Be Openly Gay In The Military...Just For Now


Recommended Posts

"Don't ask" on hold for soldiers in Iraq

Secretly and without consultation with the U.S. Congress, the U.S. military has suspended, in part, its ban on openly gay soldiers, an official military spokesperson has said. But after these soldiers have risked life and limb for their country, the military retains the right to kick them out when they get home.

"The bottom line is, some people are using sexual orientation to avoid deployment. So in this case, with the Reserve and Guard forces, if a soldier 'tells,' they still have to go to war, and the homosexual issue is postponed until they return to the U.S. and the unit is demobilized," said Kim Waldron of the U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort McPherson, as quoted in a <i>Washington Blade</i> story published Friday.

Congress passed a ban on openly gay and lesbian service members in 1993. The law, signed by President Clinton, created the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell," allowing only closeted soldiers to remain in any military service. Any solider who admits being gay or lesbian must be discharged under the policy. No exception in that law was carved out for combat duty.

Nevertheless, in a 1999 Army manual called the "Reserve Component Unit Commander's Handbook," uncovered this month by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military in Santa Barbara, Calif., Army officers are instructed to retain openly gay soldiers during wartime. In the case of any possible discharge for homosexual conduct or admission requested "prior to the unit's receipt of alert notification," the handbook states, "discharge isn't authorized. Member will enter AD [active duty] with the unit."

That policy appears to be in clear violation of the law.

According to the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, statistics confirm that during the Iraq war discharges for homosexual conduct or acknowledgement, both outlawed in the military, have fallen. The military has long denied that any official policy existed that would ignore the legal obligations of "don't ask." Waldon's acknowledgement is the first such admission.

"The military has claimed for years that allowing openly gay and lesbian service members to serve in uniform would undermine unit cohesion," said Aaron Belkin, director of the California think tank. "During wartime, however, when cohesion is most important, the Pentagon retains gays and lesbians."

Article source: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid21009.asp

"You can be openly gay while we are in a war. You fight for us, but you must either die during combat OR be dishonorably discharged later when you get home! Great choices huh? Horray for the United States military! It's fair, balanced, and just for every single member, just not for all you homo-sex-u-als. Because we don't see you as human beings, just expendable wartime fodder." :rolleyes: :x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'll let you die for the country that won't let you marry the person you love? What about unit cohesion, morale, showers, and all of the other arguments against gays in the military?

In a positive light, maybe in Iraq people will see gay soldiers fighting valiantly, and realize that it really is a non-issue.

When they return will it be, "Here are your medals, now get out!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gays should be just as eligible for service as anybody else. What does sexual orientation have to do with service or duty to ones country?  sbweb has a point as well.

586580347[/snapback]

true.. but then again, i personally in a combat situation would feel more comfortable with a female covering fire for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true.. but then again, i personally in a combat situation would feel more comfortable with a female covering fire for me.

586580362[/snapback]

Heh, females should be allowed into combat as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think being openly gay in the service is a bad idea, but not so much because I think gays can't pull thier own weight or anything but more-so because most of us aren't socially ready for them. And now of course if I personally think the problem is with straight people then why would I back discrimination against homosexuals right? Well because I don't think the military is exactly the best staging ground for trying to combat social stereotypes and equal rights. Please keep in mind that I don't think Infantry and the rest of the military are the same thing. I think the infantry the true combat MOS should be kept straight male for the foreseeable future. Now while I think the other jobs in the Army could easily accept homosexuals how do you create a rule that only applies to them?

This is slightly different than my view of women as infantry which I think is an absolute terrible idea now and forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women as a whole are not everybit as capable as men period. Just as you'll be hard pressed to find a man who can bear a child you'll be even harder pressed to find a woman who can carry a 100 pound rucksack on her back and a 26 pound machine gun for 12 miles. :)

Truth is is that men and women are not equal in physiology. I'm not saying we're better than them as people, but we make better infantrymen. Women are not ready to be treated as men. If we were to make the standards for the female APFT the same as women do you know how many we'd have to kick out? Another thing is the infantry is a young mans game, most of use were straight of out high school and to be honest most people that age aren't ready for that kind of integration with the opposite sex, you're going to have a lot of social problems as a result moreso than with a homosexual. You would be hard pressed at the moment to see two people fight in the infantry because one guy stole the others man but it's not too hard to imagine a fight because one guy stole anothers woman. And considering all three of those people are going to have to live, train, and fight together is that a real good idea? Do you not see the problems that can create? Men don't think too straight in war alone, throw women into the mix and what happens?

There's also the pain in the butt of having to deal with pregnancies, the logistical problem of having to carry more hygene supplies for the women, faster spread of STD's, monthly femenine issues, sexual harrasment issues, and soo much more.

It's hard enough to get a good fighting force together, I don't think it's a good idea to throw all that away just for the sake of false equality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women as a whole are not everybit as capable as men period.  Just as you'll be hard pressed to find a man who can bear a child you'll be even harder pressed to find a woman who can carry a 100 pound rucksack on her back and a 26 pound machine gun for 12 miles.  :)

Truth is is that men and women are not equal in physiology.  I'm not saying we're better than them as people, but we make better infantrymen.  Women are not ready to be treated as men.  If we were to make the standards for the female APFT the same as women do you know how many we'd have to kick out?  Another thing is the infantry is a young mans game, most of use were straight of out high school and to be honest most people that age aren't ready for that kind of integration with the opposite sex, you're going to have a lot of social problems as a result moreso than with a homosexual.  You would be hard pressed at the moment to see two people fight in the infantry because one guy stole the others man but it's not too hard to imagine a fight because one guy stole anothers woman.  And considering all three of those people are going to have to live, train, and fight together is that a real good idea?  Do you not see the problems that can create?  Men don't think too straight in war alone, throw women into the mix and what happens?

There's also the pain in the butt of having to deal with pregnancies, the logistical problem of having to carry more hygene supplies for the women, faster spread of STD's, monthly femenine issues, sexual harrasment issues, and soo much more.

It's hard enough to get a good fighting force together, I don't think it's a good idea to throw all that away just for the sake of false equality.

586580427[/snapback]

I actually agree with this. I mean it isn't like the best sampling of people join the military at that young an age either. Now this isn't based on any real tangible evidence other than heresay. And I know there are many many great and awesome people in the military as well. But feel free to correct me Mac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's kind of messed up that they suspend this rule when it suits them and they are stretching the military thin. During peacetime they just don't care about gays. They'll kick them out and then refuse to let them get married and have the same rights and benefits as a married couple. God I love this country!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that the Spartans had a tradition of having all the soldiers sleep with the soldier next to them in the attack formation. The way the formation worked, you protected your neighbour with your shield and your neighbour on the other side protected you, meaning that to stop soldiers from being selfish and getting more protection from their own shield (at the expense of the neighbour) they had to introduce strong emotional bounds between the infantry.

Maybe they should create a gay unit in the military - I'm sure you'd feel more comfortable getting covered by your lover than by some 18yo just-out-of-highschool kid who's just somehow passed boot camp (all 6 weeks of it) and barely knows how to fire a weapon let alone aim it. But in today's morals I don't think it would work - there's no way you could get emotionally attached to ALL the men in your squadron!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's also worth noting that the Spartans had more slaves than Spartans, and probably the only reason they did train so much for warfare was because they had to keep the slaves in check. That's why the Spartans while being the best there was were also so reluctant to ever send thier troops anywhere. Perhaps we should just get 3 slaves for each soldier?

And unless my lover was raised by a crazy marine survivalist, I wouldn't feel any safer being covered by her than I would an 18 year old fresh out of highschool.

But seriousely that was a different time and a different mentality to war back then. Homosexuality wasn't frowned upon then, now being a homosexual is like not having any manhood. And while I think an all homosexual unit might work just fine, aside from acts of jealousy and the like, I find it hard to believe that you could trust the higher levels of command to give them the same stuff and treat them fairly, and count on other units to necessarily feel that they're thier equals.

Basically I'm saying there's not anything wrong in my opinion with the homosexuals themsleves, but I don't see a way in which it can be openly accepted and still mantain a cohesive fighting force across the board. While I usually am for fairness and equality in most jobs and government workings, I feel this is one thing that the performance can not be sacrificed for equality.

Maybe in another 15-20 years I can revisit this topic with a different outlook but not now, I'm not convinced the time is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think being openly gay in the service is a bad idea, but not so much because I think gays can't pull thier own weight or anything but more-so because most of us aren't socially ready for them.  And now of course if I personally think the problem is with straight people then why would I back discrimination against homosexuals right?  Well because I don't think the military is exactly the best staging ground for trying to combat social stereotypes and equal rights.  Please keep in mind that I don't think Infantry and the rest of the military are the same thing.  I think the infantry the true combat MOS should be kept straight male for the foreseeable future.  Now while I think the other jobs in the Army could easily accept homosexuals how do you create a rule that only applies to them? 

This is slightly different than my view of women as infantry which I think is an absolute terrible idea now and forever.

586580388[/snapback]

Sharing the shower with a gay man and having the uncomfortable feeling that he is eyeing up my butthole or pecker would be the same as if I took a shower with a woman and felt attracted to her naked body parts. Why the seperation then at that point, we should all take a shower together and throw all seperation rules out the window. Either that or we create several different facilties which will be a huge burden. Where would it stop? We will need one for straight men, straight women, gay men, gay women, bi-men, bi-women, etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women already serve in the military. They just aren't assigned to combat although they've seen it when they're going along in convoys in such. I'm not really sure how assigning them to combat roles would do all that much considering they're already part of the military back at base. Realistically, we need all the manpower we can get, and I don't see why gays and women can run around raising fusses about discrimination this discrimination that without also being allowed to take on the responsibility of service. Really, if you were in the streets being shot at, and there was a gay person or a woman on your back, would you really be thinking "oh, hmm I don't feel uncomfortable being next to him/her" or "oh crap someone's trying to kill me." True men physiologically in general are more inclined to the physical duties of combat, but there are definately women who are just as if not more capable than many men. Besides, this isn't back in the age with swords and shield which required much more physical strength. This is point and shoot, and women clearly are capable of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:huh: As much as 'gays' are hated by the 'normal' folks in the USA, it's surprising that they wouldn't want as many homosexual oriented people as possible in a War. :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's alot more to a combat MOS than just shooting your rifle and actual combat. It's not sweeping street after street 24/7 with nothing in between.

For instance, if you're going to be there for awhile you may put up tents, fill sand bags and dig fox holes. For some reason I've yet to encounter a woman who can pitch a tent, let alone get a group of them together to put up a large GP Medium tent, and the sand bag duties also get delegated to the men. Male stalls, if there are one considering we can use a trench or basically anything, are pretty open while women want privacy which means we have to build even more stuff to appease them. There's various kinds of guard, and while it's completely possible and of course has happened before where a straight male would **** up by going to sleep or screwing around, I'm sure they don't want to add having to deal with people running off to have sex or some ****.

If you want to allow women in the infantry, then what you need to do is make the physical standards for women the same as men, integrate them completely so they're part of the unit and do everything the men do and remove the constant threat of sexual harrasment. Women aren't going to go for that and the men won't settle for anything less. As silly as it sounds sexual harrasment is a huge part of the infantry's culture, and it works because we're all supposed to be straight men.

As for homosexuals, it's not that they don't want them in the military, it's that they don't want them being open about it. It's kind of sad but I think it comes down to this: Lets say you have 4 men, one of which is gay and the other 3 disapprove of it and always give the soldier ****. Now of course the fair thing is to discipline the 3 homophobes or possibly kick them out, however they'd lose 3 men. It'd be much easier for them to just avoid that situation and get rid of the one person causing the problem. I think the situation is that basically the Army needs so many people, and on average so many people actually make it in. These numbers are so close to each other that it really doesn't give them alot of room to fix internal problems, so assuming estimates that ~2.5% of the military service are gay or bi (source), what would be the percentage of people who would have a problem with them openly being gay? Probably alot higher. The military is an investment by the government and it has to protect that investment, that means unfortunately that to keep it's numbers up it has to protect the majority, right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for homosexuals, it's not that they don't want them in the military, it's that they don't want them being open about it.  It's kind of sad but I think it comes down to this:  Lets say you have 4 men, one of which is gay and the other 3 disapprove of it and always give the soldier ****.  Now of course the fair thing is to discipline the 3 homophobes or possibly kick them out, however they'd lose 3 men.  It'd be much easier for them to just avoid that situation and get rid of the one person causing the problem.  I think the situation is that basically the Army needs so many people, and on average so many people actually make it in.  These numbers are so close to each other that it really doesn't give them alot of room to fix internal problems, so assuming estimates that ~2.5% of the military service are gay or bi (source), what would be the percentage of people who would have a problem with them openly being gay?  Probably alot higher.  The military is an investment by the government and it has to protect that investment, that means unfortunately that to keep it's numbers up it has to protect the majority, right or wrong.

586593866[/snapback]

Though you do have valid points, but the end doesn?t justify the means. It's easy to say well just let things take its course and in time everyone will be okay; especially when that individual isn't being discriminated against. This country has a problem when it comes to social problems, people don't try to educate or understand one another. People try to fix problems after they occur or just throw their hands up in the air and says "Oh well, we screwed up and it's unfair to them but time will help. So I'm gonna do nothing about it because it doesn affect me so why do I care?" Most people do nothing to prevent these bigotted laws from being created in the first place. Instead when others are showing everyone who they are, they are pushed aside, yelled at for being not "normal", mocked for trying to be "normal", laws created to prevent them from creating a family of their own with whom they love, and are said to be forcing their opinions down other people thoats for simply trying to be who they are. Yet if it were the other way around, and those who discriminate are put in the other shoe; I doubt they'd have the same view point that they current hold. Because then, and only then will they understand what it is to be discriminated against for being who they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you know I agree with you on the ethical level right? I'm not fooling myself any, so I know that I am supporting discrimination on this point and that morally I'm wrong. Thing is I think the military is one place where I feel that sometimes things need to be allowed to go on for thier to be a maximum chance for them to accomplish thier mission.

Personally I think that in less than a decade you'll see a big change concerning homosexuals in the service. Check out the polls, the country has come a long way in 10 short years considering homosexuality. Everyone always compares us to Europe or something, but I think we're the slowest to change in regards like this because we're more heavily religouse than most European countries now. There's a change going on in the service right now. Even little things like how they have designed the new barracks are going to help. When I first got in the Army everyone had to shower together and the barracks(where we lived) was also were we worked. Now it's becoming different for alot of units. We have new barracks which are now more apartment like, everyone has thier own room and two people share a shower. There's privacy now and one should never underestimate the importance of having an actual door to your room. Where we work is now a different building than the barracks. This things will help. Homosexuality will never be percieved as normal, but I think it will come a long way to being tolerated when it doesn't have to be rammed down everyone elses throats.

I think this change will be more profound because it changed the way we operated at my unit alot. These new changes have the possibility to change the way we live thier from a college sorority type mentality to a more professional mentality to where the work and home is seperated and that gives alot more people a chance. If you're wanting it to reach a point where everyone will congratulate you on the man you brought home the night before, I don't know if you'll get there, but if you just want to be able to go to work without being beaten up over it I think that'll happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.