Gays in the army

In combat, blood-borne pathogens are a danger. Obviously, this in not limited to gays. No one with a known blood-borne pathogen should be in combat. Anyone administering first aid in a combat environment would be placed at risk of infection because suitable bio-hazard equipment is not available there.

Steve Petersen said:

In combat, blood-borne pathogens are a danger. Obviously, this in not limited to gays. No one with a known blood-borne pathogen should be in combat. Anyone administering first aid in a combat environment would be placed at risk of infection because suitable bio-hazard equipment is not available there.

Click to expand...

Echoed.

faith guardian said:

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.

Click to expand...

So it isn't defensible to discriminage, but in certain situations it is?

How about race? Religion? Those can be pretty divisive and disturbing? Should "elite troops" only be white, straight, Christian (are we including Catholics here or not?) men?

nolongerhome said:

So it isn't defensible to discriminage, but in certain situations it is?

How about race? Religion? Those can be pretty divisive and disturbing? Should "elite troops" only be white, straight, Christian (are we including Catholics here or not?) men?

Click to expand...

No, I don't think it is discriminating. The military is not a democracy. Least of all elite forces.
The problem is not dislike for one another, but the opposite. When you work together as a team through very trying circumstances feelings arise. If a sexual tension is present this can develop into a more fully fledged relationship. In a firefight this can be disastrous simply because human beings act irrationally when loved ones are exposed to danger. Even if that love is not reciprocated.
For women there's another consideration too. Their physical strength can as a rule never match that of a well trained man. They must train more to achieve a comparable level of strength and physical endurance than men do, and can never reach the same peak performance. This is speaking as a rule mind you. Now, I do not say that women should not serve. They should. Even in elite troops. What matters the most is capability, after all. But in the interest of combat reliability they should be in separate companies. True, men can fight more fiercely when women are near, but at the same time less rationally. And in modern fights a cold head keeps you alive more than a hot one.

As for race and religion... In my experience these factors do not really matter that much after sufficient trials have merged a troop or a company sufficiently. Such differences are more easily overcome and a very deep friendship can result where animosity held sway before. Again I stress that sexual tension is something else entirely and should not be present at all in an elite troop.

If you think not letting them in to certain parts of the army for reasons like this is discriminating... Tough. Should we, according to you, let quadriplegics, amputees or other disabled people in? Not doing so is surely discrimination as well.

TexJB said:

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.

Click to expand...

Seeing as I myself am one of the few females in my department, and one of the captains who I most respect is female, no, I can't relate to that sentiment. Manliness is only going to get you so far--I'll take a gay man any day if he knows what he's doing over an Arnold Schwarzenegger who doesn't have a clue where anything is on the apparatus. In addition--if someone seeks to join the military and survives basic, I don't think that they're going to be too effeminate! And even if they DO tend to be--female servicemembers put aside their girlyness every day to do their job. I think any real soldier would do the same. I don't think sexual preference is that important as a work ethic, bravery, etc., ec.

If he's far from masculine and wimpy, he shouldn't be in a combat role anyway. His sexual orientation should not be a factor.

Heckle, haze, and generally show disdain for anyone who is too wimpy to do their job, that's fine by me. Set your comrades straight(so to speak) until they get the damn picture and can do their job properly, be that with the proper intelligence and know-how of an electronics/mechanical/intel job, or the proper athleticism and tough attitude necessary in a combat arms field. Being gay doesn't matter, being able to do your job right does.

Zeru said:

Seeing as I myself am one of the few females in my department, and one of the captains who I most respect is female, no, I can't relate to that sentiment. Manliness is only going to get you so far--I'll take a gay man any day if he knows what he's doing over an Arnold Schwarzenegger who doesn't have a clue where anything is on the apparatus. In addition--if someone seeks to join the military and survives basic, I don't think that they're going to be too effeminate! And even if they DO tend to be--female servicemembers put aside their girlyness every day to do their job. I think any real soldier would do the same. I don't think sexual preference is that important as a work ethic, bravery, etc., ec.

Click to expand...

Echoed. We had a female sgt. at boot camp. She was without a doubt the toughest meanest sgt. there. She invariably got the best trained troops at the end of boot camp as a result. Albeit initially there were quite a few of the guys who wanted to bed her. 18 year olds in uniform are not always very mature. After a long march through a marsh in snow and sleet with full gear I imagine their libido was thoroughly reduced however. I know all I could think of was warm clothes and sleep.

Eventually after a bit of rack time those thoughts always wander back... We had a few hot instructors when I was a boot, but they were invariably the meanest by far, and for a good reason. All the folks I knew who were in female led flights said if anything it made them more motivated because they all wanted to make her happy, sort of like pleasing a mother.

Anyhow, the same problems with getting rid of DADT will be the same problems we had with integrating blacks and females, there were issues, but it's pretty much the norm now.

Though given, the Military doesn't have to care about anything but efficiency. If you're a limp-wristed effeminate charlie foxtrot of a troop, you deserve to get punked by your unit and to get ignored when you complain about it. I just hope this compromise doesn't lead to any PC pandering on the brass' part, that's not what this organization is supposed to be about.

jcook922 said:

Eventually after a bit of rack time those thoughts always wander back... We had a few hot instructors when I was a boot, but they were invariably the meanest by far, and for a good reason. All the folks I knew who were in female led flights said if anything it made them more motivated because they all wanted to make her happy, sort of like pleasing a mother.

Anyhow, the same problems with getting rid of DADT will be the same problems we had with integrating blacks and females, there were issues, but it's pretty much the norm now.

Though given, the Military doesn't have to care about anything but efficiency. If you're a limp-wristed effeminate charlie foxtrot of a troop, you deserve to get punked by your unit and to get ignored when you complain about it. I just hope this compromise doesn't lead to any PC pandering on the brass' part, that's not what this organization is supposed to be about.

Click to expand...

Whatever happens, I can handle it. The problem is that the conversations will be a bit more... awkward. Seeing as the things we talk about now are rather over-the-top as it is, I can't imagine how much worse it could get. And as a result, how much worse it could be for the homosexual soldier behind that conversation. I'm sure in many cases, it will have been easier for them under DADT. We will see when the fit hits the shan.


@ faith guardian regarding your signature- There is a time for war - even in Christianity. There is no Standard Operating Procedure written for war, so I think Jesus would bomb who he had to - that or throw a plague at them. Not sure which I like better. Also, I haven't read the Bible in quite a while, but I'm rather certain there's a part about taking an eye for an eye. They shoot at me, I'm shooting back - if I'm more accurate, so be it. There's time to love them afterward.

Zeru said:

Seeing as I myself am one of the few females in my department, and one of the captains who I most respect is female, no, I can't relate to that sentiment. Manliness is only going to get you so far--I'll take a gay man any day if he knows what he's doing over an Arnold Schwarzenegger who doesn't have a clue where anything is on the apparatus. In addition--if someone seeks to join the military and survives basic, I don't think that they're going to be too effeminate! And even if they DO tend to be--female servicemembers put aside their girlyness every day to do their job. I think any real soldier would do the same. I don't think sexual preference is that important as a work ethic, bravery, etc., ec.

Click to expand...

Your reference to Arnold reminded me of a fairly well know figure in the Gay Leather community, a published author and sexually submissive. Oh and 260 Lbs of very macho man. I just get so tired of the limp wristed image of gay men. It sure is not the norm in the part of the gay community I am familiar with.

keith99 said:

Your reference to Arnold reminded me of a fairly well know figure in the Gay Leather community, a published author and sexually submissive. Oh and 260 Lbs of very macho man. I just get so tired of the limp wristed image of gay men. It sure is not the norm in the part of the gay community I am familiar with.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I know gay boys that can pick me up and carry me around. I brought Arnold in to make a point about manliness, not gayness.

faith guardian said:

No, I don't think it is discriminating. The military is not a democracy. Least of all elite forces.
The problem is not dislike for one another, but the opposite. When you work together as a team through very trying circumstances feelings arise. If a sexual tension is present this can develop into a more fully fledged relationship. In a firefight this can be disastrous simply because human beings act irrationally when loved ones are exposed to danger. Even if that love is not reciprocated.
For women there's another consideration too. Their physical strength can as a rule never match that of a well trained man. They must train more to achieve a comparable level of strength and physical endurance than men do, and can never reach the same peak performance. This is speaking as a rule mind you. Now, I do not say that women should not serve. They should. Even in elite troops. What matters the most is capability, after all. But in the interest of combat reliability they should be in separate companies. True, men can fight more fiercely when women are near, but at the same time less rationally. And in modern fights a cold head keeps you alive more than a hot one.

As for race and religion... In my experience these factors do not really matter that much after sufficient trials have merged a troop or a company sufficiently. Such differences are more easily overcome and a very deep friendship can result where animosity held sway before. Again I stress that sexual tension is something else entirely and should not be present at all in an elite troop.

If you think not letting them in to certain parts of the army for reasons like this is discriminating... Tough. Should we, according to you, let quadriplegics, amputees or other disabled people in? Not doing so is surely discrimination as well.

Click to expand...

Sorry it took a while for me to remember to respond to this - I had half written a response a few days ago that I hadn't finished and just remembered.

Not having amputees or quadriplegics on the front line is discrimination. I need to say straight away, then, that not all discrimination is bad - if we didn't discriminate when we made decisions we would make bad decisions. In the elite forces of an army we obviously need to discriminate - only the fittest, most physically capable and mentally stable soldiers should be selected for those positions - that means discriminating against those that don't stack up against the necessary criteria for the job.

So yes, in answer to your first line in the quoted post, it IS discriminating. The only matter to decide on is whether or not this discrimination is justifiable (as I believe a decision not to have a quadriplegic special forces officer on the front line is) or not (and I don't beleive that homosexuality is a justifiable reason not to allow a person to serve).

The military may not be a democracy, but our society is, and the military is there to serve our society and not the other way around. Our military should not be exempt from the standards of our society, particularly when, as is the current situation, our countries are using our militaries to project our societal standards abroad.

So, what, in our society, is legitimate discrimination? I think you state what it is yourself in your post: "What matters the most is capability, after all." If you are uncapable of doing the job, for physical, intellectual, mental, emotional, psychological, or any other type or reason, it is reasonable for you to be discriminated against. In the case of the highest levels of the armed forces, this is going to mean that there are very strict physical and mental standards that must be attained.

If a person, man or woman, gay or straight, white or black or brown or yellow or any other shade in between, agnostic or atheist or Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist, Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or Green or independents, is up to the physical and mental standards required, I don't see why they should be blocked from the position by any of the characteristics that I have just listed.

My main problem with the way you have distinguished sexual tension from religious or racial tension (aside from the fact that the same arguments you are using now have been used in the past in to justify exlcusion on religious or race-based grounds, and, as you say, have proven to be not so divisive as once thought), is that you basically imply that a homosexual soldier is necessarily less able to be professional and rational under fire than a straight soldier. I see no reason to believe that "such differences are more easily overcome and a very deep friendship can result where animosity held sway before" can not end up becoming true for homosexuality as well. Your argument really relies on an unstated assumption that homosexual men would be unable to be professional and rational in the face of sexual tension. I think that is a pretty poor assumption to make for the entire population of homosexual men.

Can sexual tension be bad in a firefight? No doubt. Any tension can be bad in a fire fight, and there are many reasons why there would be such tension in a military organisation. It could be because of sexuality, it could be because of gender, it could be because of race, it could be because of religion, it could be because of politics. It could also be because people just don't get along. It is for this reason that, not only are the troops required to attain certain levels of physical fitness for the job, they are also required to be judged mentally/psychologically capable of the job.

It may be that a particular homosexual man isn't mentally up to the rigours of the position. I don't see how you can say that all homosexual are necessarily unable to maintain a rational and professional attitude in the stressful situations of war, however. Likewise, it may be that a particular woman/Muslim/other minority isn't up to the mental struggles. If they aren't they shouldn't be in the position. I see no reason why they shouldn't at the very least have the opportunity to prove that they are up to it.

I have a bit of a distinction between it. Civilian pressure on ending DADT angers me to no end because it isn't any of their fragging business. But when folks like Admiral Mullen wish to end it, well he is the highest ranking member of the military who is IN the military.

It's not a decision for the civilian world, because as said the military is not a democracy. It's a decision to be made by the people it affects, and don't give me any of that taxpayers deserve to make decisions garbage concerning the military, servicemembers pay taxes too.

As the issue of whether or not homosexuals can serve in the military becomes more and more intense, I feel I must issue a personal policy statement on the matter..

Before I go into the issue itself I first must declare that God is no respecter of persons in this area.. He considers the sins of homosexuality, fornication, adultery and bestiality as sins of abomination before Him, whether committed by homosexuals or heterosexuals. He does not hate one sin more than another.

Unfortunately this fact is largely ignored by heterosexuals who feel they will incur more favor with God since God specifically created sex between a man and a woman. However, that is not the way God sees it. He considers ALL SEXUAL SINS EQUALLY ABOMINABLE BEFORE HIM, and calls all such sinners to repentance.

With that said, let me state that I do support repeal of the current policy of "don't ask, don't tell", which in all essence is a major act of hypocricy. Not only do I support a repeal of that policy but I want to see it replaced with a strong moral code that forbids the practice of any form of sexual deviancy.

Here are some situations if allowed to continue could be considered discriminatory against homosexuals serving:

--Allowing illegal aliens to serve in our military since they are willing to bear arms in defense of this nation. Even though they have broken our immigration laws they are allowed to serve nevertheless.

--Men and women serving together in our military which can bring about the same problems that could arise if we allow homosexuals to serve.

Here is an excerpt from an article written by Chuck Baldwin, "Not Your Father's Army", appearing in NewsWithViews.com to substantiate the above statement.



[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]According to NPR, "In 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed."[/FONT]

On top of all of this homosexuals are the only offenders that are forced out of the military if their orientation is discovered. This is also discriminatory as adulterers and fornicators in the military are punished BUT NOT ALWAYS DISCHARGED and most only receive a mere slap on the wrist.

I do feel however that a detailed anaylsis should be made of how well don't tell, don't ask has worked since its inception a couple of decades agao. In that respect I fully support the current study being conducted by Secretary Gates. We need to know the facts and if homosexuals are not causing any noticeable trouble or no more trouble than the herteosexuals they should be allowed to serve.

An initial report is already out by Family Research Council showing there have been several instances of forced homosexual acts against straight men in 2009 but this only accounts for 8% of all sexual abuse cases committed by both homosexuals and herteosexuals..

Those who oppose the repeal of this policy argue that allowing homosexuals to serve openly or even at all in the military would put all those with whom they were in contact should they be wounded at a nearly 100% chance of infecting those around them from wounds that bleed with Aids. Now I have to wonder with all the actual combat going on why hasn't this already happened. Certainly the opportunity must have presented itself many times over.

Now I feel if this policy had not been in force it would have provided the straight soldiers a better chance of knowing who was homosexual or not and thus avoid building a too close persornal relationship which could result in rape or fondling. Personally if I were in the service I would like to know who was homosexual or not for my own protection.

Clearly a strong moral code is needed here to protect all from any form of sexual abuse. If it can be proven since don't tell, don't ask there has been very little instance of sexual abuse by homosexuals or such abuse equals but not exceeds the abuse caused by herteosexuals among themselves again I feel homosexuals should be allowed to serve.

These additional arguements could also be used to allow homosexuals to serve:

Homosexuals have served in all militaries, particularly the German Third Reich with distinction and effectiveness. Homosexuals are now hired by business and industry and seem to serve without problems. Also adulterers and fornicators serve in these areas seemingly without any major problems as well. Illegal aliens also serve in the military on the basis they are willing to lay their lives down to protect this country although they have clearly broken the law by being here illegally. Certainly if these individuals, both heterosexually and homosexually oriented can serve in these areas then homosexually oriented persons should be allowed to serve in the military. They have as much right to serve as any adulterer, fornicator or other sexually deviant individual.

Also I must wonder why heterosexuals hate homosexuality so much when many will commit acts of homosexuality in jail and even engage in the homosexual act with women. Do I not detect an area of hypocrisy here. Before heterosexuals are so quick to condemn homosexuals, let them remember the words of Jesus in the matter when confronting the adulteress who was about to be stoned. "Let him without sin cast the first stone". Remember judgment starts in your own house first.

I believe we all should embrace the teachings of Jerry Faldwell on the matter as he was always calling all sexual sinners to repentance and did not show favor to any form of sexual misbehavior.

Therefore, I cannot help but support replacing the current 'don't ask, don't tell policy with one of allowing homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators and other sexual deviants to serve in our military provided they can refrain from committing sexual illicit acts and if found guilty these individuals should face immediate dishonorable discharge along with full criminal prosecution for rape or incest.

Also no special accommodations should be built to favor homosexual conduct. Everything can remain as is since no changes had to be made when don't ask, don't tell was implemented. All service personnel must realize no sexual misconduct will be tolerated or allowed.

Every applicant to our military should be made fully aware that no immoral sexual act will be allowed nor tolerated and the full consequences that will result for any violations.

It is finally time for this current hypocritidal policy to be repealed and replaced with a realistic one that does not discriminate, upholds God's moral laws and allows the preaching of the Gospel on the matter in love telling of the harmful illnesses that can occur with such behavior as well as the need for repentance by military chaplains.

I am 100% for gays serving openly in the military along straight soldiers. I would be the proudest man alive if I could serve alongside an openly gay soldier and would defend him to the utmost.

Straight Guys Tell | Politics | Advocate.com

The above is an article from a gay news magazine, The Advocate. The guy went to a military base and asked all types of men (soft looking, rough looking, old, and young) about their opinions and experiences of/with gays in the military. His findings defied the statistics. All of the guys had served alongside a gay soldier or knew a gay soldier didn't care about sexuality, and were for the repealing of DADT.

No disrespect to the older people in the military, but the younger men are the future. They are the ones who will be living with gays in the military longer, not the older people. If the younger ones, those who will have to see it every day don't care, then let gays serve openly.


There is another article on the site about gays who have been discharged because of their sexuality. One gay soldier got in a fight with a straight one. The gay won and said, "How does it feel to get your a$s beat by a fagg0t?" He was ultimately discharged for that comment, but I think that goes to show that gays aren't always the weak, non-tuff/masculine people that many think.

EnemyPartyII said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's even worse than that. They can even discharge you under DADT if the police search your home, find a marriage certificate to someone of the same sex and report it to your CO. This happened quite recently. When my husband was in the Marine Corps during Desert Storm, a man was discharged for getting an erection in the shower one time. It was assumed he was "gay and getting all turned on by the guys".

KatAutumn said:

When my husband was in the Marine Corps during Desert Storm, a man was discharged for getting an erection in the shower one time. It was assumed he was "gay and getting all turned on by the guys".

Click to expand...

Oh wow, please tell me you are joking..... That is the sort of silliness that happens in junior high.

laconicstudent said:

Oh wow, please tell me you are joking..... That is the sort of silliness that happens in junior high.

Click to expand...

I wish I were. Of course, this was back before DADT and your recruiter was mandated to ask you if you were a homosexual. Back in those times if you were found to be gay (or even appeared you might be), you were dishonorably discharged. My thoughts are I wish the military would spend less time worrying about who's gay/lesbian or who isn't and focus more on the appalling lack of post-war care for our soldiers. Military personnel are one of the groups most likely to suffer from severe depression or abuse their spouse/children due to PTSD.

Gay or not, a soldier's duty ultimately is not dictated by their orientation.

The problem is not really about the gay or lesbian soldier, I think you will have found that most people have know at least 1 like that in the military. The problem comes with fraud. In the military, At least in the Marines, single Marines have pretty crappy lives, stuck in squad bays, 3 people in a tiny room with broken utilities etc. This is wear I hear about a lot of Marines get contract marriages. They just find some chick and agree to get married for a few years, she gets benefits+college money, he gets to have a house paid for and a general better standard of living compliments of the military. if gays were openly aloud, whats to stop two guy friends who are tired of there situation from getting married to have a better stand of living....If you want gays in the MARINES then up the standard of living for those single guys so they can stop the whole contract marriage thing....