Gays in the army

[Belphegore]

Now, I've never been in the army. However, a couple of my friends were in the army. Including my best friend, who is sadly dead now. One of my good friends is gay. This happened more or less when he hit 14 years of age. I didn't mind, he was a really good friend. When he was 21, he decided to go into the army.

A few months later we met each other again in a bar nearby our home town. We hadn't seen each other for a while. When I got there, he seemed to be depressed. I asked why, he said that a lot of people had been treating him lowly for being gay.

Naturally I thought; "What? In the army?"

I would just like to hear your thoughts.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Choose one ....

a) Gays in the army under Don't Ask Don't Tell
b) Openly gay soldiers serving alongside their straight counterparts
c) A segregated militrary separating gays & straights
d) No gays allowed in the army

 

[Autumnleaf]

A gay man tends to be thought of as a guy who submits to the sexual urges of another man. What do you think a bunch of macho straight guys will think of such a guy?

Most people seem to understand the wisdom of leaving those macho straight guys to their illusions so long as they are good at killing people who would do the rest of us harm.

 

[Gishin]

Choose one ....

a) Gays in the army under Don't Ask Don't Tell
b) Openly gay soldiers serving alongside their straight counterparts
c) A segregated militrary separating gays & straights
d) No gays allowed in the army

b

 

[DaisyDay]

A gay man tends to be thought of as a guy who submits to the sexual urges of another man.

And what is the other man thought of?

 

[keith99]

And what is the other man thought of?

The other man is thought of as a non-com.

 

[jcook922]

The other man is thought of as a non-com.

POG on POG action?

OP, if all he gets is teasing because of his orientation if his unit really knows, he can count himself lucky. People get discharged for less.

I don't think it's so much about being gay as being too feminine or wimpy, while there are type A Macho jackoffs, you don't have to be that level of masculine.. You just can't be a p***y. You don't really have any business being in the military, much less in the army, if you are. (You meaning anyone)

 

[TexJB]

I'm agreeing with jcook in that his receiving only teasing about being gay is lucky. Many get teased for less, especially depending on what type of unit one is in. In my unit, he'd probably receive a lot worse than just teasing. That's if he wasn't discharged before too long.

The entire reason gays aren't allowed to be open about their sexuality is that for some - perhaps not all - other soldiers, it would be a distraction. It is inevitable that many, many people are prejudiced - and soldiers are people, believe it or not. When you're looking over the largest organization in the world, you have to set one standard that covers it all, else something somewhere with someone will go terribly wrong and it isn't that one unit that takes the heat. It's everyone. They always tell us - you don't make headlines for stupid actions, the Army does.... and it's true.

When one soldier does something, the shadow isn't cast only on him. It's cast over all of us, because when people see that he/she did it, most don't care about the name... they see the uniform, and it etches a permanent tick in their head that they always remember. Someone from the Army did that. Thus, the Army did that.

So, back to the point.

One solid and effective standardized rule had to be set to keep problems away. It isn't that some high-up brass doesn't want gays in the Army. It's more like the high-up brass knows that they can't control each individual soldiers reaction and thoughts about having a gay guy covering his back in a fire fight. Call me weak or shallow or ignorant, but knowing the guy watching my back was gay would probably make me doubt him. Not only because he was gay, but if he was openly gay and he was.... how do I put this... not the most masculine person..... it would definitely be a problem for me to trust him.

I won't kill any more time, so I'll leave it at that. Hope this put a few things into perspective, whether you agree or not.

 

[Zeru]

Tex, it's very possible to be masculine AND gay--being gay doesn't say anything about your gender expression. Either way, at least for me, masculinity isn't high on my list of reasons I trust or don't trust someone. Just a thought.

 

[TexJB]

Tex, it's very possible to be masculine AND gay--being gay doesn't say anything about your gender expression. Either way, at least for me, masculinity isn't high on my list of reasons I trust or don't trust someone. Just a thought.

I realize that one can be both, which is why I phrased that comment with the word "if."

Also, are you in the military? Perhaps I wasn't clear in saying so, but the context I meant to use "trust" in was concerning trust in the middle of a firefight. Call me crazy, but I would much rather have the guy with iron fists and a voice deeper than human ears can hear than the far from masculine gay guy covering me. False sense of security? Perhaps. But a false sense is better than none at all.

 

[Crusader05]

I'm currently serving in the US Air Force and I believe the "Dont Ask, Dont Tell" (DADT) policy should be reversed.

There is no evidence that allowing gays to serve openly in the military reduces readiness or unit cohesion. Rather, we have removed over 13,000 servicemembers for being openly gay. These include valuable people serving as infantry, fighter pilots, translators and intelligence. Former SecDef William Perry concluded this policy has cost taxpayers over $360 million since its inception.

Presently we have seen an amazing reversial in opinions on this issue. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm Mike Mullen has said DADT needs to go. His simple conclusion is that it violates the military's committment to integrity to force members to lie about their sexuality. Former Chief of Staff Colin Powell also came out and said it should be reversed.

At the end of the day it is morally wrong for the military to require members to lie about who they are. This is 2010 and people need to realize there are gays in the military and this policy is wrong.

Another fact to consider is that nearly every NATO country, the same countries we deploy with and fight along side every single day in Afghanistan allow gays to serve openly.

Links about this issue
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/OfficersStatementUpdatedJan08.pdf
Soldiers can wear their uniforms with pride at gay parade, says MoD - Times Online
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/opinion/02shalikashvili.html?_r=1
Mullen’s post: Tweet heard round the world - Military News, News From Iraq & Afghanistan - Military Times
Gates, Mullen support overturning gay ban - Military News, News From Iraq & Afghanistan - Military Times

 

[TexJB]

Crusader -

No one is being asked to lie about their sexuality. It's don't ask, don't tell. That is to say if you're gay, keep it your personal business. It isn't anyone's but your own. They aren't being forced to lie, they're being forced not to mention it whatsoever. They can't be kicked out because they're gay and don't disclose it, and they can't asked if they're gay or not. So if they just don't mention it in their work environment, they can't be forced to lie or get kicked out of the military. No one's sexuality, gay or straight, should be discussed at the workplace. It is a professional environment, and should be respected and dealt with as such.

 

[Crusader05]

Crusader -

No one is being asked to lie about their sexuality. It's don't ask, don't tell. That is to say if you're gay, keep it your personal business. It isn't anyone's but your own. They aren't being forced to lie, they're being forced not to mention it whatsoever. They can't be kicked out because they're gay and don't disclose it, and they can't asked if they're gay or not. So if they just don't mention it in their work environment, they can't be forced to lie or get kicked out of the military. No one's sexuality, gay or straight, should be discussed at the workplace. It is a professional environment, and should be respected and dealt with as such.

Tex;

I disagree. In the course of your work day do you every make reference to your wife or girlfriend? Ever ask a coworker about their significant other? How would you feel if even mentioning the your relationship with another person could result in you losing your job?

As Admiral Mullen said this is an issue of integrity because this policy requires servicemembers to lie about themselves.

 

[TexJB]

Tex;

I disagree. In the course of your work day do you every make reference to your wife or girlfriend? Ever ask a coworker about their significant other? How would you feel if even mentioning the your relationship with another person could result in you losing your job?

As Admiral Mullen said this is an issue of integrity because this policy requires servicemembers to lie about themselves.

If it threatened my job, I wouldn't talk about it. Just like leaving my barracks room dirty would get me written up, so I don't do it. Just like not waking up for formation at 5am could get me demoted. Does it suck? Absolutely.

 

[Crusader05]

If it threatened my job, I wouldn't talk about it. Just like leaving my barracks room dirty would get me written up, so I don't do it. Just like not waking up for formation at 5am could get me demoted. Does it suck? Absolutely.

But that's not a reasonable compairison. If I order one of my Airmen to report to work at 7:00am tomorrow that would be a valid order because it has to deal with the accomplishment of a mission. If I order him to never make reference to his wife, or even to the fact that he is attrated to women, that would not be a valid order because it has nothing to do with accomplishing a mission. Try to put yourself in the other person's shoes, imagine you are trying to serve your country but you could lose all that for simply telling the truth about yourself.

 

[TexJB]

I can somewhat sympathize, but they also knew that was the case before signing up. No one forced them into the military - that you can't argue.

 

[Crusader05]

I can somewhat sympathize, but they also knew that was the case before signing up. No one forced them into the military - that you can't argue.

Sure, but it still doesn't make it right. I believe, like Admiral Mullen, Secretary Gates, Former Secretary Powell, Former Gen Shakashvilli, that this policy is wrong and should be changed.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Crusader -

No one is being asked to lie about their sexuality. It's don't ask, don't tell. That is to say if you're gay, keep it your personal business. It isn't anyone's but your own. They aren't being forced to lie, they're being forced not to mention it whatsoever. They can't be kicked out because they're gay and don't disclose it, and they can't asked if they're gay or not. So if they just don't mention it in their work environment, they can't be forced to lie or get kicked out of the military. No one's sexuality, gay or straight, should be discussed at the workplace. It is a professional environment, and should be respected and dealt with as such.

Actually, they can and do get kicked out for being gay, even without disclosing it.

All it takes is a squad mate with a big mouth to see a soldier holding hands with a same sex partner in town.

 

[jcook922]

Sure, but it still doesn't make it right. I believe, like Admiral Mullen, Secretary Gates, Former Secretary Powell, Former Gen Shakashvilli, that this policy is wrong and should be changed.

Agreed, while I do feel that if you sign up and are gay you know what you're getting into, DADT should be gotten rid of. Though until it IS changed, I don't have much sympathy for people who aren't careful and get caught.

Rules are rules, until they change.

 

[TheReasoner]

Gay guys are often treated very poorly in the army. We had a gay guy in my company, and he was not exactly welcomed very warmly. While that was mostly because he was a very manipulative and all-round lying jerk and coward him being gay was also part of the equation. It was not very comforting to be in the shower or work out while this guy was close by sending lustful glances your way. It was especially discomforting knowing he was a fairly enthusiastic consumer of homosexual pornography.

Had he behaved properly though, skipped the gay porn as well as the lustful looks he'd have been accepted much more readily. But I fear he'd still be avoided and possibly treated poorly. Since he did not, and we got very very tired of his neglects and outrageously poor behavior we had him kicked out of the army. So he got a dishonorable discharge. You can imagine there were many reasons why this particular guy was severely disliked.

As for other gay guys... I don't know... I know it's a problem, and I did do some work to try and make life easier for gay guys in the army in lieu of my position as a soldier's representative on a national level. I worked with the LLH and the nation's politicians to try and help homosexuals have a better time in the army. Regardless of whether you like or dislike homosexuality (I don't like it) I don't think it's defensible to discriminate or bully homosexuals. They can be good soldiers, and if they are they should be treated as any other soldier. Or officer for that matter.
That said, sexual attraction CAN be a disturbing factor in the armed forces, so elite troops where performance must be optimal at all times I think homosexuals and women should be excluded. Or, in the case of women, put in different companies.