Gays in the military

[cav58d]

Gunslinger -  How does the whole "jail time, or Marine Corps" work?  Have you experienced many of these guys coming through your BT? Whats your thoughts

[Donzo]

Originally posted by cav58d
Maybe i'm not portraying my thoughts correctly...I don't think there is any room for homos or heterosexuals to be sexual in the military, or at any job for that matter...You're personal life should never come to work with you, especially in the military.  But if someone in the military finds out about that personal life, you risk being discharged.  I just don't think thats right.  I dunno.  If I get the commission I am applying for, I really don't think I would care about the sexual preferences of the guy to the right of me, as long as he does the right thing and keep his sexual desires at home.  What matters to me is his or her leadership abilities, dependability (sp), and how they would react when bullets start flying, and I don't think homosexuality compromises any of those characteristicstststtststssss .

Ok, what you described above is NOT "serving openly".

[cav58d]

It sure is serving openly.  To be able to serve without the threat of losing your job because of sexual preference is open to me

[BlueJ1]

I dont mind at all. If I experience gays in my future career I hope it is on good terms. As long as I dont know about it Im fine with it. And its their right to not tell everyone about it.

[cav58d]

Who cares if you know he is gay?  If he comes to work and acts as a sailor, soldier, airman or marine should, why does it matter that on the couch at home waiting for him is another man?  The whole thing comes down to profesionalism (sp)...Profesionalism that should apply to armed service members of either sexual preferences.  If a gay or a heterosexual break those professional standards then they should be punished without question, but if they are doing there job correctly, who cares about who they go to bed with.  

You guys are essentially saying that if you were in the fight for your life, and a gay man volunteered to fight alongside you, risking it all, to preserve what you both believe in, you would turn him away?

[BlueJ1]

Nevermind.

[tedrbr]

Personally, no problem with it.  Secure in my promiscuous hetero pursuits and I'm not a homophobe.

Reality is: they are in the military now, just not openly.  Some you can tell, many not.   Right up there with the policy of women not serving in combat.... but it happens every day "in-country".   Policy and reality not on the same page.  One of the better .50 cal gunners in my battalion for convoy escorts was a little gal not much bigger than the Ma Duce she gunned.

History is: There will be disruption.  Same as when women (skirts, ladies, girls) gained greater roles in the military, and African Americans (Blacks, People of Color, whatever is in vogue) were added to the general ranks from a segregated military.  There will be tensions.  There will be incidents.  The forces will adjust.  

** during active military operations may not be best time to make this change when some recruitment numbers are hurting among combat MOS's**


Military legal argument often is that sodomy is against the UCMJ, but the UCMJ are, in actuality, federal laws regarding military personnel, and the Supream Court struck down the Sodomy Laws across the country, IIRC.....   So the UCMJ laws regarding sodomy are against Federal Law, if I interpret this correctly (I'm not JAG).  
And to hear many of the heterosexual military personnel as they regale you with their tales of sexual exploits, a large number of them are in violation of the UCMJ anyways (see above, and look up the definition).  Such a thing as upholding the law on an equal basis to everyone, right?  But the UCMJ is not prosecuted evenly when it comes to this.

What is really funny is that some of the most homophobic male soldiers I've known that get really up in arms about the subject of gay males in uniform, have absolutely no problem with gay females around them.... other than wanting to watch.  

And it's not like any new regs would be needed.  Current sexual harrassment regs and the appropriate standards in behavior as a soldier would cover any situation that comes up.


Actually, I think this is far more a political issue than it would be among the fighting soldiers.  It's yet another platform for the Religeous Reich.... er... Right.

[cav58d]

I agree ted, but if you let the extremist left resolve the issue, the gays would be wearing lipstick, mascara and rainbow uniforms lol

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by cav58d
I agree ted, but if you let the extremist left resolve the issue, the gays would be wearing lipstick, mascara and rainbow uniforms lol

Would just come down as "Conduct Unbecoming" --- like I said, just following and enforcing existing regs, sexual harrassment policies, and standards of conduct take care of most of the fearful situations that some people say would come out of a change in policy.

It would be a bigger problem in the halls of the Capitol Building than it would be at Fort Bragg.

Just be another "clique" in the ranks.  Not much different than the racial tensions that effect some units to this day.  Heck, story goes that years ago there were units in Ft. Carson in which Gang relations were a serious issue..... had to seperate Crips and Bloods into seperate Companies!   And there are still problems with some serving soldiers being "closeted" card carrying members of the KKK and other white supremacists groups.

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by cav58d
For those of you currently serving, or who have served in the past, what is your opinion about gays in the military?  Not so long ago I would say there is no place for them, but recently my mind has changed.  I say that if an American is willing to take the oath of service, and possibly risk limb and life for this country then he should be able to without being discriminated against because of sexuality.  I do not buy into the whole "homosexuals have a much stronger sex drive then heterosexuals".  I dont think there is any room for flambouyantly gay homosexuals, nor do I think there is any room for heterosexuals, who use the military as a tool to advance their sex life.  If a homosexual was openly trying to pursue a relationship with a male soldier, or any heterosexual aggressively trying to pursue a sexual relationship with a female soldier, then I think they should be punished accordingly, but I just dont get why a mans (or womans) sexuality can block them from protecting our country.

What do you think

Not always.

Lets skip all the PC niceties and just admit that most military / police (quasi-military) guys are hard core alphas who bond best with two things; females and like alphas. Once you get someone who doesn't bond well with others, it can be a problem.

We had an openly gay male officer at the Dept and for whatever reasons you want to assign; homophobic, haters blah blah he just didn't feel right around us, us with him especially in the locker room.. the gallows humor of a police locker room is enough to totally offend anyone not in the "gang", it always seemed like we were offending him, or he'd report us for sexual harassment.

He ended up dressing before he got to work, that allievated the locker room uneasiness and from there was did a professional job as a cop and there was not problem with his lifestyle. However some guys just hated him, period, always paranoid he was checking em out.

Some guys made a huge issue of searching people; male cops can touch females almost anywhere using the knife of the hand, or a flashlight over the clothing... idea being you cant "cop a feel" (heh) with the edge of a hand.. so is it ok for a male homosexual to palm search other men? and should a citizen be told or given the option to not allow a gay man to search them? These never got resolved, but some guys just wouldn't let it go.

We also had a gay (well bi) female officer that could school 9 of of 10 dudes in a fight, and was fairly hot... we had no problems with her at all, she was good police. She was a bigger distraction off duty, she partied with us and often brought one of her freaky BI friends... it got real weird sometimes. You typical egomaniac cop thinks he'll be the one to finally pork her straight and jumped at the chance of being sandwiched between the two... so there was some drama, but it was off duty soap opera crap.

The deciding factor, IMO, is the person, their professionalism... not the fact they are gay. But its not always going to be a nice "lets all love each other" fit eathier, you cannot force political correctness on anyone in the life or death business. When your job includes bullets, death and stuff, theres an elevated level of game face all the time, and you only want the most solid team possible watching your back.. guys do not like the idea 1 persons sexual preference can fracture that team... and when it does, well it gets ugly.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
The deciding factor, IMO, is the person, their professionalism... not the fact they are gay. But its not always going to be a nice "lets all love each other" fit eathier, you cannot force political correctness on anyone in the life or death business. When your job includes bullets, death and stuff, theres an elevated level of game face all the time, and you only want the most solid team possible watching your back.. guys do not like the idea 1 persons sexual preference can fracture that team... and when it does, well it gets ugly.

Shouldn't the spotlight be on the team member(s) who didn't like the "persons sexual preference" then?
Certainly in a perfect world, professionalism and discipline should run both ways...I would think individual unit members who decide who they want to serve with is a more fracturous issue.

I do think the deciding factor should be if the member of a unit can conduct himself/herself in a professional manner whether they are gay or not.

 Tronsky

[Mightytboy]

Personally I believe they are mentally ill so handing them a gun doesn't make much sense.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Mightytboy
Personally I believe they are mentally ill so handing them a gun doesn't make much sense.

Actually its probably best discribed in most as a born in abnormality. Like a 6th toe on a foot.

Not particlarly harmful.
Just not the norm

[lazs2]

while it is true that some men are suspiciously way too  homophobe....

the current way of dealing with gays in the military is the only realistic one.

If you want to give everyone their own room and bathroom and the privacy of the workplace it may be different.    Why not let the women shower with the men?    It is not homophobe to not want to share beds and showers with a homo nor is it homophobe to not want to camp out with em.

It is not unreasonable to think that homosexual men will have blood that will kill you.  this is a disadvantage in combat situation.

It is not homophobe or even hypocritical to be disgusted when seeing two males together but not when watching lesbians.   the human is an empathetic creature.   A heterosexual male does not want to put himself in certain situations...  No one for instance wants to watch someone making out with their mother or grandmother say.

I also love it when someone allways brings up that they know some woman that can whup 9 out of ten men or whatever... if she has done so then the 9 she whuped were not really men.  No... women aren't like starbuck on batlestar galactica.... they can't fight.   Men have an overwhelming advantage in a fight.   It is common for a man to hold back tho and get hurt.   The warrior princess is probly one of our best urban myths at this point...  fueled by whacked out sex drives and the media no doubt.

If it were true...you wouldn't see it in action movies...you would see it in ultimate fight matches and men vs women boxing...  oh wait...you do once in a while...  I recall "the worlds fitest woman" getting beat to a pulp by an aged, fat, alcholic and slow joey buta****o who was out of breath trying to get through the ropes into the ring...

lazs

[Nilsen]

Gay folks in the military??


Sure, why not. No reason to belive they are worse soldiers or have more medical conditions than your average joe.