Gays in the Military

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
What if there were a lot of military-type people that held moderate to strong feelings against blacks? Would that justify banning blacks from the military due to the risk of ruining combat effectiveness?[/quote]

…You aren’t seriously asking me to consider the US military having a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy regarding the color of a man’s skin, are you?[/quote]

Obviously not, I’m just pointing out the flaw in your logic. You don’t ban minority groups that are a “risk to ruining combat effectiveness” when that “risk” is driven by ignorance and hatred. Instead, you eradicate the bigotry by educating people and holding them accountable for treating others fairly.[/quote]

You are talking about the military and fair in the same sentence? The privates do as they are told by their CO. I have never been in the military, but they are taught to take orders. What is fair when you CO tells you to take that ridge when bombs are falling all over it? Why can it not be the other group that is closer? The military does not want any one group to have more fairness than the rest.

42

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
What if there were a lot of military-type people that held moderate to strong feelings against blacks? Would that justify banning blacks from the military due to the risk of ruining combat effectiveness?[/quote]

…You aren’t seriously asking me to consider the US military having a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy regarding the color of a man’s skin, are you?[/quote]

Obviously not, I’m just pointing out the flaw in your logic. You don’t ban minority groups that are a “risk to ruining combat effectiveness” when that “risk” is driven by ignorance and hatred. Instead, you eradicate the bigotry by educating people and holding them accountable for treating others fairly.[/quote]

You do this if a country decides the long-term gains of integration outweigh the short-term loss of the ability to kick ass. And if you’re certain homosexuality has a biological root, and is not a mental disease.

Israel seems to have instituted a policy to allow openly gay men and women to serve. It’s got one of the better militaries out there. Though I haven’t read what Israeli officers and enlistedmen have to say on the subject, this bodes well for the cause of openly gay men and women serving in the US.

43

Ok, the part about occupying is inaccurate. We have military in every country on earth.

44

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
People who are paid to kill are not assassins?

And let’s not pretend that what they do is called “policing”. They are assassins.[/quote]

Were you not one of these so called “assassins” in your not too distant past, mi camarada?[/quote]

Yes. Luckily, I never actually had to do it and I have no problem sleeping at night.

45

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ok, the part about occupying is inaccurate. We have military in every country on earth.[/quote]

That’s not true either. At least as of 2004, we had troops in 136 countries. There are no troops in 55 countries (aside from embassy guards which are present in some of these countries)

If you don’t credit this, find a better source.

46

I’m in the military, currently serving in Baghdad and gays are not an issue as far as combat effectivness goes. In the military however females and males are seperated because of the possiblity of sexual intercourse, harrasment, or assault.

Rape and sexual assault is an issue in the military. Now im not saying that just because someone is gay that he wants to have sex with everyone, but would you want you 18 yr old daugther to share a shower with an 18yr male out of highschool that can barely keep it in his pants or a 42 yr old for that matter?

Or a high ranking male with a private female sharing the same shower? It’s not condusive to order and discipline, which is what our Armed Forces operate on.

So in order for gays to be ‘open’ in the military. Homosexuals will need there own individual rooms and showers. Seeing as two male gays and one gay/one straight present a possiblity for sexual misconduct.

This in itself would violate military policy (Equal Oportunity violation) and therefore all service members would need to have their own rooms and showers (which is difficult when deployed in a combat zone).

Which can be done, just would need more tax-payer funds or the military can adopt a much more liberal less disciplined policy and conform to the will of the (few) people rather then sound military science.

Now will there be people being made fun of for being gay? Yes, people get made fun of for just about everything in the military, for having bad teeth, being short, being extremly white or exremly black and including being female.

But at the end of the day we joke with each other and we’re still family. Is this right? Probably not, but when you stare at someone for 12-16 hours a day 365 days a year in 120 degree wheather, this is what you do.

47

[quote]Grimster wrote:
I’m in the military, currently serving in Baghdad and gays are not an issue as far as combat effectivness goes. In the military however females and males are seperated because of the possiblity of sexual intercourse, harrasment, or assault.

Rape and sexual assault is an issue in the military. Now im not saying that just because someone is gay that he wants to have sex with everyone, but would you want you 18 yr old daugther to share a shower with an 18yr male out of highschool that can barely keep it in his pants or a 42 yr old for that matter?

Or a high ranking male with a private female sharing the same shower? It’s not condusive to order and discipline, which is what our Armed Forces operate on.

So in order for gays to be ‘open’ in the military. Homosexuals will need there own individual rooms and showers. Seeing as two male gays and one gay/one straight present a possiblity for sexual misconduct.

This in itself would violate military policy (Equal Oportunity violation) and therefore all service members would need to have their own rooms and showers (which is difficult when deployed in a combat zone).

Which can be done, just would need more tax-payer funds or the military can adopt a much more liberal less disciplined policy and conform to the will of the (few) people rather then sound military science.

Now will there be people being made fun of for being gay? Yes, people get made fun of for just about everything in the military, for having bad teeth, being short, being extremly white or exremly black and including being female.

But at the end of the day we joke with each other and we’re still family. Is this right? Probably not, but when you stare at someone for 12-16 hours a day 365 days a year in 120 degree wheather, this is what you do.[/quote]

Grimster thanks for serving. Appreciate you willing to protect our freedoms. Tell all the guys and gals in uniform thank you from all of us at TMuscle.

48

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
People who are paid to kill are not assassins?

And let’s not pretend that what they do is called “policing”. They are assassins.[/quote]

Were you not one of these so called “assassins” in your not too distant past, mi camarada?[/quote]

Yes. Luckily, I never actually had to do it and I have no problem sleeping at night.[/quote]

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell, (attributed)

49

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:
My understanding of the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is that if there were a series of openly homosexual soldiers in the military, it would be ‘bad for moral’. In that these gay dudes, while probably able to fight at least as well as the next grunt, would be endlessly hazed by hetero soldiers.

And while, theoretically, you could put something in the Military Code of Justice about not doing that, it would be difficult to enforce, because a lot of military-type people I’ve met hold moderate to strong feelings about the inappropriateness of male homosexual conduct.

The will to enforce the rule would break down a few steps below the top, and in total, a different policy would ruin the combat-effectiveness of the military.
[/quote]

That’s pretty much the argument. It’s a silly argument and not based in reality, but that generally sums it up.

Kind of like what Pat said though, the one thing I very much liked about DADT was that I knew several straight guys who were complete shitbirds that had no business in the Corps that got out by saying they were gay. But then again they were mortarmen, and perhaps hanging around 81mm tubes all day long made them actually gay.

That’s a nice side effect but I’d rather see a better system for letting guys out of their contracts simply because they wanted out.

The idea that it would break down morale is somewhat true, but very avoidable. It wouldn’t be a matter of letting gay guys in that does it. There wouldn’t be violence against gays or anything like that outside of isolated incidents. No, morale would be hurt because then the PC police would come out.

Marines would start to get counseled for saying that something was gay. They’d get counseled for telling someone to stop acting like a fag. They’d be counseled for pantomiming gay stuff. This would break down esprit de corps. It happens in units with women all the time.

You have to understand the military to know what I’m talking about. My experience is pretty much just that of a Marine grunt, but I can honestly say that the Marine Corps is the gayest bunch of straight guys you’ll ever meet. It’s all the place when I have heard the most racist stuff ever, while at the same time being the least-racist organization I’ve associated with.

So long as gays don’t look for special treatment, they’ll be fine. But when the first gay Marine’s mommy calls her congressman because her gay son got called a cocksucker for screwing something up, you’ll see the our fighting ability degrade.

mike[/quote]

LOL!

yeah, i’m an army infantryman, and we have the same attitude… the guys in the field make fun of everything, because there are so many freaky, weird-ass things you deal with, you have to keep your sense of humor…

i’m also a cop, and while similar, they’re not nearly as funny as most of the people i’ve met in the military. prolly due to less of an emphasis being part of a team…

50

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

[…]

What’s behaviour?

No, I’m actually not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that guys rib each other. For every gay joke there’s some dude being told that we’re putting him on point because we know how sneaky Mexicans are.

Genuine racism isn’t tolerated in the military. Stuff that would seem racist to the outside world happens all the time in the military though. Equally true for gays. No one is saying that homophobic behavior should go unchallenged.

I’m saying that things will be okay so long as they don’t expect to be treated different than anyone else. That means they’re going to be made fun of for being gay…though generally it will be all in good fun.

[…]

No one is saying that. I’m saying no one gets special treatment.

[…]

And so it will always be with any outside group.

mike[/quote]

Then I’ve got no problem with your point. Though I’m sure if one person’s joke is always another one’s - the military will always be a little bit rougher than other pockets of society. I would hope then that the odd hetero/breeder joke will be taken in that spirit then as well. I guess we agree it’s time then to change the special treatment then and drop ‘don’t ask don’t tell’.

Makkun

51

“You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”

52

[quote]Makavali wrote:
“You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”[/quote]

Considering your dislike for every other position the man may take I’m surprised you’ve quoted the closest thing this country had to one of her founders in the last 100 years – Barry Morris Fucking Goldwater.

mike

53

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
“You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”[/quote]

Considering your dislike for every other position the man may take I’m surprised you’ve quoted the closest thing this country had to one of her founders in the last 100 years – Barry Morris Fucking Goldwater.

mike[/quote]

Pro-choice, supported separation of religion and state, said every American should kick (Jerry) Falwell in the ass, wasn’t afraid to criticize Reagan when necessary, called out the Republican party for what it had become (a bunch of kooks), and supported medical marijuana.

Man, he sounds like a first class douche.

“Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you’ve hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have.” – Ol’ Barry addressing the Republicans in the 90s.

54

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
“You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”[/quote]

Considering your dislike for every other position the man may take I’m surprised you’ve quoted the closest thing this country had to one of her founders in the last 100 years – Barry Morris Fucking Goldwater.

mike[/quote]

Pro-choice, supported separation of religion and state, said every American should kick (Jerry) Falwell in the ass, wasn’t afraid to criticize Reagan when necessary, called out the Republican party for what it had become (a bunch of kooks), and supported medical marijuana.

Man, he sounds like a first class douche.

“Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you’ve hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have.” – Ol’ Barry addressing the Republicans in the 90s.[/quote]

Barry was so right. And it’s only worse today. Furthermore, if the religious zealots hadn’t commandeered the party and thrown fiscal conservatism and everything the Republican party was SUPPOSED to stand for out the window, an ultra liberal like Obama probably wouldn’t be in power today.

55

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ok, the part about occupying is inaccurate. We have military in every country on earth.[/quote]

That’s not true either. At least as of 2004, we had troops in 136 countries. There are no troops in 55 countries (aside from embassy guards which are present in some of these countries)

If you don’t credit this, find a better source. [/quote]

:slight_smile:

Please…do you know what a US embassy really is?

57

I didn’t watch the video - anything recommended by Lifticus has a built-in presumption of abject worthlessness - but to the point: I don’t think it is an easy question, but if brass thought it would compromise the military’s effectiveness at doing the military’s job (and I think there is fair concern here), then it must yield to that higher priority.

Again, I don’t think the question has an obvious answer, but I do think there are legitimate concerns at eroding some of the discipline that is fundamental to an effective military. Perfect example? Segregation of men and women’s barracks. The military would never integrate the men and women and simply trust them to maintain strict discipline in their relationships.

So, with respect to gays - how to enforce that same discipline? It’s a practical problem, and the usual rules don’t apply. And experimenting to find out if it will work out or not isn’t the job of the military - the presumption should be against experimentation, because the risk of failure in learning that allowing gays to openly serve is simply too great.

Moreover, it isn’t the job of the US military to offer collective therapy and self-esteem classes - its goal is to win wars. If a given policy undermines - or risks undermining - that single mission, we should all be skeptical of it.

And no, there is no valid comparison to blacks in the military and gays in the military.

58

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I didn’t watch the video - anything recommended by Lifticus has a built-in presumption of abject worthlessness - but to the point: I don’t think it is an easy question, but if brass thought it would compromise the military’s effectiveness at doing the military’s job (and I think there is fair concern here), then it must yield to that higher priority.

Again, I don’t think the question has an obvious answer, but I do think there are legitimate concerns at eroding some of the discipline that is fundamental to an effective military. Perfect example? Segregation of men and women’s barracks. The military would never integrate the men and women and simply trust them to maintain strict discipline in their relationships.

So, with respect to gays - how to enforce that same discipline? It’s a practical problem, and the usual rules don’t apply. And experimenting to find out if it will work out or not isn’t the job of the military - the presumption should be against experimentation, because the risk of failure in learning that allowing gays to openly serve is simply too great.

Moreover, it isn’t the job of the US military to offer collective therapy and self-esteem classes - its goal is to win wars. If a given policy undermines - or risks undermining - that single mission, we should all be skeptical of it.

And no, there is no valid comparison to blacks in the military and gays in the military.[/quote]

I’d say this would be generally true if we were actually at threat of a Red Dawn scenario from our enemies. But really, the only way we can lose in Iraq/Afghanistan is if we puss out and leave, something we’ve been pretty goddamn good at since we ditched the South Vietnamese. We have no real threat of Taliban parachuting in or storming our beachheads if we do pull out, so why not give it a try?

But from a practical standpoint, you’re absolutely right, and it’s something people need to think about. You wouldn’t put a female Marine in the room with a male one. Even if they weren’t into each other, the female would likely not be terribly comfortable with the guy playing porn in his barracks or eye fucking her when she’s just hanging out in her underwear in her room. Why would it be any different for a straight Marine who got put in with a gay one? I know I’d be able to handle it, but I’m sure there’d be plenty of chick Marines able to handle it too.

Frankly the only solution I can come up with is going on either a volunteer basis for rooming or going back to quonset huts with 50-100 Marines in them and having men,women,gay,and straight all live in it. Good luck with the recruiting when you go back to that though.

mike

59

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why do relief workers need to wear uniforms and carry weapons?[/quote]

How do you keep the peace without some sort of police force?
Peace keeping is violent in nature.

60

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ok, the part about occupying is inaccurate. We have military in every country on earth.[/quote]

That’s not true either. At least as of 2004, we had troops in 136 countries. There are no troops in 55 countries (aside from embassy guards which are present in some of these countries)

If you don’t credit this, find a better source. [/quote]

:slight_smile:

Please…do you know what a US embassy really is?[/quote]

LIFTI, you KNOW the marines protecting US embassies are not occupying military forces.

You also KNOW the US does not have an embassy in every country on earth.

Why do you, a smart guy although kooky, have to be schooled like this? Why?[/quote]

What Push said. Many of these 55 countires also don’t have embassies and don’t have any U.S. troops whatsoever. So, you basically just made up a statistic or repeated something you heard somewhere without verifying its accuracy.

I get your larger point. And it’s true. In many countries, the U.S. has a large presence and it may not always be called for.

But in many of these countries the troops don’t really do anything or make their presence known. If anything, the concern is the expense of keeping them where the likelihood of any situation is slim to none. Not the affront to the citizens of those countries, who don’t even know they are there.