Gays in the Military

Jerry said:

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.

Click to expand...

Exactly. That's the whole problem. People who make ridiculous comments like the one you responded to are deluded and prejudiced, because they think all gays are flaming queens. There certainly are some of course, but none of them are going to go joining the marines anyway.

This is like saying "Geez, we don't want any blacks in the marines -- imagine all those crack dealing pimp rap singers in the military! Is that what you want?"

Jerry said:

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.

Click to expand...

See, now that type of gay would go Air Force...:2razz:

Redress said:

See, now that type of gay would go Air Force...:2razz:

Click to expand...

See, I was thinking "navy" myself.

Groucho said:

See, I was thinking "navy" myself.

Click to expand...

Only because you don't know enough about the navy.

Redress said:

Only because you don't know enough about the navy.

Click to expand...

Blame the Village People!

Groucho said:

Blame the Village People!

Click to expand...

You are handier.

Dear Sirs, It is not exactly my business what kind of army you have as I live in another country but in my opinion there are immediate results and ultimate or total results and what seems to be o.k. now might destroy morals together with the army. I do not support the idea of legalizing homosexuality in general. I have read that it is a kind of error in the DNA. But later this information was not reaffirmed. Who knows the truth? But if it is an DNA error what is to be proud about and what do you expect from that?

grig said:

Dear Sirs, It is not exactly my business what kind of army you have as I live in another country but in my opinion there are immediate results and ultimate or total results and what seems to be o.k. now might destroy morals together with the army. I do not support the idea of legalizing homosexuality in general. I have read that it is a kind of error in the DNA. But later this information was not reaffirmed. Who knows the truth? But if it is an DNA error what is to be proud about and what do you expect from that?

Click to expand...

It's not a DNA error and you're getting dangerously close to Eugenics

Here's something you should also consider: Homosexuals are human beings.

Deuce said:

It's not a DNA error and you're getting dangerously close to Eugenics

Here's something you should also consider: Homosexuals are human beings.

Click to expand...

Just ignoring DNA and all that: Do you think it's right that the government should be able to tell you who you can marry based on the type of sex you have?

What if they said "No one who has sex in positions other than missionary can get married"? What if they prohibited you from getting married if you have sex before you get married? What if they decided that you couldn't use birth control if you wanted to?

In other words, what right does the government have to pry into our private sex lives at all?

The government should keep its nose out of our bedrooms and not tell us we can't marry who we want simply because they disapprove of what we do there.

Don't you agree, Grig?

I'm prior military, so I get a legitimate opinion on this - as opposed to all the crap-bags in life that like to tell the military how to run itself but wouldn't have the sack to enlist, or have their child enlist.

By the way, I'm a hetero. Let me borrow your wife or your girlfriend and I'll prove it.

Anyway... Let's move on.

digsbe said:

No one has to pretend to be heterosexual, they don't have to go around having sex with women or talking about girls. They just have to put sex aside and serve there country.

Click to expand...

The Hell they do. The military is amazingly stressful and tense. No one should have to compound the considerable strain being placed on them physically, emotionally and intellectually by having to be celibate during their tour as well. That's asinine.

What about the heterosexual men that would be uncomfortable with a homosexual showering with them and bunking with them?

Click to expand...

They need to grow the Hell up. We showered with blacks, Hispanics, ugly people, stupid people, smart people, and those that were arguably insane.

At times and under certain circumstances, we showered with the women in the field.

_get_ _over_ _it_.

It's got no place in a combat zone. You have better crap to worry about, and most people would realize that if they had ever actually been in a combat zone, rather than telling the rest of us what we feel when we're there.

Seriously, the only priority we ever had was making it through our tour. I don't care if that meant taking a shower with a pig and sleeping with a porcupine. You did it, and no, you didn't really care if it wanted to have sex or not. That wasn't our problem. If someone wanted to do that crap and they found the time and place for it, more power to them.

Frankly, I didn't care if they were fantasizing about me, my girlfriend, themselves or a chihuahua. I was just trying to make sure I didn't get myself or someone else killed.

Everything else.... Was gravy.

I support homosexuals being allowed to serve, but I also think they should not disclose their sexual orientation nor should they be asked about it. One's orientation is irrelevant to military service.

Click to expand...

Their orientation may not be anyone's business (and I agree it isn't), but their mental health is everyone's business. No, they should not have to be afraid of being found out.

digsbe said:

That's just a sacrifice they will have to take if they want to serve.

Click to expand...

BS.

Because soldiers don't sacrifice enough, right?

Stick it. Seriously. Stop sitting safe at home and telling soldiers what their obligations are. If it's that damned important to you to meddle in the business of other people, go get your enlistment papers and head on over and then speak about your opinion - because I guarantee that if you were actually in Iraq right now, you would not give a crap what orientation the guy next to you was. You'd only care that he was competent.

On the flip side, should heterosexuals have to shower and bunk with someone who is attracted to them sexually?

Click to expand...

Hello, caveman. We already do that. I shared bunks with females. I shared combat positions with them too. When you're deployed if there's a female in your unit, guess what? You most certainly do not dig a separate foxhole.

No, there really aren't gender specific showers out in the field either. Guess where you go (should you get the luxury of a shower).

Straight guys and gals already deal with this all the time - admirably I might add.

We also already deal with homosexuals in the military.

I know precious few soldiers that actually care. There are exceptions, but most of the soldiers I know would rate this somewhere beneath the importance of believing in Santa in terms of their survival.

It would be the same as having males and females showering and bunking together.

Click to expand...

Which we already do.

Or did when I was in at least.

I don't like that homosexuals can't bring their partners to functions or talk about them, but it's just a sacrifice that must be made for the greater good.

Click to expand...

No, the sacrifice for the greater good is when soldiers understand that being a soldier is first, and that everyone that serves is already making a sacrifice.

Caine said:

The problem people fail to look at is that it will create divisiveness amongst units

Click to expand...

That's either a bunch of crap or you're in the Army. Not sure which. The Army is the only branch of the military that still uses racist terminology in common conversation as well.

It would not divide the unit.

Here's a shocker: we know who's gay anyway. Just because the politicians are pandering for homophobic votes doesn't mean we give two craps.

I served with homosexuals (at least two that I know of).

NO ONE gave a crap aside from the people back home that tried to get on a political high horse about it.

We already knew they were gay, and we didn't care.

especially in combat arms where only men are allowed to serve, and often have to share hygiene facilities.

Click to expand...

There are women on the battlefield now too. There's no getting away from that. We already share space. If a soldier is trained right, has self-discipline, character, and is mission oriented it's not a problem.

If they can't do that, then they already screwed up anyway.

Dear Deuce there is a certain genetic hitch with them but it is not the point. They are human beings all right but different people usually have different functions. They can be singers. In the army there is promotion and who wants unpredictable things there? Too much is at stake. The blind should not lead people with normal eyesight. And this rule does not discriminate the blind people, does it?

grig said:

Dear Deuce there is a certain genetic hitch with them but it is not the point. They are human beings all right but different people usually have different functions. They can be singers. In the army there is promotion and who wants unpredictable things there? Too much is at stake. The blind should not lead people with normal eyesight. And this rule does not discriminate the blind people, does it?

Click to expand...

what are you saying? that gays are genetically incapable of following orders, or pointing guns, or driving tanks? what function in the army are they incapable of doing?

Army is not just following orders, pointing guns or drivng tanks. From my experience I know that there must be first of all a collective spirit and as little deviation or potential friction as possible. Ask the high standing offecers. They know better how things stand.

grig said:

Army is not just following orders, pointing guns or drivng tanks. From my experience I know that there must be first of all a collective spirit and as little deviation or potential friction as possible. Ask the high standing offecers. They know better how things stand.

Click to expand...

and so how will unit cohesiveness be effected any differently to how it is being effected by the gays currently serving?

spud_meister said:

and so how will unit cohesiveness be effected any differently to how it is being effected by the gays currently serving?

Click to expand...

This is the same argument that was used in the 50s to prevent blacks and whites to serve together, and it makes just as much sense today. Of course those making this argument will point out equally silly reasons which are not rooted in reality, but to make it even more ridiculous, they ignore the fact that gays have always been in the military -- just secretly -- and somehow we've been able to survive

Personal opinion #1: Anyone who thinks a few uncomfortable people are a legitimate reason to continue the asinine (not to mention idiotic) DADT bit is...Well you get the point.

Personal opinion #2: Anyone who thinks the various bureaucracies and such who are in charge here can instantly accomplish the change from rules and standards under DADT to rules and standards without DADT is...Same as above.

I love the argument against allowing gays to serve openly. In the movies soldiers are portrayed as these tough guys who take verbal and physical abuse all day long from some sadistic drill sergeant without flinching. But then so many people seem to think that they are really a bunch of sissies whose delicate feelings and insecurities need to be coddled and treated with sensitivity.

I think that if anyone can't handle being ogled by someone they aren't attracted to, then they just aren't cut out for the military. I think we should expect our soldiers to be made of sterner stuff than that.

Panache said:

I love the argument against allowing gays to serve openly. In the movies soldiers are portrayed as these tough guys who take verbal and physical abuse all day long from some sadistic drill sergeant without flinching. But then so many people seem to think that they are really a bunch of sissies whose delicate feelings and insecurities need to be coddled and treated with sensitivity.

I think that if anyone can't handle being ogled by someone they aren't attracted to, then they just aren't cut out for the military. I think we should expect our soldiers to be made of sterner stuff than that.

Click to expand...

I think you have it wrong son.

Its the potential openly gay folks that we are worried about when they get caught or even not caught and just suspected by some paranoid freak of starring at another man's junk and word spreads and then they all gang up on the gay guy and beat his ass because thats the type of mentality that works in the military.

Caine said:

I think you have it wrong son.

Its the potential openly gay folks that we are worried about when they get caught or even not caught and just suspected by some paranoid freak of starring at another man's junk and word spreads and then they all gang up on the gay guy and beat his ass because thats the type of mentality that works in the military.

Click to expand...

So instead of punishing the bigots who beat up kids for being gay, we're going to punish the victims instead.

Caine said:

I think you have it wrong son.

Its the potential openly gay folks that we are worried about when they get caught or even not caught and just suspected by some paranoid freak of starring at another man's junk and word spreads and then they all gang up on the gay guy and beat his ass because thats the type of mentality that works in the military.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ.

That is not the type of mentality that works in the modern military. Well, in most branches at least. You'll still find people who are blatantly racist in the military as well - again they're present in some branches more than others.

Most of the military isn't comprised of a bunch of club-toting neanderthals however. They're not oblivious to the fact that gays are now and always have been part of the military, nor do they "wig out" over the idea.

If they're that inherently psychotic that they'd lash out about someone's sexuality, they're also going to lash out about other things as well, and there's really not much to be done about it aside from either keeping them out of the military to begin with, or resolving it the way we would if they lashed out at a female, an African-American, or a civilian.

If they can't restrain themselves from lashing out, they don't belong there anyway - in which case they should be found and removed, rather than removing those that we're worried they might lash out towards.

Groucho said:

So instead of punishing the bigots who beat up kids for being gay, we're going to punish the victims instead.

Click to expand...

Last I remember we are not punishing anyone, since we are getting rid of DADT.

As far as in the past, gays were not nearly as accepted as they are today, in the past it would have been a much bigger problem, and I am sorry but at the time, I do believe that folks "in the know" realized that it would probably create a bigger problem then it is worth.

The US Military is not a social experiement, its our country's fighting force. Their mission needs to be taken more seriously than some guinea pig social experiment.

Alastor said:

I beg to differ.

That is not the type of mentality that works in the modern military. Well, in most branches at least. You'll still find people who are blatantly racist in the military as well - again they're present in some branches more than others.

Most of the military isn't comprised of a bunch of club-toting neanderthals however. They're not oblivious to the fact that gays are now and always have been part of the military, nor do they "wig out" over the idea.

If they're that inherently psychotic that they'd lash out about someone's sexuality, they're also going to lash out about other things as well, and there's really not much to be done about it aside from either keeping them out of the military to begin with, or resolving it the way we would if they lashed out at a female, an African-American, or a civilian.

If they can't restrain themselves from lashing out, they don't belong there anyway - in which case they should be found and removed, rather than removing those that we're worried they might lash out towards.

Click to expand...

You are right, and that is why DADT and the denial of the ability to serve our country to Gays is going to be removed. As our "modern" military, as well as our "modern" social climate is more accepting of gays, thus the problem isn't going to be as big now as it once was believed (rightly so) it would be.

I answered a question, I didn't state I agree that the answer applies to our modern military/social climate.

I voted other, I think the DADT should be repealed, but not in the middle of two wars.


That said, I don't care where you stick your junk. I didn't make my enlistment about my genitalia, and neither did anyone I came across, some who may or may not have been gay. :shrug:

Caine said:

You are right, and that is why DADT and the denial of the ability to serve our country to Gays is going to be removed. As our "modern" military, as well as our "modern" social climate is more accepting of gays, thus the problem isn't going to be as big now as it once was believed (rightly so) it would be.

I answered a question, I didn't state I agree that the answer applies to our modern military/social climate.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I appreciate the clarity on the stance - as opposed to your stance.

Caine said:

The US Military is not a social experiement, its our country's fighting force. Their mission needs to be taken more seriously than some guinea pig social experiment.

Click to expand...

Allowing gays to serve openly is not an experiment. They're already doing it in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, The United Kingdom and Uruguay.

It has been done for years now. Why would so many countries do it if it was a dangerous "social experiment"?