homosexuals in the military

[Brigit Astar]

This is such a stupid issue that is being made of this. Let's state the facts clearly. There is no ban on homeosexuals servig in the military. Years ago, homosexuality was a deciding factor on volunteering for the military. One was asked specifically if one was homosexual. If the applicant answered yes, then he or she would be turned down. The ban on homosexualty in the military was lifted years ago.The don't ask, don't tell policy that was implemented was and still is the best policy to have.

But now the agenda is being pushed that homosexuals can declare and display their homosexuality openly in the military. I have no problem with someone n the military openly declaring that they are homosexual. If they want make a public declaration that they are homosexual, that's fine. But that's not all it involves. The agenda that is being pushed also includes that homosexuals can and may display their homosexuality openly in the military. Now just think for a moment what that would involve, and you will agree that it is frigging stupid.

[kavic]

funny How with all the planned hearing and interviews and all no one wants to talk to the grunt with his ass in the grass or the sailor on six month deployment. Politicians and do gooders never want to deal with the people who are really impacted by their social experiments.

[crzy67]

Anyone who wants to serve the military to protect their country is OK by me. I have no issues with race, gender or sexual preference. I have family and friends in the military and they all have said that gays in service is no issue, and there are good conduct and ethic rules that all must follow whether they are gay or not. Straight or gay, anyone willing to put their life on the to protect freedom and the safety of the world is fine enough to serve.

[quietguy]

i say let them. hold them to the same codes of conduct as the rest of the soldiers and being out of the closet shouldnt matter

[Dudester]

I had to move this thread to political point of view as this kind of thing is deeply personal to some.

First, let me say this, unless you have served in the armed forces of America, your opinion isn't valid, as that would be like a lumberjack being a judge in a ballet competition. Unless you've been there and done that, you can't imagine what it's like.

Second. I served in both the Marines and the Army. I saw this kind of thing wreck absolute havoc. First, in the Marine Corps, there's a lot of homosexuality, but it's not the effeminate type of homosexuals you find, but the bulky body builder type who talks the talk and walks the walk. Second, in the Army, a couple of times I caught a couple of female Sergeants, a couple of times, between the sheets (they were Playmate quality material). I even saw pictures they had taken of their discrete actions left in a very indiscrete place. It seems that everyone knew they were doing the horizontal mambo, except the boyfriend of one of the two, who didn't take it too well-he put a gun between his eyes and pulled the trigger. His father held me at the funeral and cried for an hour.

Because sexual relationships in a high stress job situation can lead to havoc, and because we no longer need 18 year olds in our military (World War 2 is seventy years in our past), I very strongly feel that the military is no place for naive 18 year olds trying to get a handle on themselves, a high stress job, and a high stress sexual relationship (ever met a high strung 18 year old gay person? -(I've met several)

Unless they raise the enlistment age to 21, I feel that the military is no place for gays.

[Saffer]

Interesting, and thought provoking comment from Dudester.

I did a bit of time in a foreign military, and there was one person on base, who could only be described as a raging queen. That kind of person I would not want fighting next to me, if only because I believe they would probably not be able to do their job, and for me to depend on them.

While I do agree with Dudester's remark about the high pressure situation etc, perhaps it's the ones who are maybe insecure about who they are, who feel the stress the most? What I mean, is that if a person is happy with who they are, secure in their sexuality, it shouldn't be a source of stress for them? - I do believe I could be misleading myself into thinking there's no external stress from others who are against homosexuality in the military - if so, I retract the above statement.

[Brigit Astar]

Dudester, I resnt what you stated--that unless one has served in the military then their opinion is not valid about the issue of homosexuals opening displaying their homosexuality in the military. That is a ridiculous statement and you should retract it.

[crzy67]

It seems that wecan accept gays in entertainment, in our schools as teachers, as politicians and almost any where else. Sorry, but if we can accept gays in all other forms in life, so can we in our military.

Below is a list of Famous gays who served in out military. Sorry the list only has men.

7 Famous Gay Men Who Served in the US Navy -
Craig Claiborne (b. 1920), NY Times food critic
Rick Donovan (b.1963), porn star
Allan Gurganus (b. 1947), writer
Rock Hudson (1925-1985), actor
Armistead Maupin (b. 1944), writer
Harvey Milk (1930-1978), politician and Gay rights activist
Frank O'Hara (1926-1966), poet

2 Famous Gay Men Who Served in the US Air Force -
Leonard Matlovich (1943-1988), gay rights activist
Larry Townsend (b. 1935), writer

17 Famous Gay or Bisexual Men Who Served in the US Army -
Samuel Barber (1910-1981), composer
James Beard (1903-1985), food connoisseur and writer
William S. Burroughs (b. 1913), writer
John Cheever (1912-1982), writer
George Cukor (1899-1983), film director
Malcolm Forbes, Sr., (1919-1990), businessman and magazine publisher
Andrew Holleran (b. 1946), writer
James Ivory (b. 1928), film director
Larry Kramer (b. 1935), writer
Rod McKuen (b. 1933), poet
James Merrill (1926-1995), poet
Merle Miller (1919-1986), writer
Peter Orlovsky (b. 1933), poet
Rev. Troy Perry (b. 1940), founder Metropolitan Community Church
John Rechy (b. 1934), writer
Gore Vidal (b. 1925), writer
Dr. Tom Waddell (1937-1987), decathlon athlete and gay rights activist

3 Famous Gay or Bisexual Men Who Served in the US Marine Corps -
Dave Connors (1945-1985), porn star
Tyrone Power (1913-1958), actor
Oliver Sipple (1942-1989), thwarted the 1975 assassination attempt by SJMoore on Pres.Ford

[comsmith22]

I was in the Army (US) for 26 years. During that time I got know Many guys who were BI and many who were out right Gay.
In the Early 70's many good troops were discharged because they were Gay. Their Dedication to Duty and Country was beyond question. In some situations I was uncomfortable around them, but ignored the feelings and got past it.

My Position is what they do behind closed doors, and on their own time, Is their business. I don't Need to know what they are up to, or with whom. and when I am off duty it's no one else business, Unless it effects the morale and abilities of the Unit.
The Public Display of Affection in uniform is or was prohibited... so there should be no physical contact and that should eliminate any problems there.
So as Long as a Gay/Lesbian maintains a mature and professional attitude, can meet the required performance standards, and get the Job done, I have No problem with them.

A couple things folks need to keep in mind... some cultures or Countries, Openly accept Gay/Lesbians... while other countries or cultures totally shun/ban them. To put the Gay Military Personnel in some of these areas may cause some problems.
Personally I don't care... as a Platoon, Detachment, and Company 1st Sergeant, the "Don't ask Don't tell " Policy should stay in place, both for the well being of the Personnel involved and for the Branch of Service.

I know its a Cheep shot and the Ranting of an old man ... but I dealt with this from the time I enlisted in 1973 till I retired in 1999 ... and I saw what it did to many good People... Both Male and Female...
The Only Transgender I dealt with was a Battalion Commander and a complete rectal orifice and a highly educated Idiot as a guy, and a total blithering Idiot as a "She-male". But "TPOTUS*" found It a Job on his Staff some where for Him/her/it.... after He/She/It playing the sexual discrimination and harassment Cards...

I am through shooting off my mouth... but thats my "2 baht" worth...
* TPOTUS ... "The President of the United States".

[fred151412]

Let's not forget that the US refused to allow men whose skin was black to serve in units with men whose skin was white until Harry Truman desegregated the Army in the Fifties. Bigotry against gays and lesbians is just the next prejudice on the list to be addressed.

[Brigit Astar]

Would everyone please go back and read my opening post on this thread.
There is no ban on homosexuals serving in the military.
There is a ban in the military on anyone openly displaying their sexuality.

[comsmith22]

Would everyone please go back and read my opening post on this thread.
There is no ban on homosexuals serving in the military.
There is a ban in the military on anyone openly displaying their sexuality.

I know... I was passing on My feelings on the subject... I do Know its a touchy subject, and now TPOTUS went out of his way to stir up the Bucket...
Thats Why I said Keep the policies, we have in place... to prevent probable problems in the future...
Brigit, You are wise beyond your years...

[kavic]

If you allow gays to serve openly then the next step is does the military recognize gay marriage? 75% of the country says NO But how would that impact unit integrity? What about countries where they execute gays? Change the deployment rotation to screw the straight people to protect the gays? It wouldn't be equal treatment it would be another case of special treatment for special people.

[Dudester]

Dudester, I resnt what you stated--that unless one has served in the military then their opinion is not valid about the issue of homosexuals opening displaying their homosexuality in the military. That is a ridiculous statement and you should retract it.

Brigit,

Navy and Air Force boot camp is a walk through. Army boot camp is emotionally trying. One does not "go through" Marine boot camp, one survives it. Some units, in whatever service, are difficult to serve in. From a lifetime of experience, especially recent years where I manage 73 personnel contracted for one of the world's largest petro chemical firms, I've learned a lot. However, my formative years were in the military.

I've noticed that young people, with their rainbow flag flying, aren't cut out for high profile and high stress positions. That's why I said that the enlistment age should be raised. There are actually 18 year olds who stand guard in high profile places, like the White House and the Pentagon. Having raging hormones racing through your body while you're frequently in situations where your best judgement is needed, while you are struggling with your sexuality, is overload.

People who are not military, who have never served, have absolutely no idea what it's like to put their trust in another person in a life or death situation. Serving isn't just a matter of trust, it's a matter of honor. Feeling that you, the person who has never served, has a right to pass judgement on a system where you can't possibly imagine what goes on, is insulting. It's akin to saying something like "only men should pass judgement on what women can do with their vaginas". Your argument would be "men don't know what it's like to have a vagina, how can they possibly know what's best for my vagina", and you would be right. Unless you have served, unless you have experienced the lack of privacy, while having some sergeant trying to break you down by searching for your weak spot, and while somebody in your platoon is plotting against you (and somebody always is), unless you'vebeen there, you should leave the argument to those who've been there.

[Saffer]

Dudester - I've read your comments with interest, and from my limited experience (especially compared to yours!) I find myself agreeing with you.

I'm curious though what you would ascribe as the difference between 18 years old of these days, and the 18 years olds...say, when you were 18. Or the 18 years olds of Nam, or Korea, or WWII.

I hope this isn't going off the original topic too much.

[Dudester]

The only real example I can give involves the movie Full Metal Jacket.

My stepfather was a Marine, having served most of the war (WW2) on Midway Island. I had been out of the military a year when the movie came out. When my stepfather saw the movie, he asked "Did they really call you ladies?" When I answered yes, he replied "I wouldn't have stood for it", and he walked out of the room, meaning the conversation was over.

My boot camp was 12 weeks, his was 8 (it's now presently 14). In WW2, there was a collective feeling of "we all have to get through this together". There was a stress on teamwork. Those who weren't team players were felt to endanger the outfit and were eliminated.

In my day, teamwork was also extremely important, but individuals were also closely monitored. I had a 24 minute ceiling on my three miles run and no what the DI's did to inspire fear or motivation, I couldn't go any faster. Decades later,I found out that I have the inherited form of emphysema (I've never smoked).

Some kids just can't cut it. They flame out spectacularly in boot camp with suicide attempts or they have emotional breakdowns. The military also screws people horribly. In boot camp they'll get a severe injury, and inferior medical care (i.e. broken arm, permanently impaired). The military will then put them in a medical unit where they can only write home, no phone calls or visitors, telling them that they'll be there 8-12 months awaiting seperation, but, if they sign away their rights to get permanent disability, they'll be out next week. A lot of kids jump at that chance.

A lot of parents, especially urban parents, are falling down at being parents. Kids from rural areas fare a lot better at adapting to military life because they're already familiar with firearms and they're easily self sufficient.

So, it's not a generational thing, but a

urban/rural thing
parental influence
emotional maturity thing.

The less emotional baggage you come in with, added to self suffiency, matters the most at making it in the military.

[Brigit Astar]

Dudester, how am I passing judgement on a system? That is another ridiculous statement you've made. That makes two now.

[Saffer]

Thanks Dudester for your comment. I remember after having seen Full Metal Jacket with the excellent boot camp part, comparing it in my mind to the boot camp from "Band of Brothers" - couldn't think of any other WWII bootcamp - and being struck by how different they were! Yet, at the same time, the underlying similarities are there - if you can't cut it, you can't cut it.

Now...perhaps coming full circle back to the issues of gay in the military - don't think that was the original issue? - either way, if they can cut it, no reason to exclude; in my opinon.

Umm...as for an earlier statement you made about raising the entry age - would that really help? I'm not sure how kids are in the states, but one gets the feeling sometimes that even at 25 the maturity would not be there. Thoughts?

[Dudester]

Dudester, how am I passing judgement on a system? That is another ridiculous statement you've made. That makes two now.

Brigit, I can only assume by your judgements here, and not defended, that YOU ALONE are an expert in all things. I bow to your magnificence oh mighty one. I'm the one who has worn the uniform, been there and done that, but it s so obvious that you know so much more than I do about all things military. Why then aren't you working for Fox News as an all things expert?

[Brigit Astar]

well, dudester, you just keep making them--now you've made three--so what's the use.

[bren122]

The urban- rural divide is often overdone by settler societies (Aust, NZ, Can, US). The German Army in WW1 and WW2 was the best of the national armies and both eras were heavily urbanised; the British Regular at the start of WW1were considered the best on a man for man basis and was almost totally recruited from the slums of England, Scotland and Ireland- even Welsh and Highland units consisted of a large number of city dwellers.
The succes of units late in both wars, which many attribute to the superior skills of the soldiers from the settler societies, also relied on the techniques learnt in the harsh years 1914-17 and 1939-42, when the best and brightest of Britain had been unwitting guinea pigs and paid the price. it was technology and doctrine as much as skill at arms that helped victory.
A look at the Russian armies in WW1 and comparing it to the performance in WW2. Russian conscripts in WW1 were overwhelmingly peasants; the purges of the 1930s had decimated this particular group in particular and the Stavka relied on urbanised Russians and Ukrainians to lead the fight.

[bren122]

Brigit, I can only assume by your judgements here, and not defended, that YOU ALONE are an expert in all things. I bow to your magnificence oh mighty one. I'm the one who has worn the uniform, been there and done that, but it s so obvious that you know so much more than I do about all things military. Why then aren't you working for Fox News as an all things expert?

The Uniform can also be a strait-jacket. The fact is that those wanting to serve don't want to be indentified as gay or lesbian soldiers, sailors and airforce but simply as soldiers, sailors and airforce. They don't want special regulations and special rules; they just want to be able to serve and be honest. It's hard to swear (or attest) an oath knowing that they have to lie in order to take that oath.
The fact is that the military is using the ignorance of the general public to push a line; justifying it by saying that 'we've served'. The military changes to adjust to the changing standards of society; racial integration, professionalisation of the officer class, removal of the death penalty, the end of flogging, end of long service enlistments,etc, etc- all of which were more fundamental to the military than gay and lesbians serving openly in the military. All were opposed by the 'men in uniform' until they not only failed to meet the standards of society but had become anachronistic- an embarrasment. Similar opposition was mounted against reforms to the medical services, transportation, uniforms, etc, etc, which actually led to soldiers dying from the ineptness of men who claimed that because they "were the ones in uniform" they knew what they were doing and nobody else had the right to tell them what to do.

Oh!- And I served too.

[cajun]

would you care if this guy was straight or gay? or just that he knew his job?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRYwMrsaLxs

[Dudester]

Apples and watermelons.

Snipers only work with a spotter, and socially, are loners.

[Oriens Astrum]

I'm just going to say this, I agree with What dudester is saying but then I also agree that there is a right for people to openly display their sexuality as goes for their religion. If you have the grit to survive in the military, then do it. I've not personally experienced any kind of military, training, or war zone ethics. But I can tell you from what I've seen/read about it, Hollywood gives a very vague representation, of what it's really like in most cases. I've read plenty of non fiction first hand account's, the detail that these people describe, can be truly horrifying, to say the least.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this. Bridget, as far as I can tell Dudester is not saying that Gays should not serve, he's not saying that they are unfit to serve, what I gather from what he's said is that you need a emotional maturity, and the grit to actually stand tall and fight for your country.

The Military from what I have seen around me does one of two things, it makes you or it breaks you. I have friends who joined looking for a way through college or following in a family legacy. One good example is a guy I know named Tim(not his real name but lets just call him Tim). Real slacker, just scraping by, all through high school. Senior year he gets his girlfriend pregnant. This guy is one of the most irresponsible guys I know. He joins the military after graduating. 5 years latter I haven't seen him in god know how long, when I did see him, I wasn't sure it was him. Standing tall, looking me right in the eye, shaking my hand, a respectable dad, A Sargent in the US Army. This is not the same guy I knew. The guy I knew was Unmotivated, had no plans for the future, lived by the seat of his pants in some cases.

Anyone who wants and is willing to serve his or her country no matter what their gender sexual orientation race, religion or age, should be allowed to do so under the circumstances that they can prove they are an emotionally stable and responsible person.

[bren122]

Statistically, over thirties have a higher rate of breakdown in combat situations than those under.

I thought that Dudester was saying that gays and lesbians lack the emotional maturity to be members of the military- and justifying it by the age old appeal to having served in uniform and that he therefore knows better. Every change has been resisted by the military with the same appeal until the standards are so anachronistic they become embarrassing- or deadly. Personnel changes are often belittled in terms of lowering standards or that the prospective recruits lack the emotional wherewithal.

By the 1870s the British Army was running out of soldiers to garrison their ever-growing empire. Service as a Tommy Atkins was reserved for the lowest of the low- many public places (pubs, theatres, shops) actually banned them from their premises- the greatest shame that any woman could know was to be married to a soldier of the British Army- most considered it a worse fate than becoming a prostitute. The minimum enlistment was 16 years- which only the most desperate would agree to. Once the Victorians started to clean up the poor laws and prisons and bankruptcy laws and so on and so on, enlistments crashed. Under Secretary for War Haldane, amongst many other reforms like the end of the purchase system for officers and flogging (which the Navy had long ago banned) which were similarly opposed, it was proposed that enlistment should be dropped to 6years in order to recruit more working class and middleclass soldiers- people exactly like us. The military came out and said, amongst other things, that it would cause problems with garrisoning the empire because of the high costs, that it would lower the number of trained soldiers in the ranks, that it would disrupt promotion amongst the ranks. But the biggest argument was that the traditional 'toughness' of the Tommy, hardened by their suffering and deprivation whilst growing up, would be lost- that the middle class soldiers (people like us) would not have the same mental capacity to withstand the rigours of campaigning in places like India or the West Indies; because of their mental weakness the 'normal' recruit would corrupt them and, without flogging to keep the whole in line, they would turn the army into a rabble. In fact Haldane's many reforms are credited with building the British Army into the force that many historians thought was the best allied army of WW1- and that the new enlistment period was the key to keeping Britain and her Empire in the war long enough to build an army capable of winning.
This was a change even more fundamental than gays and lesbians serving openly in the military or women on the frontline; it changed the image of the average soldier, it changed the disciplinary techniques, it changed the way the Empire was run, it changed the way the men were led, it changed the way he was housed, it changed the way he was fed and paid and clothed and armed- even if he could get married or not-because suddenly the voter has an eye into the military through a son or brother or cousin or father. It made more and better soldiers. And it was opposed by the military on the grounds that they knew better because they had served and knew what service meant.

[cajun]

well now they just said on tv that woman can now serve on submarines hmmmmmmm your thoughts?

[kavic]

So who is ready to be ordered to share living quarters or maybe shelter halves with gay military members. Remember you don't get a choice. How about a hazardous oversea station where everyone is restricted to base for the duration of the deployment?

[Saffer]

So who is ready to be ordered to share living quarters or maybe shelter halves with gay military members. Remember you don't get a choice. How about a hazardous oversea station where everyone is restricted to base for the duration of the deployment?

You make it sound like the moment they have you alone, they'll be groping for your ass! Unless I misunderstood your comment. But...I do think that, like straight people have self-control, so do gay men/woman.

[Brigit Astar]

The whole point of this is not if homosexuals can serve in the military. That was settled years ago. The point is this: There is an agenda being pushed that homosexuals can and may openly display their homosexuality in the military. Now I ask this: If you are homosexual, how do you display your homosexuality openly? By actions, that's how. What does display mean? Look it up in the dictionary.