned that the Soviet Union spent twice as much money and who knows how much more manpower on the american peace movement than the entire Vietnam war. While the Sockets were backwards economically, they were top of the class in subversion intelligence work.

The american politicians moving against the war did so precisely because of the.pressure put on them by the peace movement.

N. Vietnam military now admits Tet was a failure and decimated there troops. When we came to negotiate they were shocked, because as far as they knew, the war was almost over, with themcas the losers.

Yes. The hippies as dupes of.the USSR and the.soft politicians are exactly to blame

Good post. So few realize how poorly the Tet offensive really went for the NVA. It was a classic case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory on our part due to the reasons you've expressed.

[Craic]

Good post. So few realize how poorly the Tet offensive really went for the NVA. It was a classic case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory on our part due to the reasons you've expressed.

Thanks Zu. I read somewhere, where the Tet Offensive is as textbook a study as possible on how to defend against a major, multi-pronged attack against multiple bases.

[Hindes204]

Like Gitnoluv, I am also in the military, so I have first hand knowledge of the ramifications of allowing gays in the military. I have to put a little disclaimer in here first, my views may be a little bias, I view homosexuality as a life-style choice, nothing more. So the comparison to the civil rights movement of african americans and the womens rights movement hold no weight for me in this discussion. Like it or not, the military exists to win wars...its that simple. And anything undermining this final goal should not be acceptable. The law passed in 1993 said it vey well "that open homosexuality is incompatible with military service because it undermines the military ethos upon which success in war ultimately depends." Military units depend on things like morale, honor, duty, discipline...we call each other brother because there is a bond that cannot be broken. All of this is jeopordized when you bring homosexuality into the mix

[The Patriot]

Like Gitnoluv, I am also in the military, so I have first hand knowledge of the ramifications of allowing gays in the military. I have to put a little disclaimer in here first, my views may be a little bias, I view homosexuality as a life-style choice, nothing more. So the comparison to the civil rights movement of african americans and the womens rights movement hold no weight for me in this discussion. Like it or not, the military exists to win wars...its that simple. And anything undermining this final goal should not be acceptable. The law passed in 1993 said it vey well "that open homosexuality is incompatible with military service because it undermines the military ethos upon which success in war ultimately depends." Military units depend on things like morale, honor, duty, discipline...we call each other brother because there is a bond that cannot be broken. All of this is jeopordized when you bring homosexuality into the mix

But doesn't that imply that homosexuals are just lustful deviants who can't be professional? If a homosexual is being inappropriate you kick him out, just like straight guys get reprimanded for hitting on/disrespecting women in uniform. All this law should do is prevent people in the military from loosing their jobs if someone finds out that they lead alternative lifestyles outside of the military.

[stlrtruck]

But doesn't that imply that homosexuals are just lustful deviants who can't be professional? If a homosexual is being inappropriate you kick him out, just like straight guys get reprimanded for hitting on/disrespecting women in uniform. All this law should do is prevent people in the military from loosing their jobs if someone finds out that they lead alternative lifestyles outside of the military.

I don't believe that's what he was saying. I take it more to the point that when you put homosexuals in a position where they interact more freely with heterosexuals, it brings down the moral of the troops overall. I know it sounds a bit ridiculous, but it is what it is. Being in the military is a different breed of people, and if you begin to open up that which is bonded together you weaken that link and eventually you will destroy it.

Right or wrong is not the question. The question is, do you want to risk breaking that brotherhood apart?

On a personal note, I don't think this was such an issue back in the day. The every day military man probably cared less about it then the higher ranking officers. Only when coming out of the closet became the norm did this become an issue for the military. Personally, people should have learned that just because you are a certain way doesn't mean the whole world needs to hear about it. Now it's an issue and I don't think there is a gray area for people. They are either for it or against it.

[The Patriot]

I don't believe that's what he was saying. I take it more to the point that when you put homosexuals in a position where they interact more freely with heterosexuals, it brings down the moral of the troops overall. I know it sounds a bit ridiculous, but it is what it is. Being in the military is a different breed of people, and if you begin to open up that which is bonded together you weaken that link and eventually you will destroy it.

Right or wrong is not the question. The question is, do you want to risk breaking that brotherhood apart?

On a personal note, I don't think this was such an issue back in the day. The every day military man probably cared less about it then the higher ranking officers. Only when coming out of the closet became the norm did this become an issue for the military. Personally, people should have learned that just because you are a certain way doesn't mean the whole world needs to hear about it. Now it's an issue and I don't think there is a gray area for people. They are either for it or against it.

Well, I've never been in the military, so I don't know what it's like to have such a rigid code and to have to work under dire circumstances. But from my experience in the workplace, I can't say I've had any problems with gay coworkers.

[Craic]

Well, I've never been in the military, so I don't know what it's like to have such a rigid code and to have to work under dire circumstances. But from my experience in the workplace, I can't say I've had any problems with gay coworkers.

You know, that is a very fair observation. I too agree that there is no problem in the work place. I have only had one situation where someone probably reacted in the work place in a way a straight person wouldn't. However, that can't, by any means, be extrapolated to the community in general.

However, I also question the difference between a general work place where you go for 6-12 hours and go home, and a place where you live, sleep, eat, and maybe even bleed and die with those who are with you.

What I wonder about, is the issue of relationships. When people are driven that close, they develop very deep relationships. When it is men and women in that kind of situation, it often develops a non-plutonic relationship (which is how many, many workplace adulteries actually happen). Now, if the same is true in the military, and non-plutonic relationships develop between two gay men in the same unit... are they going to be able to leave their partner to die if ordered to? Would they be able to withdraw cover support in order to place it somewhere else of greater importance if ordered to, if their partner was being kept safe by that support? I would NOT be able to do it if it was my wife... or even girlfriend. I think a gay person can have the same deep emothions I do. So I think it very well may be possible that such issues arise.

Is that far-fetched? Yes, somewhat. However, the military also keeps me out because of asthma. EVEN if I had an attack twice as a youth, and never again, because it was on my record, I was done. Why, because of the "Possiblity" that somehow, someday, I "may" have an attack someplace in a battle situation and thus cause the same type of problems described above. I think that is just as far-fetched, but that is the level the military seems to think at.

And yes, for the same reasons, I do not think women should be in combat units, or in secondary support units. Because once again, if that was my wife or girfriend, I would ABSOLUTELY go AWOL to go get her and defend her. And I don't think I am the only one who feels that way about their wife or girlfriend.

[Craic]

But doesn't that imply that homosexuals are just lustful deviants who can't be professional? If a homosexual is being inappropriate you kick him out, just like straight guys get reprimanded for hitting on/disrespecting women in uniform. All this law should do is prevent people in the military from loosing their jobs if someone finds out that they lead alternative lifestyles outside of the military.

There is no thing as "outside the military". When you are in the military, they OWN you lock stock and barrel. Soldiers lose elements of their own civil rights in EVERY part of their life. They may NOT write to their congressman concerning National Government operations, military matters, or foreign policy without prior review and approval by headquarters. Soldiers may NOT participate in a demonstration if they are in a foreign country, regardless of whether they are on leave or in uniform. You may not campaign for, distribute literature for, or or in any way try to "affect the course of the outcome" of an election in any manner among subordinates. Unions can. Bosses can. Not military. Soldiers CANNOT go to a political rally and speak before a partisan political gathering in support of a party or candidate. Soldiers may not take part in organized political campaigns. WHile they can put small stickers on their cars, they are FORBIDDEN to put large signs or banners on their private cars.

An active duty solider is not allowed to hold civil office of a partisan nature, nor non-partisan civil office if that office is considered full time (even if it will not inhibit his duties).

In your spare time, you cannot sell or solicit anything on base/post without the express approval of the commander, furthermore, a soldier is forbidden to sell to another soldier who is junior in paygrade. That means, if a E4 airforce radar operator has a second job selling cars on the weekend in town, and an E2 walks in to the shop to buy a car. The E4 is NOT ALLOWED to sell the car to him. Also, ANY soldier is FORBIDDEN to sell life or auto insurance, stocks, mutual funds, real estate, or any other goods, commodities, or services to ANYONE who is junior to him, or to ANYONE PERIOD on a base/post, regardless of the situation, including being at your buddies house at 2 in the morning over in NCO housing.


THus... in short, There IS NO OUTSIDE THE MILITARY when you are on active duty.

[cold-hard-steel]

There is no thing as "outside the military". When you are in the military, they OWN you lock stock and barrel. Soldiers lose elements of their own civil rights in EVERY part of their life. They may NOT write to their congressman concerning National Government operations, military matters, or foreign policy without prior review and approval by headquarters. Soldiers may NOT participate in a demonstration if they are in a foreign country, regardless of whether they are on leave or in uniform. You may not campaign for, distribute literature for, or or in any way try to "affect the course of the outcome" of an election in any manner among subordinates. Unions can. Bosses can. Not military. Soldiers CANNOT go to a political rally and speak before a partisan political gathering in support of a party or candidate. Soldiers may not take part in organized political campaigns. WHile they can put small stickers on their cars, they are FORBIDDEN to put large signs or banners on their private cars.

An active duty solider is not allowed to hold civil office of a partisan nature, nor non-partisan civil office if that office is considered full time (even if it will not inhibit his duties).

In your spare time, you cannot sell or solicit anything on base/post without the express approval of the commander, furthermore, a soldier is forbidden to sell to another soldier who is junior in paygrade. That means, if a E4 airforce radar operator has a second job selling cars on the weekend in town, and an E2 walks in to the shop to buy a car. The E4 is NOT ALLOWED to sell the car to him. Also, ANY soldier is FORBIDDEN to sell life or auto insurance, stocks, mutual funds, real estate, or any other goods, commodities, or services to ANYONE who is junior to him, or to ANYONE PERIOD on a base/post, regardless of the situation, including being at your buddies house at 2 in the morning over in NCO housing.


THus... in short, There IS NO OUTSIDE THE MILITARY when you are on active duty.

Your reply was really thought through from the beginning till the end. You brang a lot of interesting points,and layed them on the table. Dancing to me is the heart of the thread. You can not dance around a topic that has been in rule for 200 years. I will not bring religion into this,i know it is your expertise not mine. ' This could go deeper than any man has gone before.

[steeldawg]

Like Gitnoluv, I am also in the military, so I have first hand knowledge of the ramifications of allowing gays in the military. I have to put a little disclaimer in here first, my views may be a little bias, I view homosexuality as a life-style choice, nothing more. So the comparison to the civil rights movement of african americans and the womens rights movement hold no weight for me in this discussion. Like it or not, the military exists to win wars...its that simple. And anything undermining this final goal should not be acceptable. The law passed in 1993 said it vey well "that open homosexuality is incompatible with military service because it undermines the military ethos upon which success in war ultimately depends." Military units depend on things like morale, honor, duty, discipline...we call each other brother because there is a bond that cannot be broken. All of this is jeopordized when you bring homosexuality into the mix

Ridiculous your basically saying homosexuals cannot be moral honorable disciplined and perform their job, and last time i checked there are women in the military also, so does that jepordize the brotherhood? Anyone who is a citizen of this country should have the right to fight and die for it.

[GitNoLuv]

I have to put a little disclaimer in here first, my views may be a little bias, I view homosexuality as a life-style choice, nothing more. So the comparison to the civil rights movement of african americans and the womens rights movement hold no weight for me in this discussion.

All of this is jeopordized when you bring homosexuality into the mix

OK, so here is some of which I'd like to discuss. Most straight people (and a lot of gays) agree with you about it being a life-style choice. However, there are enough out there that argue about it being more than that. As for the comparison...is a ban on gays in the military a restriction on civil rights?

The last sentence you put in is where a lot of the problems exist. That is a feeling very prevalent throughout the military. It's jepordized because of how we are "raised" in the military. It's counter-intuitive to the culture of a servicemember that is bred into us. There was a great deal of "jeopardy" when we had to deal with the introduction of women and blacks into the culture. The culture adjusted (for the most part) and we are in a better place today because of it. I am not saying that we'd be better off if we had "open flamers" serving...not necessarily...but I don't know that (long term) that we'd be worse off.

Hope the friendly fire incidents do not go on the rise.That could lead to consequenses,and repercussions.

While I don't think it would come to that, the amount of hazing that would go on will be huge.

If a homosexual is being inappropriate you kick him out, just like straight guys get reprimanded for hitting on/disrespecting women in uniform. All this law should do is prevent people in the military from loosing their jobs if someone finds out that they lead alternative lifestyles outside of the military.

For the first sentence, that is a fine argument. Fortunately, Preacher has already hit on the second portion here. In fact, he said it far more eloquently than I am capable of!

Right or wrong is not the question. The question is, do you want to risk breaking that brotherhood apart?

More of the same culture that is bred into us. Did we risk breaking that brotherhood apart when we allowed non-white and non-males to serve? Initially, there was some huge backlash.

The every day military man probably cared less about it then the higher ranking officers.

I believe you have this backwards...because it affected the higher ranking officers far less than the every day enlisted servicemember. It's the guys on the ground that have to bear the heavy result...particularly the single guys. Most of your officers were either married or had their own quarters to themselves. There isn't a lot of open bay barracks that have officers mixed in.

Personally, people should have learned that just because you are a certain way doesn't mean the whole world needs to hear about it. Now it's an issue and I don't think there is a gray area for people. They are either for it or against it.

Almost like a religion. It doesn't matter what your religion (or sexual preference) is...just don't preach it to me. Unfortunately, if you fall within the norm (Christianity for religion and straight for sexual preference), you are given more leeway in your "preaching" amongst the enlisted ranks. It's the non-norm that will do us in.

Well, I've never been in the military, so I don't know what it's like to have such a rigid code and to have to work under dire circumstances. But from my experience in the workplace, I can't say I've had any problems with gay coworkers.

Again, Preacher has done an excellent job touchin up on this subject as well. The more stressful an environment you live in...the more little things like this matter.

Now, if the same is true in the military, and non-plutonic relationships develop between two gay men in the same unit... are they going to be able to leave their partner to die if ordered to?
And I don't think I am the only one who feels that way about their wife or girlfriend.

Two points here...the plutonic relationship between gay men (or women) could easily lead to their persecution...as well as to jealousy amongst the ranks for those who cannot have a relationship with someone else within the unit. Imagine being in an infantry unit (all male) knowing that two of the guys there are "getting it on"...while you are stuck waiting on your trip home. Or, you may be in a transportation company (mixed gender) but there are only 10 females to the 150 males...all of the other females have already "hooked up" with another guy (or more) and you can't get with them...and the homos are getting theirs too. It's why the military tries to keep husband/wife in separate units...and having a relationship with someone in the unit is frowned upon. Hard enough when you have limited straight couples going at it...makes it even worse when you add in the homosexual factor to it.

There is no thing as "outside the military".

Very well said. Cutting it short so that I don't take up too much space. :P There's also the lack of a double jeopardy law that hurts us. If I steal something, I get punished by civilian law as well as UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Double Whammy. The standard civlian is protected from the double jeopardy...not my guys. If I lose my job in the military due to lawbreaking, it actually becomes a triple whammy. Not only do I get civilian punishment, UCMJ and lose my job...I also find it that much harder to get a civilian job...because my experience is wrapped up in something called a DD 214..and if that DD 214 doesn't read "Under Honorable Conditions" my odds of finding employment drop drastically. The standard enlisted servicemember has no college education and limited work skills (outside of the military)...

Ridiculous your basically saying homosexuals cannot be moral honorable disciplined and perform their job, and last time i checked there are women in the military also, so does that jepordize the brotherhood? Anyone who is a citizen of this country should have the right to fight and die for it.

I've already touched on some of this...but his "ridiculous" belief is actually something that is semi-ingrained into our heads. There are a lot of us who dont' buy into that...but there are still too many who do. And while you don't get told that it's a bad thing directly...it's the indirect BS that catches up to you. The military is the ultimate "manly" haven...and anything that intrudes on that (including women) will find themselves suffering in the morale department. We go through the same thing now with "Psych Evals", TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury), PTSD and seeing the chaplain. Suicide rates are at their highest now...because the culture is to "suck it up". People fall into the mantra's easy enough when it's someone else's problem...and so feel very alone when it's their problem. But that is a whole nother topic!

While I agree with your final assessment...it's easier to preach it than to live it.

[zulater]

Like Gitnoluv, I am also in the military, so I have first hand knowledge of the ramifications of allowing gays in the military. I have to put a little disclaimer in here first, my views may be a little bias, I view homosexuality as a life-style choice, nothing more. So the comparison to the civil rights movement of african americans and the womens rights movement hold no weight for me in this discussion. Like it or not, the military exists to win wars...its that simple. And anything undermining this final goal should not be acceptable. The law passed in 1993 said it vey well "that open homosexuality is incompatible with military service because it undermines the military ethos upon which success in war ultimately depends." Military units depend on things like morale, honor, duty, discipline...we call each other brother because there is a bond that cannot be broken. All of this is jeopordized when you bring homosexuality into the mix

Really? I was in the Air Force, late 70's early 80's and to tell you the truth the gay community on our base ( Lajes field Azores) was fairly well known and didn't really pose a problem or threat as best as I could tell. We didn't have don't ask, don't tell back then, but basically as long as they did their job well no one really gave a shit. Oh sure a few of the lifers would have busted them out if they had known, but their head's were always stuck so far up their own ass that they wouldn't have seen it without pictures. Besides back then they were worried about cleaning up the drug problem, so unless they were puffing on doob's they pretty much "got away with it".

That said, I'm not real big on activist judges dictating military policy. Plus there's a big difference between a semi closeted gay and one that's out and about. I'm not sure how a real flamer would go over with the troops?

So put me down for undecided on the issue at large, but firmly against activist judges making unilateral decisions of this nature.