Gays in the Military
There’s a push on right now to do away with “don’t ask don’t tell” in the military. It’s an issue that leaves me conflicted. On the one hand, I see nothing wrong with gay folks serving their country. In fact, I think it’s a bit ludicrous to exclude people from military service based on their sexual preference. The military is a very merit-oriented profession where their job is to blow up stuff and kill people. If they do that well, why do we care how they want to tickle their unmentionables?
On the other hand, being in a military unit isn’t like other jobs. They sleep together, shower together, eat together, etc. If a dude is sexually attracted to other men, how is it any more appropriate for that guy to shower with other men than it is for a heterosexual woman to shower with them? If we are going to allow gay folks to openly serve in the military, why no go all the way and break down all of the gender distinctions?
I also look to other countries that have allowed openly gay folks to serve. Frankly, there haven’t been many major issues in the combat effectiveness of the units. So in the end, I lean toward doing away with “don’t ask don’t tell” and just letting everyone serve regardless of their sexual preference.
Gay should be allowed to serve. End of story. There may be some discomfort at first, but I doubt it’ll matter when the bullets are flying.
Posted by Billiam on February 04, 2010 at 1343 hrs
Amen to that Owen.
Your concern about showering is understood, but ultimately unwarranted. When you are at the beach and a babe walks by do you throw yourself at her or show some restraint? The stereotype that all gay men are just walking hard-ons just looking for another man is unfortunate.
If someone is willing to die for my rights I really don’t care what they do in their bedroom!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1353 hrs
I couldn’t agree more with both comments.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1414 hrs
I totally agree. Thanks for commenting on this Owen. I’m sure it won’t take long for you to get flack for it.
Posted by Joey on February 04, 2010 at 1503 hrs
I think Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, is more of a CYA rule then discriminitory. The first time an openly gay soldier is assaulted, whether it is because they are gay or not, there is going to be a lawsuit against the US Military because they didn’t protect them from the assault, and be labeled a hate crime. I agree that as long as you can shoot straight, you should be able to fight for your country. But nobody wants to get sued, period.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1516 hrs
I’m looking forward to GMazy weighing in on this. Since she is against fictional gays in the library I’d think she would be against honest-to-God real-life gays on the battlefield? Or am I wrong?
It would be a horrible message to send to our children if she is for repealing “don’t ask , don’t tell”, dontcha think? The message that gays should have the right to die as patriotic heroes in battle while defending the rights that people like her don’t think they deserve!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1518 hrs
Then why does the military, and society in general, have separate facilities for men and women?
Also, for you left leaners, why do we consider conversation that makes a woman uncomfortable in the workplace to be civilly and even criminally actionable, and yet you feel that men should be forced to shower together with gay men in a much more compromising situation and be happy with it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1521 hrs
Family Guy - I can’t speak to your fears of what might happen if you pee next to a gay guy. (Hint: Nothing will happen)
I’m straight and I wouldn’t be bothered at all if I had to shower with 50 other dudes, 5 of them maybe being gay. So what? I’m not afraid of anything inappropriate happening.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1534 hrs
I guess I never understood what the problem was with DADT.
Gays can serve in the military, they just aren’t flaunting their sexual preference. I work with women all day, but I don’t feel the need to let them know I’m straight. To me this seems to be more about making a statement than about serving in the military - since they can do that now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1539 hrs
At the end of the day, if someone is willing to go to Iraq or Afghanistan and kill the bastards, I really don’t care if their goodbye kiss is with another man (or woman). Gay soldiers who are incapable of keeping their hands off unwilling partners will not last long and are unlikely to join the military to begin with. Once some meatheads realize that their gay counterparts are tough, professional soldiers, unit cohesion will not be a problem. In a foxhole, you worry about whether your co-worker can handle a weapon and not get both of you killed. Anything else is superfluous.
Our military intelligence services are stretched so thin, that if a strong professional with a fluency in Arabic wants in, they can be a bisexual unicorn for all I care.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1542 hrs
Bill,
It’s more than just flaunting. Lets say a guy gets a weekend pass and spends that Saturday night in a gay bar. He doesn’t tell anyone in his unit and he goes to a bar in a neighboring town. That isn’t flaunting it, but if word gets back to the brass, he will likely be drummed out due to DADT. And lets say you have a gay soldier who is married. Is it flaunting your sexual orientation if you mention your wife to a female co-worker, even in passing?
Lets let these soldiers live their lives and prove their professionalism without making them hide basic facts about who they are.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1549 hrs
Really not an answer to any of my points, John Galt. If you have nothing better than playground pee pee humor, then I suspect that you have never thought the full issue through, or it’s social and legal implications. Not a surprise though….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1550 hrs
Well, to answer your question, Family Guy: when a guy makes crude comments to a woman, he is taking action to make the woman uncomfortable. Put simply: he is doing something. When you shower next to another dude, he’s not doing anything to you. He’s just showering. If he does make suggestive remarks or take physical action, then he is no different than the guy in the first example and should be treated just as harshly.
And what “social and legal implications” are you referring to?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1557 hrs
Family Guy,
You brought up “facilities”, I didn’t. I’m not afraid of homosexuals. This is a non-issue to me. Of course we shouldn’t make gays essentially lie about who they are. What is the worst case scenario that you are afraid of? A gay guy playing a little grab-ass with a straight guy in the shower on base? Really? Why on earth would a gay guy go after a straight guy knowing they aren’t at all interested. Would you (assuming you are straight) go after a lesbian? Of course not - why would you waste your time?
Bill,
It’s not about “flaunting”. It’s about not making a whole swath of our population deny who they are simply for the comfort of people with irrational fears. Know what I mean?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1601 hrs
From Paul Waldman at the American Prospect:
In their effort to appear reasonable and tolerant, mainstream conservatives have agreed that it is not acceptable to hate or fear anyone because of their sexual orientation. Once you’ve agreed that anti-gay feeling is illegitimate, you can’t turn around and argue that gays should be kept out of the military for no reason other than anti-gay feeling. And anti-gay feeling has always been the heart of the argument supporting DADT. No one has been able to claim that gay service members don’t do their jobs well. What they’ve always said is that allowing gays to serve openly will make straight service members uncomfortable. The threat to “unit cohesion” comes not from the gay soldier but from the straight soldier who doesn’t like having to serve alongside the gay soldier. Conservatives defending DADT have no choice but to defend bigotry—something they’ve now conceded is indefensible.
Admiral Mullen, chairman of the JCOS, and many other prominent military commanders and ex-commanders, now even including Colin Powell, have called for the repeal of DADT. Depending on which ones you look at, polls show between 60% and 70% of the country think it should be overturned. There’s really no longer any rational reason to keep it in place.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1623 hrs
Removing DADT, without removing the corresponding UMCJ regs against sodomy will actually make it illegal for homosexuals to serve.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1630 hrs
When you shower next to another dude, he’s not doing anything to you.
@Sonny: Then why do we have separate facilities for men and women? When you shower next to a woman, you are not doing anything to her…. yet women do not care for that arrangement, do they?
As for the legal issues… there will likely be men who feel uncomfortable being forced into situations where they will be living in close quarters with homosexuals just as women feel uncomfortable about being in close personal quarters with men. We offer women their own same sex barracks, lavatories and sleeping arrangements in response. Why should we not offer the same considerations for men of different sexual orientations?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1637 hrs
Why should we not offer the same considerations for men of different sexual orientations?
Heterosexual men need to sack up and stop being such babies about being anywhere near homosexuals. Jesus H. Christ in a sidecar, these are soldiers, trained to bring about death and destruction. I think they can stand being around other men who aren’t exactly like them, and if they can’t, they need to learn. This whole attitude really demeans the ability of men in the military to act like, well, men.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1648 hrs
Is all the homoeroticism portrayed among male soldiers in movies like Platoon or Jarhead (and others) pure fiction? Seems that there is plenty of male sexuality in the barracks anyway.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 2155 hrs
You make a good point Owen.
My family lived on an army post in Germany in the 1950s and it was more integrated than the segregationist US of A.
Do away with this nonsense of DADT and ten years from now nobody will remember it ever being an issue.
Posted by Swamp Gas on February 04, 2010 at 2231 hrs
Owen,
very good call
There’s hope for you after all
MHM
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 2306 hrs
Heterosexual men need to sack up and stop being such babies about being anywhere near homosexuals. Jesus H. Christ in a sidecar, these are soldiers, trained to bring about death and destruction. I think they can stand being around other men who aren’t exactly like them, and if they can’t, they need to learn. This whole attitude really demeans the ability of men in the military to act like, well, men.
Best statement of the thread. If there were historical evidence that gays in the military made them in any way less effective I would be strongly against gays in the military. Unfortunately for bigots everywhere, several of the most disciplined militaries in history had rampant homosexuality. If anything, evidence shows that our military would have even better discipline if there were no segregation of men and women. (Just morale-wise, I bet even the most homophobic soldiers would accept homosexuals with metaphorical open arms if they were showering with the women too.)
An important part of military discipline is trusting your fellow soldier like you would your brother. I think desegregation of the military did as much to decrease racism as anything the USA has done on that subject. It will do the same thing for homosexuality.
(Is it somehow wrong that my code for this comment is ca69re?)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 05, 2010 at 0845 hrs
Mom met Dad at the USO on 3rd Street in 1942. Dad was at Great Lakes during the week for training and came to MKE to meet Mom on weekends. One weekend he brought several of his buddies with him. Mom asked if she could get a group of her girl friends so they could all enjoy a movie at the old Strand Theater . Dad said sure “but don’t bring a girl friend for ‘Mike’, he’s not that way”. Dad and ‘Mike’ ended up in the battle of Okinawa. Being gay, didn’t affect Mike’s comradery as a sailor, his battle readiness or his courage. Gays and lesbians have been in the military longer than many people are willing to acknowledge.
Thanks for indulging me a favorite family story!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 05, 2010 at 1014 hrs
First step to a mandatory draft.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 05, 2010 at 1934 hrs
Total Entries: 19628
Total Comments: 129573
Most Recent Entry: 02/03/2012 09:53 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/04/2012 06:35 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 102
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/04/2012 06:52 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).