Gays in the Military

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]melanieamber12 wrote:
The biggest change would be living quarters. Agreeing with Hungry.
However, in the Army, MOST of the men that I have come in contact with are VERY homophobic, and ignorant.
And they do assume that the HOMO’s are going to be staring at them and raping them.
Give me a break, get over yourself.

What these people fail to realize is that when DADT get’s lifted, or revised, all it will mean in reality, is a lot of gay men and women coming out, getting married, getting paid, and LIVING LIKE YOU BREADERS HAVE GOTTEN TO ALL ALONG.
Sorry, minor outbreak. Being in the army, in the closet, isn’t fun.

_Mel[/quote]

It is breeders. And is that supposed to be an insult, sorry I like females and not dudes.

Well, welcome to Democracy, isn’t it wonderful.

102

[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

Obviously, most of you have no idea what this is all about in real life. [/quote]

Oh, yes we do.

It’s about the all-too-obvious latently homosexual, hyper-masculine homophobes not wanting to “accidentally” catch the gay.[/quote]

Umm…have you actually ever been in the military? If so, you would know that’s a blatant lie. Either that, or things have changed a LOT since you were in. [/quote]

Oh, so the Corps is accepting of queers now? Interesting.[/quote]

Yes they do. This is the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” thing people have been going on about in this thread: Gays are allowed to serve in the military granted they don’t tell anyone they are gay, and the military isn’t allowed to ask them. This was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993, as I mentioned in a previous post that I made in this very thread.

For reference, that means it’s pretty much a given that there are gays holding at least the rank of staff sergeant in the marines, and it’s likely that there are even senior gay enlisted marines.[/quote]

Don’t be ignorant, there are hirer ranking officers that are gay, people lied, people kept it quiet a long time before. They didn’t piss test these guys back in the day.

103

[quote]melanieamber12 wrote:
p.s. the most gays are in the infantry. go figure.[/quote]

p.s.Because gays like to GRUNT a lot.

p.s. And you said you said p.s. two times, calm down you sound like your blood pressure is pretty high.

104

[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]

This somehow needs quoting again.

105

I said I don’t serve in the American Army. Apparently if you’re in the Canadian Army it’s not serving one’s country anymore.

106

[quote]melanieamber12 wrote:

[quote]MilSpec105 wrote:
I am a military officer and H4M is on point. The issue isn’t some moral dilemma. Its much more practical than that.

-Soldier sharing a room with a gay Soldier… bad for morale
-Gay Soldier gets his/her own room because they are gay… terrible for morale

-Gay soldier sharing showers with other Solders… bad for morale
-Gay soldiers (possibly 1 gay Soldier) getting special shower… terrible for morale (and potentially epically expensive)

Be as gay as you want just keep it to yourself on duty and around military personnel. Not to mention DADT is protective of gays. You might be fine coming out as a clinic medic or corpsman (those of you who serve know exactly who I mean) BUT coming out in the in an Inf Division on as a combat marine might be bad for your well being. I don’t condone it, but it happens.[/quote]

Dude. You’re missing the point.
…All of this is ALREADY happening.
Gay male soldiers are already sharing rooms, showers, quarters, with other male soldiers.
As are gay females sharing the same.
However currently we are ALL “straight”

If/when the DADT gets revised, people will actually be able to be gay, not just labeled “gay”

…Are you following me?
[/quote]

Yes, it is happening, but for the most part, on the down-low. And that’s the significant part, as far as practicality goes. It’s KNOWING that he likes guys that causes problems. In this case, ignorance actually is bliss, for most people.

Allowing people to be openly gay will require one or more of the following, realistically:

1)Allow sex in the barracks(say hello to rampant STDs and 0 productivity)
2)Allow opposite genders to live in the same room (same as above)
3)Give everyone their own room (HIGHLY expensive and impractical)
4)Room gay males with gay females (but then how do you know if they’re lying, just so they can live with the opposite sex?)
5)Only give people who claim to be gay their own rooms (Unfairness anybody? And if that’s the case, I’m gonna claim to be gay pronto)

It’s a matter of living in the real world, not just whether people are “homophobes” or not.

107

Are you saying there’s no sex taking place in the barracks now? Are you saying that with a straight face?

108

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
1)Allow sex in the barracks(say hello to rampant STDs and 0 productivity)[/quote]

Are you fucking high?

109

and realistically just because they are allowed to say it doesn’t mean they will

obviously there are ifs/ands/ors/buts but the fact of the matter is of all the minorities the gays are the only ones not accepted in the military, that’s discrimination.

I bet there were people were saying the same shit back when “coloured” people were first allowed to serve: “Oh, he’s black, he can’t pull his own weight/is a lazy good for nothing/too stupid to read a map” and other such nonsense that obviously isn’t true.

the only real way to deal with this is get rid of DADT see what happens and deal with individual issues as they arise.

I mean, handicapped people may begin to serve soon now as well seeing as the soldier who lost both his legs passed his combat fitness test with prosthetic legs.

Where there is a will there is a way.

110

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

Obviously, most of you have no idea what this is all about in real life. [/quote]

Oh, yes we do.

It’s about the all-too-obvious latently homosexual, hyper-masculine homophobes not wanting to “accidentally” catch the gay.[/quote]

Umm…have you actually ever been in the military? If so, you would know that’s a blatant lie. Either that, or things have changed a LOT since you were in. [/quote]

Oh, so the Corps is accepting of queers now? Interesting.[/quote]

Yes they do. This is the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” thing people have been going on about in this thread: Gays are allowed to serve in the military granted they don’t tell anyone they are gay, and the military isn’t allowed to ask them. This was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993, as I mentioned in a previous post that I made in this very thread.

For reference, that means it’s pretty much a given that there are gays holding at least the rank of staff sergeant in the marines, and it’s likely that there are even senior gay enlisted marines.[/quote]

Don’t be ignorant, there are hirer ranking officers that are gay, people lied, people kept it quiet a long time before. They didn’t piss test these guys back in the day.[/quote]

That’s why I specified “gay enlisted marines”. I was working with the assumption that there were no gays in the military prior to 1994, plus I have no idea how far an officer might have gotten in sixteen years. Besides, I’m under the impression that officers get a lot of the special privileges openly gay soldiers would allegedly need anyway, so that’s moot.

I’m just waiting for the fireworks when a gay officer makes it to full general and comes out of the closet in protest to DADT. Although I do hope there’s some change before it comes to that.

111

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
1)Allow sex in the barracks(say hello to rampant STDs and 0 productivity)[/quote]

Are you fucking high?[/quote]

I didn’t say it isn’t happening. But ALLOWING it would make things bad, imo.

112

The homophobia issues is soldier level. Getting rid of DADT has much higher up, big picture, policy issue. Like has been stated, for officers and even senior enlisted it wouldn’t be that big a deal, being as we don’t live in barracks. But adjusting the living conditions for the junior enlisted would be very expensive and inconvenient, since many large posts are in the middle of or complete on major barracks construction renovations.

The whole " oh well we they can shower at a different time & they already live in the barracks " argument doesn’t work. Shower at different times… you can’t possibly be in the military. When the hell do you have time for that shit. And yea, they’re in the barracks but not openly, its a little different. Suspecting and knowing are two different things.

DXing don’t DADT for something more open might work and it might be a disaster.

113

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
1)Allow sex in the barracks(say hello to rampant STDs and 0 productivity)[/quote]

Are you fucking high?[/quote]

I didn’t say it isn’t happening. But ALLOWING it would make things bad, imo. [/quote]

If you give Soldiers and inch they take a foot. If you give them a mile they are gone. Happening and allowing it happen are not the same thing. If you say… “Sure no visitation rules have all the sex you want.” You end up with unwanted pregnancies and sexual assaults skyrocket. This is not hypothetical. I have seen it happen.

114

[quote]MilSpec105 wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
1)Allow sex in the barracks(say hello to rampant STDs and 0 productivity)[/quote]

Are you fucking high?[/quote]

I didn’t say it isn’t happening. But ALLOWING it would make things bad, imo. [/quote]

If you give Soldiers and inch they take a foot. If you give them a mile they are gone. Happening and allowing it happen are not the same thing. If you say… “Sure no visitation rules have all the sex you want.” You end up with unwanted pregnancies and sexual assaults skyrocket. This is not hypothetical. I have seen it happen.[/quote]

Exactly…some people seem to not be able to grasp this concept of turning a blind eye towards something, vs saying it’s ok.

115

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]MilSpec105 wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
1)Allow sex in the barracks(say hello to rampant STDs and 0 productivity)[/quote]

Are you fucking high?[/quote]

I didn’t say it isn’t happening. But ALLOWING it would make things bad, imo. [/quote]

If you give Soldiers and inch they take a foot. If you give them a mile they are gone. Happening and allowing it happen are not the same thing. If you say… “Sure no visitation rules have all the sex you want.” You end up with unwanted pregnancies and sexual assaults skyrocket. This is not hypothetical. I have seen it happen.[/quote]

Exactly…some people seem to not be able to grasp this concept of turning a blind eye towards something, vs saying it’s ok. [/quote]

It appears that nobody is asking the question; how the fuck would allowing openly gay people in the military lead to allowing sex in the barracks?

116

I think the idea come from the conclusion that you would have to have gays roommates or mixed sex roommates… basically that it would just fuck up the housing arrangement and lead to more issues.

117

I’m not in the military (was raised by a Marine though) so I will not offer opinions about something I have no relative experience about - especially when so many here are and have.

I do have a question though . . What about the effect that allowing openly gay people to serve in the military will have on recruitment/rentention?

Already several active military members have mentioned how anti-gay some ar ein the military and we know for a certainty how divisive on issue it is in society at large.

Add to this the overall weakening of military standards (don’t believe me? - talk to an old marine!)

Are we simply sowing the seeds of destruction of our military overall and this just adds one more divisive component?

And I would prefer to hear from military personnel only (thanks to rest for your input, but we really don’t have a dog in this fight, so to speak)

118

I’m sure there are some who dropped out after “coloured” people were allowed to serve. Didn’t seem to affect numbers too much.

The fact that you cut out the “haters” to make place for a larger demographic to come into the picture sorts out the number issues.

The main thing you don’t want in the army is people who hurt cohesion of the group and wimps. The former because it makes everyone hate life and the latter because it makes everyone hate life and carry the guys rucksack.

I lol’d at “shower at different times”

also I think you guys are forgetting

“He who shall shed his blood with me shall be my brother”- William Shakespeare
After he’s your brother your accepting of even his most disgusting habits (fucking pricks who don’t flush)

And like I said already the fact is that just because you let them divulge their sexual preferences doesn’t mean they will divulge them. Some may only confide this in their best buddies. They’ve gone this long without sex in the barracks, I doubt they’ll suddenly need it just because they can say they are gay now.

I think it’s more about emotional release and not living a lie more than anything else. How would you like it if someone told you that you must live your life as a gay man even though you aren’t, except in when you’re at home?

119

[quote]MilSpec105 wrote:
I think the idea come from the conclusion that you would have to have gays roommates or mixed sex roommates… basically that it would just fuck up the housing arrangement and lead to more issues.
[/quote]

Still, if it should happen that gay roommates do have sex on their free time, who gives a shit? Just treat it like you would treat two heterosexual soldiers having sex, i.e. turn a blind eye to it unless it becomes a problem, and throw the book at them when it does.

That, or just don’t make any special arrangements based on sexuality. If someone can’t handle sharing a room with a gay person, they’re either a bigot and the army’s better off without them, or they won’t be able to handle being stuck in the more iconic “bunk-beds and footlockers” barracks for the duration of boot camp.

120

[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:

[quote]MilSpec105 wrote:
I think the idea come from the conclusion that you would have to have gays roommates or mixed sex roommates… basically that it would just fuck up the housing arrangement and lead to more issues.
[/quote]

Still, if it should happen that gay roommates do have sex on their free time, who gives a shit? Just treat it like you would treat two heterosexual soldiers having sex, i.e. turn a blind eye to it unless it becomes a problem, and throw the book at them when it does. [/quote]

Sure and we can let straight male and female soldiers room together and turn a blind eye because its the same thing. And if we don’t its a double standard.

Yep and we can have mixed male and female rooms because if you can’t handle living with a female you’re sexist and the army is better off without them. If you can have gay people who may or may not be in a living situation where sexual attraction is an issue you have to let straight people live in a situation where sexual attraction could be an issue. Or we he a double standard, and the Army Equal Opportunity Program and the Inspector General comes into play.

And to the “How would you feel if the military told you you had to act gay till you were in your own home” comment. The military dictates a large portion of how you conduct yourself in and out of your own home. It is different than civilian life. Case in point, It is literally a crime for me to speak out against the president. In or out of my house, in uniform or military clothes, etc. We play by different rules, plain and simple.