• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gays in the Military

Should the law be changed so that gays can serve openly in the military.

  • Yes, do it now

    Votes: 65 67.7%

  • Yes, but after the Pentagon completes it study on the issue

    Votes: 9 9.4%

  • No, do not change the law

    Votes: 12 12.5%

  • No, DADT should be repealed and gays not allowed to serve at all

    Votes: 3 3.1%

  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 7 7.3%
  • Total voters
    96
Hatuey said:
The military has experienced far more radical changes during conditions of higher social animosity and it's done fine. I see no reason to keep DADT around.
Click to expand...

DADT was a mistake. "Gays on the military" was an issue attacked prematurely by a President who had spent less than one day in uniform (meaning 0). DADT needs to go. Moving on with social change is what the military has always spear headed for the American society. Gays has been the exception. There is no sense in fighting it, which is what the Pentagon has agreed to unofficially.
 
Blackdog said:
The rest was also untrue and it did not disprove what I stated. It was not much more than some attacks on me.
Click to expand...
Which is why you ran as fast as possible to avoid.
Blackdog said:
The government report said that statistically the changes in discharges were not relevant, period.
Click to expand...

Your own link stated the exact opposite. Let me state this again..."YOUR OWN LINK." And the unfortunate thing here for you is that everyone that clicked on your own link and read it recognizes that. Move on. You invented an argument that didn't pan out.
 
Boo Radley said:
Soldiers adjust pretty well when told to do so. It will be less trouble than many think IMHO.
Click to expand...

You are right. The anti-gay crowd have this Hollywood stereotype about gays running through their heads while the "Parade" organizers have their simpleton stage. But should the military command prepare to make it as smooth as possible or just roll the dice and react? The Pentagon Study is about exposing all the factors so that preparation can be made. Does this not fit the gay and non-gay concerns?
 
Last edited:
MSgt, could you go over a few specific obstacles the military is facing with implementing gays serving openly? I'm curious as to what specific problems the military foresees and what real solutions they are coming up with.
 
MSgt said:
DADT was a mistake. "Gays on the military" was an issue attacked prematurely by a President who had spent less than one day in uniform (meaning 0). DADT needs to go. Moving on with social change is what the military has always spear headed for the American society. Gays has been the exception. There is no sense in fighting it, which is what the Pentagon has agreed to unofficially.
Click to expand...

DADT was simply one more act in the years of bigoted policy the military had towards gays and bisexuals. Do not forget that before Clinton, Reagan had made it a top priority in his fight against homosexuality to declare gays as 'incompatible with the military'. Gays and bisexuals were being discharged from the military long before Clinton signed it as 'official' policy. It's not even fair to blame it on Reagan because before him the military had been discharging people under different Presidents. 'Blue discharges' they were called. What Clinton should be blamed for is going back on his word of allowing people to serve regardless of their orientation. DADT was not a compromise. It was a slap in the face.
 
Jerry said:
MSgt, could you go over a few specific obstacles the military is facing with implementing gays serving openly? I'm curious as to what specific problems the military foresees and what real solutions they are coming up with.
Click to expand...

Well, according to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Marines have these general concerns....

1) Barracks situation: Marines live two to three to a room. Marines have generally produced reservations of undressing in front of gay men. In light of the general concern, he has stated that he will not force Marines to live under conditions that he is "very" opposed to. The general civilian public will reply with "suck it up" or "get out." In the end, the civilian public can't afford for thousands to simply "get out." Therefore, concerns must be met with solutions other than the troop supporting retort of "**** you" by the average American who supports his mission to kill for him, but not his support on personal opinion or belief.

2) Showering situations: Marines and Naval personell shower in groups consistenly in deployed situations. Traditionally this has been separated between dicks and vaginas. However, things have changed. Sexual orientation is a concern of the average Marine. All it takes is one asshole to point out a "fag" to wreck unit cohesion.

Which brings me to a third general concern amongst Marines...

3) Unit cohesion: This is very important to Marines, especially. We are what we are because of unit cohesion and brotherhood. Sexual wierdness and tension has no place in a combat unit, which is a a factor in regards to where women don't belong. It breeds unnecesary competition in a "Fire Team." Furthermore, new Marines who are identified as "gays in the shower" or "boyfriends in the room" divide what should be a single muscle.

What I get is how the jack-ass crowd on one side insists that the Hollywood stereotype of what a gay is is what the military is about to get. It's thrown in their face constantly. Anybody seen an episode of "Will and Grace" lately? But what I don't get is how the gay rights parade insists on equality, but then denounce that gays are sexual beings like the rest of us. There will be problems. And this is what the Pentagon Study is figuring out.
 
Last edited:
MSgt,

That was informative. Thank you.
 
MSgt said:
Well, according to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Marines have these general concerns....

1) Barracks situation: Marines live two to three to a room. Marines have generally produced reservations of undressing in front of gay men. In light of the general concern, he has stated that he will not force Marines to live under conditions that he is "very" opposed to. The general civilian public will reply with "suck it up" or "get out." In the end, the civilian public can't afford for thousands to simply "get out." Therefore, concerns must be met with solutions other than the troop supporiting retort of "**** you" by the average American who supports his mission to kill for him, but not his support on personal opinion or belief.

2) Showering situations: Marines and Naval personell shower in groups consistenly in deployed situations. Traditionally this has been separated between dicks and vaginas. However, things have changed. Sexual orientation is a concern of the average Marine. All it takes is one asshole to point out a "fag" to wreck unit cohesion.

Which brings me to a third general concern amongst Marines...

3) Unit cohesion: This is very important to Marines, especially. We are what we are because of unit cohesion and brotherhood. Sexual wierdness and tension has no place in a combat unit, which is a a factor in regards to where women don't belong. It breeds unnecesary competition in a "Fire Team." Furthermore, new Marines who are identified as "gays in the shower" or "boyfriends in the room" divide what should be a single muscle.

What I get is how the jack-ass crowd on one side insists that the Hollywood stereotype of what a gay is is what the military is about to get. It's thrown in their face constantly. Anybody seen an episode of "Will and Grace" lately? But what I don't get is how the gay rights parade insists on equality, but then denounce that gays are sexual beings like the rest of us. There will be problems. And this is what the Pentagon Study is figuring out.
Click to expand...

Regarding #1&3, would barring gays from serving openly in combat MOS's, while allowing gays to serve openly in non-combat MOS's, be a possable solution?
 
Hatuey said:
DADT was simply one more act in the years of bigoted policy the military had towards gays and bisexuals. Do not forget that before Clinton, Reagan had made it a top priority in his fight against homosexuality to declare gays as 'incompatible with the military'. Gays and bisexuals were being discharged from the military long before Clinton signed it as 'official' policy. It's not even fair to blame it on Reagan because before him the military had been discharging people under different Presidents. 'Blue discharges' they were called. What Clinton should be blamed for is going back on his word of allowing people to serve regardless of their orientation. DADT was not a compromise. It was a slap in the face.
Click to expand...

Oh, come now. The numbers don't lie in this respect. DADT wasn't a military design. It was a Clinton's repercussion for forcing an issue. But you are right about some things - DADT was a slap in the face for not only gays but for the military. According to Blackdog's link (just don't throw it in his face)....DADT was a mistake...

Homosexual Conduct Administrative Separation Discharge Statistics
Total Number of Homosexual Discharges and Percentage of Total Active Force

1980 1,754 0.086
1981 1,817 0.088
1982 1,998 0.095
1983 1,815 0.085
1984 1,822 0.085
1985 1,660 0.077
1986 1,643 0.076
1987 1,380 0.063
1988 1,101 0.051
1989 996 0.047
1990 941 0.046
1991 949 0.048
1992 730 0.040
1993 682 0.040
1994 617 0.038
1995 757 0.050
1996 858 0.058
1997 997 0.069
1998 1,145 0.081
1999 1,034 0.075
2000 1,212 0.088
2001 1,227 0.089
2002 885 0.063
2003 770 0.054
2004 653 0.046
2005 726 0.052
2006 612 0.044
2007 635 0.046
2008 634 0.045
2009 428 0.030
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The numbers deliver something so very simple. Gays being discharged was lessening until DADT. After DADT, gays (and non-gays) merely had to announce their sexual orientation to get out of contract. The military was forced to act legally. Blackdog's link states that most were discharged because they came forward and declared their sexual status. After 9/11, it was obvioulsy harder for people to declare "homosexuality" as an excuse to legally breach contract, because the military wasn't hearing it. War was on. Of course, I've been in for 18 years and didn't need an Internet site to give me this wisdom, but there it is.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Regarding #1&3, would barring gays from serving openly in combat MOS's, while allowing gays to serve openly in non-combat MOS's, be a possable solution?
Click to expand...

In the end, congress will be making the rules, and I doubt very much that this solution would happen. I see it being an all or nothing situation from congress. Either gays can serve openly throughout, or DADT lives on. Admittedly, this is prediction, so take it for what it is worth.

The list that MSgt made for the most part is a perception problem. People fear what they have not been through. I suspect that it would be a very short lived problem, since once people get used to the idea that gays are not going to stare at them or make trouble for them, they should get over the discomfort fairly quickly. I forget the exact number, but I saw a poll that said that over half the military was serving with some one they either knew, or thought was gay. If that number is accurate, it should give you an idea that for the most part, those problems work themselves out quickly. There will be issues, both with gays who decide to push the limits after the rules change(and who their commands will have to act against), and those who will make trouble for gays(which again, commands will have to act against). With good leadership, and I think the military does have this(see MSgt for example), consistent and strong application of the rules should quickly and without too much trouble maintain a status quo for readiness and unit cohesion.

One point that MSgt makes that is an excellent point is that the stereotypical limp-wristed gay is not going to be drawn to the military(well, Air Force maybe). Again, it's the problem of perception...people who have not known many gays are going to have false impressions. I think that as the military sees that gay soldiers really are just like them, things are going to sort themselves out quicker rather than slower. Fortunately, we have good people, like MSgt, who can see both sides and work to make what orders come down happen, and happen well.
 
Jerry said:
Regarding #1&3, would barring gays from serving openly in combat MOS's, while allowing gays to serve openly in non-combat MOS's, be a possable solution?
Click to expand...

Oh, no...no...no.

Homosexual men can certainly carry heterosexual men, who cannot walk, out of combat danger. What needs to happen is a mind set change of acceptance with the understanding of sexual perspective respect. But this is not a flip of the switch as others have whimsically pretended. The "Alpha Male" identity of a U.S. Marine is not unheard of. This mind set must change and it wil be made easier to alter via education. As I've stated before, the Hollywood stereotype has a certian type of gay implanted in many minds as the essential gay. But it is not the flmaboyent gay that enlists. It's simply not his life style.
 
MSgt said:
Oh, come now. The numbers don't lie in this respect. DADT wasn't a military design. It was a Clinton's repercussion for forcing an issue. But you are right about some things - DADT was a slap in the face for not only gays but for the military. According to Blackdog's link (just don't throw it in his face)....DADT was a mistake...

The numbers deliver something so very simple. Gays being discharged was lessening until DADT. After DADT, gays (and non-gays) merely had to announce their sexual orientation to get out of contract. The military was forced to act legally. Blackdog's link states that most were discharged because they came forward and declared their sexual status. After 9/11, it was obvioulsy harder for people to declare "homosexuality" as an excuse to legally breach contract, because the military wasn't hearing it. War was on. Of course, I've been in for 18 years and didn't need an Internet site to give me this wisdom, but there it is.
Click to expand...

Forgetting for a second that there is clearly a spike in the rise of discharges after the creation of DADT, there is also a sharp drop less than a decade later. If anything DADT as well as the rise in discharges are more of a manifestation of the ideological change the American population had during the 90s. Notice that there is another drop as Democrats regain control of congress and it goes even further down a left wing president is elected. If anything, the rise and drop in discharges are more likely a reflection of how American voters are leaning ideologically and not the policy enacted by the military.
 
MSgt said:
Oh, no...no...no.

Homosexual men can certainly carry heterosexual men, who cannot walk, out of combat danger. What needs to happen is a mind set change of acceptance with the understanding of sexual perspective respect. But this is not a flip of the switch as others have whimsically pretended. The "Alpha Male" identity of a U.S. Marine is not unheard of. This mind set must change and it wil be made easier to alter via education. As I've stated before, the Hollywood stereotype has a certian type of gay implanted in many minds as the essential gay. But it is not the flmaboyent gay that enlists. It's simply not his life style.
Click to expand...

Can you expand on the bolded part please? What do you mean by it, and why will it cause problems?
 
Redress said:
The list that MSgt made for the most part is a perception problem.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It's a mind set that needs education. How can people throw "education" to all the world's problems but scoff at it inside the U.S. military. One would think we are supposed to be perfect. (But chastized when we arrogantly talk as such, right?)
 
Hatuey said:
Forgetting for a second that there is clearly a spike in the rise of discharges after the creation of DADT, there is also a sharp drop less than a decade later. If anything DADT as well as the rise in discharges are more of a manifestation of the ideological change the American population had during the 90s. Notice that there is another drop as Democrats regain control of congress and it goes even further down a left wing president is elected. If anything, the rise and drop in discharges are more likely a reflection of how American voters are leaning ideologically and not the policy enacted by the military.
Click to expand...

In other words as the report stated...

Statistically speaking the numbers are irrelevant.
 
MSgt said:
Absolutely. It's a mind set that needs education. How can people throw "education" to all the world's problems but scoff at it inside the U.S. military. One would think we are supposed to be perfect. (But chastized when we arrogantly talk as such, right?)
Click to expand...

Education will of course be part of the solution. Any one who has served for any length of time knows the attitude of the military in regards to training(and some of it is so ungodly boring...for every excellent course like LMET, there is a 3 day course on filling out VIDS/MAFs). However, I think the biggest thing that will work to change the attitudes is actual exposure to openly gay soldiers. When you spend that much time around some one, in that close of quarters, you learn very quickly that people are just people.
 
Hatuey said:
Forgetting for a second that there is clearly a spike in the rise of discharges after the creation of DADT, there is also a sharp drop less than a decade later.....
Click to expand...


Might have something do with 9/11 and war. Notice the numbers dropped sharply in 2002?

With the Army and even the Marine Corps lowering standards for enlistments, do you really think "I'm gay" got people out of the adventure? Do you really think public opinion towards gays had anything to do with internal military affairs, which was looking at deploying to war? I betting that you don't. Don't be a "Blackdog" dude.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Can you expand on the bolded part please? What do you mean by it, and why will it cause problems?
Click to expand...

Oh, this is where I might get into trouble. Forgetting what your personal thinking of this may be, what do you think is the typical idea of what the Alpha Male is? Google it. Usually it is exactly what the "girl" is attracted to. The rugged, fireman, Marine, soldier, dirt bike rider, rodeo star, etc. The weight lifter, the X-gamer, or the leader who commands true respect.

Nobody thinks that this is what gay men are attracted to as well, especially heterosexual men. The traditional Alpha Male is something that has to change in many mind sets, especially within the military. It would be easy for heterosexual Alpha Males to point at a homosexual Marine and declare that he doesn't fit in.

"Homosexual Marine." Think about that. Does that fit in with the mind set of the typical Marine or the outsider's idea of a Marine?

This is exactly what has to be changed and what will produce the most struggle for the leadership.
 
MSgt said:
Might have something do with 9/11 and war. Notice the numbers dropped sharply in 2002?

With the Army and even the Marine Corps lowering standards for enlistments, do you really think "I'm gay" got people out of the adventure?
Click to expand...

That would support the claim that the changes in discharges are dependent on the general population's ideological lean and are not based on policy itself. After 9/11 the American populace and government saw itself move clearly to the right as laws such as the Patriot Act were passed. So it only makes sense that a rise in the collective sense of patriotism would make the number of discharges due to homosexuality drop. Not to mention that the military itself was getting ready for war. However, before that occurred you had the venomous Contract With America that the Republican Party had run on, so clearly the U.S. witnesses an ideological change which would account for a rise in discharges. It seems to me that the discharge of gays rises or falls as one party loses power and another gains.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Oh, this is where I might get into trouble. Forgetting what your personal thinking of this may be, what do you think is the typical idea of what the Alpha Male is? Google it. Usually it is exactly what the "girl" is attracted to. The rugged, fireman, Marine, soldier, dirt bike rider, rodeo star, etc. The weight lifter, the X-gamer, or the leader who commands true respect.

Nobody thinks that this is what gay men are attracted to as well, especially heterosexual men. The traditional Alpha Male is something that has to change in many mind sets, especially within the military. It would be easy for heterosexual Alpha Males to point at a homosexual Marine and declare that he doesn't fit in.

"Homosexual Marine." Think about that. Does that fit in with the mind set of the typical Marine or the outsider's idea of a Marine?

This is exactly what has to be changed and what will produce the most struggle for the leadership.
Click to expand...

Being that I know a few gay guys, I can tell you more likely than not that the alpha male type guy you describe is what many gay men of that age group appear to be.
 
As a matter of reflection, I think it'd be useful to ignore the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Regardless of orientation, a relationship in a professional environment can be a problem. On one hand, attraction and relationships can build trust and can promote courageous behavior. On the other, fights and other negative effects of relationships ending can be detrimental to the collective good. While the lives of others are in your hands, vice versa your life is held in the hands of others in a military unit. Those around you need to be able to count on your action when necessary, regardless of emotional issues.

As a matter of professionalism, as in the corporate world, relationships of any sort amongst colleagues should probably be discouraged at the very least. (Prevents sexual harassment issues and perceived preferential treatment)

With respect to disclosure I (personally) don't see a problem, so long as the relationship doesn't effect the duty performance of the individual or those serving along side. But to error on the side of caution, I'd say disclosure is appropriate as long as it results in a separation of duties between the individuals involved. This may reduce interference of emotional issues on service responsibilities

Homosexual public display of affection as it compares to heterosexual public display of affection, is something that needs to change culturally. I don't believe a legal mandate can effectively remedy this.

With respect to the shared living/sleeping quarters, I'd like to think ideally we have the decency to behave ourselves in hygiene/sleeping areas and not violate the privacy or personal space of others intentionally. But I know that this level of self control and maturity (in the near future) is beyond most. While we can segregate men and women from one another with relative ease, how do we segregate homosexual individuals? Putting a homosexual members of one gender with members of the heterosexual opposite gender would be equally problematic. Do homosexuals each get their own solitary confined private areas? As with the public display of affection issue, I think it becomes an issue of cultural change not easily mandated by legal code.

While cultural issues might make DADT repeal uncomfortable initially, I think its a step in the right direction.

Response and feedback appreciated.
Respectfully, HTTP
 
HeresToThePoint said:
As a matter of reflection, I think it'd be useful to ignore the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Regardless of orientation, a relationship in a professional environment can be a problem. On one hand, attraction and relationships can build trust and can promote courageous behavior. On the other, fights and other negative effects of relationships ending can be detrimental to the collective good. While the lives of others are in your hands, vice versa your life is held in the hands of others in a military unit. Those around you need to be able to count on your action when necessary, regardless of emotional issues.

As a matter of professionalism, as in the corporate world, relationships of any sort amongst colleagues should probably be discouraged at the very least. (Prevents sexual harassment issues and perceived preferential treatment)

With respect to disclosure I (personally) don't see a problem, so long as the relationship doesn't effect the duty performance of the individual or those serving along side. But to error on the side of caution, I'd say disclosure is appropriate as long as it results in a separation of duties between the individuals involved. This may reduce interference of emotional issues on service responsibilities

Homosexual public display of affection as it compares to heterosexual public display of affection, is something that needs to change culturally. I don't believe a legal mandate can effectively remedy this.

With respect to the shared living/sleeping quarters, I'd like to think ideally we have the decency to behave ourselves in hygiene/sleeping areas and not violate the privacy or personal space of others intentionally. But I know that this level of self control and maturity (in the near future) is beyond most. While we can segregate men and women from one another with relative ease, how do we segregate homosexual individuals? Putting a homosexual members of one gender with members of the heterosexual opposite gender would be equally problematic. Do homosexuals each get their own solitary confined private areas? As with the public display of affection issue, I think it becomes an issue of cultural change not easily mandated by legal code.

While cultural issues might make DADT repeal uncomfortable initially, I think its a step in the right direction.

Response and feedback appreciated.
Respectfully, HTTP
Click to expand...

Very well thought out, respectful post. Welcome to the boards, I hope you stay around and continue posting here.
 
Redress said:
Very well thought out, respectful post. Welcome to the boards, I hope you stay around and continue posting here.
Click to expand...

Had to make the first post a good one, right? Thanks Redress for starting the conversation!

Forgot to say, I live in California so my attitudes toward homosexually probably contrast those in other locations around the US. While I don't agree with the status quo, DADT reform should be implemented cautiously since the gender identity of some divisions in the military may be emotionally shocked or scarred. But, thats for the pentagon study to decide.

Respectfully, HTTP
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
MSgt, could you go over a few specific obstacles the military is facing with implementing gays serving openly? I'm curious as to what specific problems the military foresees and what real solutions they are coming up with.
Click to expand...

Personal opinion here, as I am no Msgt...

But I'll be willing to bet the challenges with behavior discipline won't come from support units as much as combat units. Combat soldiers have a 'tough guy' 'hardcore' mentality that they dont think is possible for a gay guy.

It will take a few years to smooth out the edges but I dont see what the problem will be after everyone adjusts. When they learn that being gay doesnt make you less male.
 
MSgt said:
"Homosexual Marine." Think about that. Does that fit in with the mind set of the typical Marine or the outsider's idea of a Marine?

This is exactly what has to be changed and what will produce the most struggle for the leadership.
Click to expand...

I'm ashamed to admit that I have that stereotype in my head. I wish I were better person, but "homosexual Marine" smacks of pink M16s; diamond-stud ear rings, a splash of Aqua Di Gio and lip gloss worn with the dress blues; Martha Stuart giving the platoon a class on making MREs cute & fun; and Hello Kitty bunk sheets (sorry for that last one Jallman ;)).

Intellectually I know the stereo type does not reflect the real world, I know that the parade marchers don't enlist, nor would the military tolerate any of the items I mentioned. But you're right, there is a stereotype, a perception which needs to change.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom