Gays in the military?

[chess9]

We have had and will continue to have gays join the military. Men and women. I doubt if any policy will effectively eliminate their presence.

Would you prefer that their lives be led clandestinely?
If so, that guy you think is your best friend in the military could be queer as a $2 bill used to be. If you are opposed to gays, I'd think you'd want to know. If you don't care, well, you got it right in my view.

Why should our personnel policies for the military be substantially different on this issue than they are in the private sector? I think the military has a heavy burden to justify even its current don't ask don't tell policy, which is hypocritical at best.

Gays served in the Civil War, World Wars I and II, and probably the Revolutionary War (don't have ANY data on that). They have served honorably for the most part.

The biggest problem the military has are with straight males suffering from terminal semen backup and testosterone overload.
Gay males and females are the least of their problems.

Why isn't anyone starting a thread about these problems with straight males, which affect military readiness much more than the few gays do? Seems odd.

 

[Modeps]

gays + military = fine with me.

in the words of chris rock,
they wanna fight? let em fight. cuz i ain't fightin.

 

[BoberFett]

I was in the service at the time the infamous words "Don't Ask Don't Tell" were uttered. At the time, I was absolutely disgusted by the idea that the guy next to me might be gay.

I've grown older and wiser however.

I'm guessing that comments such as "I don't want the guy in the foxhole with me to be watching my ass" come from people who have never been in a foxhole. The last thing you're thinking about as live fire is whizzing overhead is sex. I don't care if it's a man and woman, or a couple of gay men, they'll be thinking about staying alive, not doing the nasty.

Inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate behavior. Allowing openly gay men in the military will not result in orgies in the barracks; such a thing wouldn't be appropriate with men and women either. Unwanted advances, breaches of protocol, etc. would still be punishable. I remember quite well my first day at boot camp. That night, the fire guard walked by the bathroom and heard some noise coming from the shower. He walked in on two guys in *ahem* a compromising position. They were promptly sent packing, as well they should have been. Just because you happen to be attracted to your same sex does not give you free reign to break rules that straight men are expected to follow.

I still think women and men should not serve in the same combat unit. Men have a natural tendency to protect women which could compromise the mission if those instincts are acted upon. The men in the military are trained professionals, but they're still human, and have the emotions and instincts that the rest of us have.

 

[Shuxclams]

[/b]What was that song by Village People? Oh yeah, IN THE NAVY, like jokes about lonley sailors butt bumping out at sea hasnt been around since the first ships sailed the sea. A Homophobe is a homophobe is a homophobe and is scared they might like it. Stupid wanna be queers.








SHUX

 

[Frenchie]

From someone previously in the US Army, I would put in a vote against. Not that I have anyhting aginst a persons sexual orientation, but from past experience it DOES effect unit cohesion. Which does effect performance.

 

[Prodigy^]

lots of people in the navy are gay because they have no pussy for periods of MONTHS out there on the sea.

anyway, valhalla has a point....it can distract the gay people and make the straight guys nervous or uncomfortable so I don't think it's a good idea to have gay people in the military.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

As a military member I don't buy, even for an instant, the idea that it is OK to exclude gays from the military on the basis that it "might make others uncomfortable in the trenches". No doubt there are many military members who are made uncomfortable by minorities serving alongside them, but the government does not sanction their racism by excluding people of color.

There have been, and continue to be, gays at all levels of the military. Unfortunately, polls have showed that most military members are opposed to allowing gays to serve, and many claim they would leave if service by practicing homosexuals were legalized. With that in mind, it is probably politically impractical to shake things up to any substantial degree.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

<< lots of people in the navy are gay because they have no pussy for periods of MONTHS out there on the sea. >>

Wow, is that all it takes to become &quot;gay&quot;? I'll have to ask my dad if he had any homosexual desires while he was in the Navy.

 

[AaronP]

If queers wanna go to war and get shot at, I say let em go. But they should be segregated from straight units.

 

[Eug]

<< did you have co-ed showers in high school gym class? NO.
does the military ? no.
do college dorms? no.
etc. >>


My floor in my university dorm was co-ed. Bathrooms were co-ed. Showers were co-ed although each shower had it's own stall although you could look over the top if you were tall enough. The toilets had their own stalls too, but again were co-ed. There were urinals, and some guys used them but most of us didn't, except during parties when all the stalls were taken. At first it felt strange but we got used to it after about 2 days.

Interestingly, there were a couple of people in the all male floors that were gay, while every single male on my co-ed floor was straight. Also interesting is the fact that I don't think any of the males on my floor asked to be on the co-ed floor. On our applications we just said we didn't care, as long as we got a place in the dorm. There were some males who said they would prefer to get the co-ed floor, and NONE of them got it. Hmmm... I wonder if it was a question to screen out the pervs.

The point is, it really isn't a big deal in a dorm. In the midst of an all out war when people are going to be shot at, people are going to care even less.

 

[Tominator]

Integrating Gays and Women in the Military have done nothing to improve morale and their readiness to do the job. Thanks to Clinton, and it seems many here, the US Military is in a shambles when it comes to morale and readiness.

It isn't some Liberal Social Experiment!

Let's see, over 80% of females that are assigned to ships in the Navy come back pregnant, One Navette was arrested in Italy trying to open a bank account using US currency. She whored herself out onboard ship ang if I remember she had over $60,000 bucks.

Many studies have probed the impact of Females and openly Gay men in the Military and not one showed anything positive.

To get Female Pilots, we've cheated for them. They do not have to meet the same standards as men do and it has costs lives!

Same goes in Ground Troups. Females are not capable of the job.

Gays never become part of the 'Unit.'

Do a little study of Modern Warefare. There are no positives for Gays or Women in most spots in the Military.

 

[AndrewR]

1 in 4 men are gay.
What kind of queenie propaganda are you reading? LOL! Studies I've seen range from 1-10%, hardly 25%. Care to support that outrageous figure?

Fine -- gays have and will continue to serve despite a ban on it. They have not done so openly, however, and it DOES cause a problem with unit cohesion when it's known or suspected that someone is gay. Fact. I've seen it -- have you?

Oh, and I love this ignorance:
&quot;The biggest problem the military has are with straight males suffering from terminal semen backup and testosterone overload.&quot;

You obviously have no clue about the composition of the military today (and in the past). The very traits you identify as being a problem are the ones that the military harnasses for its combat troops who are compromised of these &quot;suffering&quot; males. Yes, let's emasculate the male population in this country so every man can curl up like a slobbering baby at the feet of feminism.

Yet more:
&quot;Why should our personnel policies for the military be substantially different on this issue than they are in the private sector?&quot;

Because no one dies in the private sector when they fsck around with the rules. Did that ever occur to you? Probably not. If you compromise the training environment, you compromise lives. If you compromise unit cohesion, you compromise lives. What's more important -- lives and national security or feel-good openness? Why don't we just make the military a giant love nest? Let's get rid of the uniforms, the ranks, those silly training exercises -- why should the military be substantially different from the private sector?

Tee_Edwards: Just out of curiousity, were you a direct entrant into JAG or did you go through ROTC, the Academy or from active duty (have the AF pay for school)?

Yo_Ma-Ma: If that's all it takes to be gay, most of the frustrated computer geeks on this board are &quot;gay&quot;.

 

[Double Trouble]

<<Are you telling me that there are not emotional attachments between straight men who serve together?>>

Nope, not the same. Just like you don't love your sister like you do your wife (unless you're from West Virginia ) - different emotion altogether. Comradery and a close relationship like a family are different emotions than a romantic relationship.

<<but the government does not sanction their racism by excluding people of color>>

Again, different rationale. Anyone that would be against serving with someone from a different race can only have one reason -- they are racist. There is no difference between the dynamics of a black person or an asian person or white person in terms of how they fuction in the unit - the only difference is their skin.

It's not about the 'yech' factor or even simple homophobia. It's about the simple fact that romantic attraction between people in a unit makes for significant potential for problems. That's not just paranoid fear, that's a fact, regardless of 'lifestyle' or 'preference'. That's why you don't put male and female together in a unit even though they are both completely capable of doing the job. Putting someone attracted to males in general in a unit with males creates the same problems as putting males and females in the same unit. The military people know it, which is why the vast majority are against it.

<<Why should our personnel policies for the military be substantially different on this issue than they are in the private sector?>>

Because the military is NOT the same as the private sector. People do not put their life on the line in defense of the company and it's ideals. My company won't ask me to take a bullet to complete a project. When you're talking about lives at stake, the first and foremost consideration HAS to be the efficiency of the military, not political correctness. Until someone shows some great gain in efficiency that we can attain by making a change in the policy (to balance out the KNOWN potential negative effects), there is no need to change the policy.

It's not about perception and fear, it's about logic. There are some legitimate logical and practical reasons to keep the exclusion policy in place. There are no logical reasons to change the policy, other than the interest of policial correctness, which by itself is NEVER a good reason.

 

[JellyBaby]

Tominator,

<< Gays never become part of the 'Unit.' >>

Interesting phrasiology!

The &quot;don't arsk, don't tell&quot; policy should continue until such time as there's no &quot;openly gay&quot;, just &quot;gay&quot;. Most people still feel being queer is a choice. If science backs up the notion some are simply born gay (or even predisposed to be gay), acceptance will come quicker.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

AndrewR:

I came directly into the Air Force JAG Department as a lawyer. I paid (read: am still paying) for my own legal education.

 

[UsandThem]

<< Many other countries now have open gays in the military and there are no problems such as those constantly repeated here, i.e. I beleive that there is a gay general in Holland. >>



Being stationed overseas I can comment on this. Holland allows same sex marriage, and probably many other countries. When you go to basic training, the first thing they do is shave your head and strip you of anything that will make you stand out as an individual. Teamwork is the key.
You also have to look at Military Laws. UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) is the lawbook of the military. This has been around a very long time.

In this book, a soldier can be punished, jailed, imprisoned, or kicked out for many things. This includes adultry (cheating if you are married) and sodomy (oral or anal sex). Technically a person can get punished or jailed if they get a blowjob from their wife and they get caught. This is the main rule that excluded gays.

I don't know if it is right or wrong, but it doesn't matter. Gays have served since the beginning, and as long as the don't become INDIVIDUALS by declaring that they are gay and take it in the behind, it is fine with me. The military is a team, not individuals. That is why we are the best.

 

[Valhalla1]

well I go to bed and wake up and find plenty more support for my opinion that they shouldn't be allowed in the military. thats good, I was afraid me and Stefan were alone on this one. lol..

but a message board full of mostly liberal computer geeks who haven't served in the military isn't going to come out with a level response. as you can see, those who did serve in the military have almost all said gays shouldn't be allowed in. post this on some veterans message board and you'll get an overwhelming HELL NO for gays. so who should make the decision about this? the guys who put their lives in the hands of the guy next to him or liberal politicians who want to make the military a social experiment to get them re-elected?

 

[SuperGroove]

If gays can be in the military, we should make the military completely Co-ed. Shower in the same showers, bunk in the same bunks.

I do not hate homosexuals. I just don't prefer their sexuality.

 

[Statilius]

If we let gay men into the military and they sleep with men then women should also have to sleep in the same room as men. Why keep them separate when it is only a matter of sexuality? They are humans too? I don't think that is fare. Put them all together.

 

[JasonG]

Yes, I'm sure that makes perfect sense to you Valhalla1 .

I'm sure the white boys were against bringing the black boys in to serve with them as well after WWII.

There's really no difference.

Discrimination is discrimination...

It has to stop sometime.

Why are straight boys so afraid of gay boys anyway? They must be pretty insecure in their sexuality.

Don't worry. The gay guys probably think you're f*ckin' ugly anyway and want nothing to do with you.

You're safe...

 

[SuperGroove]

<< Don't worry. The gay guys probably think you're f*ckin' ugly anyway and want nothing to do with you. >>



Haha

 

[AndrewR]

Of course, when there's no good argument, just compare it to racism, despite the reasons cited above. There is no functional difference between a white man and a black man. You can have two men, one white and one black, that act the same, think the same, like the same things, etc. The only difference is color.

There is, however, a HUGE difference if one of those men is gay.

I'm not saying that there is a problem with gay men. I have known and befriended several. However, there is a problem in a military environment with them. Plain and simple.

Tee_Edwards: Ah hah. I'm not saying your experience on active duty is invalid, but you, I'm assuming, never went to an extended training period like Basic/AIT or ROTC training or a military school program such as plebe year (or Rat year for me at VMI). That's where the principle bonding I speak of comes from and where the problems lie when the cohesion is lacking or disrupted. What you experience as an ASJA is far different from barracks living or a training environment.

What galls me is people saying that when the fighting starts, gay soldiers aren't going to be looking at their foxhole mate's ass. Well, no kidding, but you've [in general sense, not implicating anyone in particular here] completely passed over the important aspect, which is training. A unit does not develop under fire. It coalesces before the battle, or it dies when the brown stuff hits the fan. The goal of military training is to instill instinctual responses to battlefield conditions, and any factor which impedes that goal causes deaths. This is not school admissions, government entitlements, or job promotion -- this is life or death.

 

[Static911]

i'm against gays in the army...we need men, not boys...

Static911

 

[luv2chill]

Hey Static911

Try not to make yourself look too ignorant and stupid in front of all these people. You can be against it, but when you use reasons like that you're only making it look like you're a bigot.

l2c

 

[DABANSHEE]

What's the Navy's motto?

Never leave your mates behind.