Military and homosexuals

[Morcheeba]

i agree about the government doing what they want. HOWEVER, if they take out DADT, its because of gays wanting it changed for the mostpart. so, that ends that. congrats to them.
when it comes to the government and their contract, believe me, they will get what is on that agreement...especially when it benefits them

but you still just cannot up and leave the military when you want. its not a normal job when, if you dont like it anymore, you just quit. its called desertion and is punishable by military courts and military jailing. even those deserters that left during WW2 and such, they get caught 30 years later, they are still punishable under the UCMJ.
if it were as easy as just losing benefits, the military would lost over half of their troops because they decided they didnt like it anymore. i guess it seems that EVERYONE in iraq loves getting extended stays there. why quit?! ID FRIGGIN LOVE IT THERE! /sarcasm off

They may not have the choice to leave, but they also don't have a say in who is accepted in the military to begin with. It's a suck it up situation. Like it or lump it you may be working with dykes and fags OMG. I get where you're coming from, and I can understand you have an inside understanding and know that many would take it upon themselves to retaliate and make some minorities time a living hell. But it's then up to the officials to crack a whip and bust ass against offenders, and the haters are the offenders. you can't just leave but you can get dishonorably discharged and lose all you've earned as far as benefits go. It comes down to what hate is worth to the homophobes who would offend.

E- and I DO think it would be that easy =) They would just have to be serious about a no tolerance rule much like there is for drugs.

 

[Raesvelg]

To play Devil's Advocate again (and further procrastinate from my midterm studying), this top-down approach is reliant upon the assumption that the people at the top want to integrate the armed services, despite substantial evidence to the contrary.

Militaries have always fallen on the conservative side, arguably because you stick with what you know works when the alternative is death. They don't like change, unless they can be shown unequivocally that it is change for the better, and in this instance, you'd have a fairly hard time accomplishing that.

Rather than having commanding officers aggressively pursuing a policy of integration, you'd be far more likely to have those officers practicing a policy of obstruction, obfuscation, and neglect when it came to complaints of abuse made by homosexual soldiers.

For example.

Women have been integrated on at least some level into the armed services for some time now.

According to some studies, ~30% of the women who were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan were raped by fellow service members. Bad as that is, other statistics show that only ~10% of the perpetrators in reported cases were prosecuted. That doesn't even cover the unreported cases.

 

[masterorion]

and yes, you do have a point. however, drugs they will discharge you after your jail time and shit duty they give you. for beating someone up, they wont necessarily boot you as they would for drugs. but, you can damn well believe there will probably be pay taken out, shit duty, demotion, and probably brig time. once that is all done with, they will put you back in your unit. but, this all comes down to the judge adv and what they decide. but, ive seen cases much similar to this. they get put back into the unit after they hand out the consequences.

on the same token, i dont think retaliation would be the big picture issue. the minority segregation that is invoked by the minorities, themselves, is a bigger issue. takes away from unit cohesion. not saying it ALWAYS happens. but, in the instance of whites and blacks, it is there. the black marines(im just using them as a ref since ive been there and done that), tend to hang out with their own kind when they are on liberty. that isnt even all of it. there are some serious racists in the military. they just know when to shut up. a guy that i was in charge of, huge redneck, consistantly talks down about black people. N word, expressing hate in stuff he would say, everything you can imagine. but, he didnt express it to the people it would matter to.

unfortunately, its just human nature for some people, to be like that. who knows what may happen. nor do i care. i would hope everything goes the way it does now. i dont see it. i dont see a huge issue arising though. but, instead of two or three groups of "clicks" now there will just be another one added.

 

[Halifirien]

According to some studies, ~30% of the women who were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan were raped by fellow service members. Bad as that is, other statistics show that only ~10% of the perpetrators in reported cases were prosecuted. That doesn't even cover the unreported cases.

Yeah, but that's not caused by the presence of women. That's caused by the presence of rapists.

 

[masterorion]

Women have been integrated on at least some level into the armed services for some time now.

According to some studies, ~30% of the women who were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan were raped by fellow service members. Bad as that is, other statistics show that only ~10% of the perpetrators in reported cases were prosecuted. That doesn't even cover the unreported cases.

i was going to comment on the women in subs now being allowed. but i started contemplating it and figured it shouldnt be any worse than what it is already. less space has more potential for problems, but it makes it that much easier to control it.

Yeah, but that's not caused by the presence of women. That's caused by the presence of rapists.

actually., i would say its because of the presence of horny men that havent had sex for months on end that get comfortable with someone they work with and take it too far.
the presence of the "rapists" is no different from the presence of "biggots" and "racists".
stuff lilke that happens regardless of the rules that are set.

 

[Raesvelg]

Yeah, but that's not caused by the presence of women. That's caused by the presence of rapists.

You missed the point. The presence of rapists is tolerated.

 

[Linhjah]

actually., i would say its because of the presence of horny men that havent had sex for months on end that get comfortable with someone they work with and take it too far.

Rape is not "taking it too far". There are plenty of men who are hard up who manage not to rape women. Rape is not about sex or being horny, its about power.

Also, I'd like to add that the article you posted excerpts from, Celv, was published by the Air Force Times. I am not completely sure that is unbiased journalism.

 

[Halifirien]

You missed the point. The presence of rapists is tolerated.

Touché

 

[Rips]

I've been so back and forth on this issue but I think I know more then enough to come to terms with a decision after debating it and reading online for so long.

Being gay myself and residing in Canada, you can see how at first I might have said doing away with DADT in the US was going to be no problem. I wasn't being pretentious and holding that hard of a stance but rather clinically (not emotionally) observing. I figured times have changed and if Canada and other first world nations can do it, the US can. I knew the US was for more conservative, but I thought of how outrageous it was to ban gays from serving openly just on the basis of someone else being uncomfortable with their presence. It feels like a slap in the face, I know. Servicemen and women honorably serving their country only to be found out of who they are and getting thrown out of the military because of it. It feels like unjustified punishment. But it's really not. And after seeing these new charts, I'm certain the ban at this point in time, in the middle of the country being at war, is necessary, because the only issue that matters at all is national security, and you either believe or do not believe that gays serving openly in the military will affect national security, and I believe us serving openly will.

Everyone had to understand, like Clev explained, the ban is in place not as a punishment. Knowing the intention of the policy is critical in understanding it. It is to keep order and discipline in the military and to keep up unit cohesion and moral. To be honest, I really don't think moral will be that big of an issue. The religious right is predicting a reinstatement of the draft which in my opinion ridiculous. It won't get that bad, but us serving openly will be bad enough with all the other issues that will arise.

With the amount of people uncomfortable with the policy being lifted, it'll cause tension and stress on everyone. Harassment will definitely happen causing problems for both sides which can lead to violence and hate crimes. Half of the military personnel who oppose it will feel silenced which will only hinder the confidence and attention on a mission leading to distractions that we can't afford in situations that require a clear mind. And on top of that, there's going to be that few that will ruin it for us by flaunting to a few of the wrong guys that will have the domino effect that will collide with into a colossal media nightmare of us serving openly, which just as Clev said will horrendously hurt our fight to marry who we love, as if we didn't have it bad enough as it is with big gay media names (see: Perez) our marriage rights are truly what's important here.

And while were on that topic of marriage Clev, you hit the nail on the nose with that last paragraph where you posted the charts, but that one part of the goal being social acceptance is wrong. I don't know where you pulled that out of or where you got it from, but the goal is to be treated equally under the law. Have the rights that you have. That's why you see all those "Equality under the law" signs everywhere. Although, I do think the gay agenda leaders like the Human Rights Campaign are pushing for social acceptance along with equality under the law, that's not the idea for the most of us.


For my gay friends on here reading this or anyone else for that matter, lets just keep it simple and think of it like this:

Just as us gays know we can't control our sexual orientation, straight service members can't control their personal distractions, so we can't tell them tough luck, we're serving with you. Service members cannot have this big of a distraction to deal with on a daily level, especially in the middle of a war! There's too many issues and now is not the time to do it. I predict, perhaps it can be repealed in the future, but only if these graphs show the personnel being more accepting of it, which currently their not, and I say it's the service members say, not the peoples.

For Miros and Hali, you guys know I know how you feel and where we come from, but it's not a right to serve openly and if you're concerned for the 65,000 gay members serving in secret, I really hate to say it and sound condescending, but they chose to be there knowing the risks. They'll make it and tough it out until the majority of the military itself is actually ready.

 

[Rips]

YEAH, WE DON'T WANT THEM ++++++S IN THE ARMY! I AIN'T SHOWERIN WITH NO ++++++!

Oh wait, fuck it's 40 years later and it's gay this time. /tries to get with the time

See, this is a popular analogy but I feel that the difference between the race issue and the sexual orientation issue is of a far greater magnitude.



EDIT: One quarrel I do have is the the vote on whether or not to give benefits to gay couples if the ban was lifted. No 43%, yes 40%, undecided 12%. That gets a big up yours to whoever voted no. Why should one couple get the benefits but the other not? Don't give me the procreation shit.

Those numbers are so ironic, but so warming to the heart at the same time. Just like marriage statistics, it's always a close call whenever there is a vote on our rights in this country. Prop 8 - yes 52.5% and no 47.5%. Question 1 in Maine, 53%-47% and now this, 43%-40%. It's always a sliver away from being down the middle.

It's so warming because 10, 20, 30 years ago it would have been no where close to the breaking point. That's why you always hear "gay marriage is inevitable." As time goes on, the prediction is times will change to people being more accepting as the youth grows past 18 to vote and the elderly pretty much die off.

 

[Halifirien]

For Miros and Hali, you guys know I know how you feel and where we come from, but it's not a right to serve openly and if you're concerned for the 65,000 gay members serving in secret, I really hate to say it and sound condescending, but they chose to be there knowing the risks. They'll make it and tough it out until the majority of the military itself is actually ready.

I realize they know the risks. Even if DADT was repealed tomorrow it would not cause every gay or lesbian soldier to throw up their hands and say "WOOOOO! I'm gay!" Many of them will keep it under wraps; some will do it because that's just what they're used to, some will do it to avoid tension and harrasment, and some will do it to keep the respect of the people under their command. Plenty of gay people hide their sexuality outside the military, which is why you see so many personal ads from gay dudes who "have to be discreet."

The point of repealing DADT is so the soldiers who are comfortable enough with their situation to be open about who they are are not punished and drummed out because one asshole with a grudge decides to get them kicked out. We spend millions of dollars training gay and lesbians soldiers each year and then we piss it away because of religious traditions about which body parts are allowed to touch. It's silly and it's counterproductive to expel Arab linguists who'd be handy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't give a tin shit if homophobes are still homophobes. They're always going to be around, just like racists and anti-Semites. No law says you have to like someone else. It just says you have to act like a damned professional and work together to get the job done. Or at least, it should, and it will. It's not going to happen overnight, but it certainly won't happen if people don't continue to push for it and show how stupid it is to allow bigotry to be its own excuse for never changing.

 

[Morcheeba]

I don't give a tin shit if homophobes are still homophobes. They're always going to be around, just like racists and anti-Semites. No law says you have to like someone else. It just says you have to act like a damned professional and work together to get the job done. Or at least, it should, and it will. It's not going to happen overnight, but it certainly won't happen if people don't continue to push for it and show how stupid it is to allow bigotry to be its own excuse for never changing.

That's where I'm in complete agreement. If these men and women are charged with protecting our boarders and neighbouring countries and something as minimal as a brother in arm being gay is that big of a distraction, I can't trust them to protect shit. We need Mature and Logical minds serving, STRONG does not mean just physically, they need to be strong mentally and that does mean sucking it up, growing the fuck up and dealing with the cards they've been dealt. When you are told tough shit, you are to deal, no ifs ands or buts. If they can't then it should show a sign of major weakness. Weak in the head.

I would be just as worried of these mentally weaker service people getting distracted by a pimple on their ass.

What does concern me are the points Rae brought up. The fact that it's possible the suits in charge don't WANT a change. Or that Officials themselves would be opposed to it, or closet homophobes. That is an unsettling thought. And although I know it's quite possible and probably likely that there are numerous officials who feel that way, it's just not right.

And if we, you, as a nation are going to continue to grow, prosper and better yourselves as a nation, something will HAVE to be done eventually about unfair unjust treatment of gays in your military.

E- Hiding them like dirty little secrets is not a solution to what issues may arise from their being open, it's a band aid solution that harbors the weak minded individuals that can't focus on the tasks set for them.

 

[Tristam Green]

i agree about the government doing what they want. HOWEVER, if they take out DADT, its because of gays wanting it changed for the mostpart. so, that ends that. congrats to them.
when it comes to the government and their contract, believe me, they will get what is on that agreement...especially when it benefits them

but you still just cannot up and leave the military when you want. its not a normal job when, if you dont like it anymore, you just quit. its called desertion and is punishable by military courts and military jailing. even those deserters that left during WW2 and such, they get caught 30 years later, they are still punishable under the UCMJ.
if it were as easy as just losing benefits, the military would lost over half of their troops because they decided they didnt like it anymore. i guess it seems that EVERYONE in iraq loves getting extended stays there. why quit?! ID FRIGGIN LOVE IT THERE! /sarcasm off

How much do you know? It's not a contract, it's an enlistment. You don't sign up for 20 years, you sign up for 3-5 years at a time. If you're a commissioned officer, yes; you have a longer obligation to service. But enlisted folks? Really? Ride out the rest of your current term, and if you don't fucking like it anymore, don't sign on the dotted line when presented with that fat re-enlistment bonus. It's a simple gesture, stop making it sound like you're indentured for life.

Also, I'd like to add that the article you posted excerpts from, Celv, was published by the Air Force Times. I am not completely sure that is unbiased journalism.

:O Flash: It isn't. Army/Air Force/Navy Times are a very "for us, by us" publication. It is run by Gannett, though, who also publishes USA Today.

I don't give a tin shit if homophobes are still homophobes. They're always going to be around, just like racists and anti-Semites. No law says you have to like someone else. It just says you have to act like a damned professional and work together to get the job done. Or at least, it should, and it will. It's not going to happen overnight, but it certainly won't happen if people don't continue to push for it and show how stupid it is to allow bigotry to be its own excuse for never changing.

I think this is why I like you. The cut-the-shit attitude.

 

[Miros]

I realize they know the risks. Even if DADT was repealed tomorrow it would not cause every gay or lesbian soldier to throw up their hands and say "WOOOOO! I'm gay!" Many of them will keep it under wraps; some will do it because that's just what they're used to, some will do it to avoid tension and harrasment, and some will do it to keep the respect of the people under their command. Plenty of gay people hide their sexuality outside the military, which is why you see so many personal ads from gay dudes who "have to be discreet."

Definitely have to agree with this. One of the main things that I think ridding the DADT policy will accomplish links back to the story that was mentioned earlier. The one of the lesbian officer who quit after 20 some odd years. What if one of those 65,000 closeted servicemen died and their significant other wasn't listed and it took months for that person to find out? What about officers who aren't in combat and just have a desk job? How will that truly affect those on the front lines?

The point of repealing DADT is so the soldiers who are comfortable enough with their situation to be open about who they are are not punished and drummed out because one asshole with a grudge decides to get them kicked out. We spend millions of dollars training gay and lesbians soldiers each year and then we piss it away because of religious traditions about which body parts are allowed to touch. It's silly and it's counterproductive to expel Arab linguists who'd be handy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Exactly! The taxpayers feed plenty of money to the military for training and if one servicemen is found out by another through a method I truthfully could care a less about, then all that money is blown away. Fiscally it's retarded. And in these days, we need to be more fiscally sound.

I don't give a tin shit if homophobes are still homophobes. They're always going to be around, just like racists and anti-Semites. No law says you have to like someone else. It just says you have to act like a damned professional and work together to get the job done. Or at least, it should, and it will. It's not going to happen overnight, but it certainly won't happen if people don't continue to push for it and show how stupid it is to allow bigotry to be its own excuse for never changing.

This and Cheeb's post are pretty huge to this debate I think. Just because there are people who think homosexuality is wrong does't mean they won't be able to work with them. Unless of course the homo in question acts like Perez Hilton which I think would be out of line anyways and chances are they'd be discharged for behavior. We aren't giving the troops enough credit and for some reason everyone seems to think that their attitude and morale will be completely destroyed if homosexuals are allowed in the military. If they can't be professional in that aspect then they should be discharged anyways.

Cua, I don't think you really thought about all of the ramifications that's being put on the closeted gays these days. I'd say put yourself in their shoes and see if your mindset changes.

 

[masterorion]

How much do you know? It's not a contract, it's an enlistment. You don't sign up for 20 years, you sign up for 3-5 years at a time. If you're a commissioned officer, yes; you have a longer obligation to service. But enlisted folks? Really? Ride out the rest of your current term, and if you don't fucking like it anymore, don't sign on the dotted line when presented with that fat re-enlistment bonus. It's a simple gesture, stop making it sound like you're indentured for life.



:O Flash: It isn't. Army/Air Force/Navy Times are a very "for us, by us" publication. It is run by Gannett, though, who also publishes USA Today.



I think this is why I like you. The cut-the-shit attitude.

Actually, enlistment and contract go hand in hand. And what I was referring to was people that want to leave before their enlistment/contract is up. Regardless of its length. They have u for the length you agreed to. What they do after that is up to them. Which brings me to another misconception. For the avg person that signs for 4 years, its technically an 8 year agreement. 4 active 4 inactive. Obviously the 4 inactive years don't really matter unless yhour reactivated. Which, they can do and have done for war situations. U cannot decide to not show up for your reactivation.

 

[Morcheeba]

Just because there are people who think homosexuality is wrong does't mean they won't be able to work with them. Unless of course the homo in question acts like Perez Hilton which I think would be out of line anyways and chances are they'd be discharged for behavior. We aren't giving the troops enough credit and for some reason everyone seems to think that their attitude and morale will be completely destroyed if homosexuals are allowed in the military. If they can't be professional in that aspect then they should be discharged anyways.

And you know, it's a very harsh offense to discriminate against someone when considering them for employment. And if it were a Government Office that was found to be discriminating the repercussions would be that much greater.

I'm unsure if discrimination is against the law in the states when it comes to hiring/firing. But I also think this fits very snugly into discrimination. The military is not saying they CAN'T serve, they're just saying they can't serve and/or will be punished if they let people know what they are. That's like saying 'yeah you can work here as long as you don't let the boss know you're 1/2 German, it's in the clause." That wouldn't fly, policy or not.

I'm actually quite appalled that it would be allowed as a viable policy.

 

[Reauland]

What is the exact wording in the contract? Surely it's not something along the lines of (A) "If I am homosexual, I will refrain from disclosing that fact," and something more along the lines of (B) "I will not disclose or discuss my sexual orientation, nor will I question other personnel on theirs."

If it's (B), then I'd say a fair and equitable application of the DADT policy would be a step in the right direction, baby-steppish though it may be. Perhaps discharging a few of our red-blooded, hormone charged heteros for some of their more public exploits would go a long way toward driving the point home - sexual orientation DOES NOT MATTER. You're a government issue asexual cog once you sign on the dotted line.

That's the problem with the policy as it now stands - it's enforced in a discriminatory manner.

I taught a class offered to NATO forces on integrating land-based and airborne assets and trust me, the locker room talk does happen, no matter what branch of the service you're talking about. I saw a table of guys consisting of a Canadian Air Force jock, a U.S. Marine, a U.S. Army Ranger, and an O.S.I. agent all gettin pretty raunchy about a certain young hottie Air Force Lieutenant who was also in attendance. I had a good chuckle watching them all blanch when I pointed out the overhead lecture mikes protruding from the ceiling mere feet from where they sat. XD

The mikes were off, but if DADT were being enforced on anything remotely resembling an equitable basis, all of those guys would have been eligible for discharge then and there.

I'm just as straight as the day is long, but I'm also older, wiser, and (God let this be true) more mature when it comes to sexuality than is the average G.I. fresh outta Basic. To my mind, the problem is far more deep-seated in our culture than any military policy can hope to address. It is entrenched in religious belief, cultural norms, psychology, and probably dozens of other things that I can't even think of, and in my opinion if the military is to have any hope of tackling it, it is going to first have to come in how hetero servicemen are allowed to comport themselves.

I'll go back to worshiping my Raccoon now.

 

[Taurothar]

That is all.

 

[Halifirien]

Man, you can't use a Zardoz pic in this thread! Their whole deal was the evil of the penis. How many gay men are going to agree with that?

I'd love to know how drunk and/or high Connery had to be to put on that outfit.

 

[Thelona]

That is all.

now THAT guy would give our enemys nightmares!