Study: Gays in military would not be disruptive; Update: AOL Hot Seat Poll added
posted at 7:52 am on July 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
A bipartisan panel of retired military commanders has concluded that Congress should repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allow gays to serve openly in the military. One commander helped Bill Clinton implement the current policy in 1993 but says it’s flawed by an assumption of disruption when no evidence exists for it. The study, commissioned by UC Santa Barbara, found no evidence that gays serving openly would affect morale, unit cohesion or readiness:
Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military — Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps Gen. Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit’s sexual orientation. …
Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
“Everyone was living a big lie — the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn’t want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law,” he said.
The study will no doubt come under scrutiny for its source. The Michael Palm Center sponsored this study, and it is not a disinterested party to this issue. It champions gay rights as part of its mission. That will have critics saying that the study itself is unreliable and biased from the start.
However, most studies on contentious issues get sponsored by organizations with dogs in the fight, and to dismiss it out of hand would be unreasonable without considering the retired commanders who ran it. According to this report of the study, they found the basic problem of “don’t ask, don’t tell” too large to overcome: an assumption of disruption without any evidence of it. Indeed, the success of DADT would tend to argue otherwise; gays serve without disruption and the military values their service, until the moment they reveal their orientation.
Supporters of the ban have argued that the potential for disruption has never been disproven, but one cannot prove a negative. Evidence exists in other Western forces that gays serve openly without affecting unit morale or performance; British and Israeli militaries have long allowed gays to serve openly, and they have suffered no loss in readiness. As Admiral Shanahan notes, DADT itself creates morale problems with its hypocrisy and necessary deception on the part of everyone involved.
DADT could be considered a necessary bridging step between the outright ban on gays in the military and full acceptance. Congress needs to ask whether the policy has outlived its usefulness and — importantly — whether this moment will serve best as a launching point for a more reasonable policy. The military has spent 15 years admitting, at least tacitly, that gays can serve their nation with honor and distinction.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
And the military had a choice in that position?
peacenprosperity on July 8, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I think it will become an issue, and soon. Some gay member of the military from California, Massachusetts, or New York is going to want to get married, and we’ll have a Supreme Court case on our hands in no time.
Big S on July 8, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Justified is a different word. You asked for a legal argument, and that’s what I gave. You specifically asked for something that didn’t apply to emotions.
The justification is what we’re giving here as to why homosexuals should or should not serve openly.
Once we’ve answered that question, your second one is already answered.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Sorry, but it goes much deeper than “feelings”.
By allowing openly gay men to serve in frontline units, you make them sexualy mixed units. There are good reasons for the military to NOT have sexualy mixed straight units… it adds way too many problems to an already problematic mix.
I served on a ship that went from all male, to mixed crew. Problems increased, and crew effectivness decreased. It took MORE crew to do the same job. We suddenly had constant transfers for personal reasons, and constant fraternization problems…. not to mention pregnancies (which can destroy your carefully crafted training regimen).
By the DADT policy, its tacitly understood that gay sex is NOT allowed (even though it happens) and so gay members serving don’t bring those problems to the unit. They keep their freinds OUTSIDE the unit, or military, or are VERY careful to hide it… either way ensuring that the problems created are minimized.
By legalizing the behaviour however, it will tacitly condone the behaviour, and problems will happen….
Romeo13 on July 8, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Because their entire existance/identity is based on what they do with their genitals.
peacenprosperity on July 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Allowing openly gays in the military makes as much sense as co-ed barracks and showers. Don’t drop the soap.
vulcannomad on July 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
They must lie so they don’t get booted out. Other people’s feelings are secondary, but not to be discounted. If the blood of the sodomist next to me splatters all over my face, now I have AIDS or hepetitis or whatever he probably had.
Akzed on July 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
No, so long as we don’t allow gays who are open about their lifestyle to serve in the military, there’s no case to be had.
You keep getting ahead of yourself here.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I should have been more specific – show me how this is going to stand up in court, when it comes to that. As I said above, I think it will be soon.
Big S on July 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I never really got this. Yeah some people might be complete asses and target them for their homosexuality, but those assclowns would do that anywhere. I doubt that these men would admit to being gay then cut their uniform into short shorts. They would serve just as well as any heterosexual male or female, if someone wants to attack them for their way of life the person doing the attacking should have never been in the military in the first place.
Rbastid on July 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Straight men are not the issue so much as straight men who have a big problem with homosexuality. I wonder what the percentage is of straight men in the military who would have no problem with serving with an openly gay person. That would be an interesting poll.
When the military integrated with black men, there were many racists who were against integration and fought it. They were weeded out and the military became stronger. The same thing will happen when gays are allowed to serve openly.
Yes, I am concerned that for a short period the military might have some difficulties, but the military will adapt. It always does. In fact, military only gets better and tougher through adversity.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I guess if there’s ever a need for another draft, people won’t have to go to Canada to avoid it. They can simply find a like-minded buddy, move to California, and get married.
Big S on July 8, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I am sorry Big S, but to me and the folks I served with it, was really the be all and end all of the issue. The military separates men and women into separate living space because 1) nature happens and 2) no one wants to feel watched all the time. I understand that gay folk aren’t the sex crazed people certain quarters like to portray them as. But go ahead and suggest bunking a lady or two in the same room as even the most docile of gentlemen. I bet they will explain it to you. DADT allows people to pretend their room mates are the same as they are and that allows them to ignore all of that. It is delusion to a degree but it works. Sex is a very powerful force of human nature. At the moment, I am not prepared to sit back and see what it can do to a trained and disiplined force that have no choice but to be quartered together. We keep women out combat arms for that reason. Increase the housing budget to allow for single member domiciles and I could be convinced to take a chance on it. As structured the military works very well. I see no reason to experiment with it.
Dawnsblood on July 8, 2008 at 11:42 AM
The court would have to first throw out “don’t ask, don’t tell” and decide it’s unconstitutional to not allow openly gay men to serve.
Then, the issue would be solved but not before.
If you can be kicked out for being outed, then marriage doesn’t change the issue.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Generally speaking, I think we segregate men and women purely because they’re of different genders–and frankly men, for the most part, are more comfortable with co-ed situations than women. So for the most part we segregate men and women because women demand it.
If the military can currently house straight and gay people of the same genders together, which it does, why would it need to change that? I think it’s unlikely that gays would demand it en masse. The most I can imagine is that some men who are uncomforable with gay men might want it, but frankly most straight men are secure enough to simply not care. And I don’t get the impression that women in general are nearly as sensitive on the issue (for that matter, men aren’t as sensitive about lesbianism, either…).
Blacklake on July 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM
I will now leave the pro-gay and anti-gay folks to duke it out. Have a ball folks!
Dawnsblood on July 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM
And that works if the numbers are small enough. If they’re not ready, is letting gays out themselves worth losing (if you believe mateo) 90% of our servicemen?
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 11:45 AM
I’m guessing that you’re more worried about this than most. Anyway, why is everyone assuming combat assignments? There are plenty of non-combat roles, too. What about those?
Big S on July 8, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Naw, I was an 0331 my job was real simple, it was to put holes in people, lot’s of holes. No where in my job description did it say I had to put up with the bullshit of the people out on the sexual fringe.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 11:46 AM
I, too, must run. I will check back in later. I’m sure that by then we will all agree with each other and sing a nice version of “Kumbaya.”
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Ed, I love when you do these types of questions.
But as for the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Keep it.
I do not care if someone is gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or tri-sexual. All I care is how well they can perform their job, anywhere! Not just on the battleground but in the normal day to day world.
Hell they could be a cross dressing transvetite, I do not care! Though, if he has great shoes I may ask where he got them.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 11:47 AM
That about sums it up. I don’t give a f%ck where you put your johnson at night. There is a reason why the infantry is all male, and a reason why we don’t want openly gay people practially on top of you in your hooch.
You want to hang out and listen to SGT Fred talk about his boyfriend while sipping coffee back at the motor pool at Ft. Stateside, have at it.
Yes, straight men have feelings. Shocker! Our feelings in the combat arms (i.e., not paper pushers) are that openly gay soldiers will be mocked, insulted, ignored, and often the subject of ridicule.
Combat Arms isn’t campus, or the cubicle. It is a young mans game, full of testosterone and brotherly trust. You introduce anything that will monkey with morale (this can be anything – a soldier using drugs, women, gambling debts, etc) and you get a a squad, platoon or company that is FUBAR. It is a 1SG’s nightmare. Soldiers who mess up the flow get smoked.
So go ahead and f’up one of the last places where normal young men are needed.
spec_ops_mateo on July 8, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Women are uncomfortable being seen naked by men, because we know what men view our bodies sexually. Obviously that doesn’t mean all of us turn all men on, but some men just get turned on thinking about a boob.
I imagine many men would feel the same way if they knew someone was watching them who viewed their sexual organs in a sexual nature.
It’s the knowledge of sexual attraction that makes people uncomfortable, which is why not knowing a homosexual is showering with you is different.
And as far as lesbianism is concerned, it’s the women who would be uncomfortable, not the men. I’m sure even the guys here who keep saying sodomist are cool with lesbians. If not, they should choose another word.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 11:49 AM
No. No it is not.
Heterosexual male revulsion to open displays of gay male behavior runs much deeper than feelings. It is hard-wired in. No amount of Marxist dogma or Progressive wishful thinking can change this.
You seem to want to change the inborn attitude of straight men towards gays. Why? Does it have anything to do with a stronger military? No? Then go take a hike. Work out your personal issues in some other venue. One that does not effect me, my family, or my nation’s security.
pseudonominus on July 8, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Based on having a father, a brother, and a best friend’s brother in various branches of the military, as I said before, the majority of straight men in the military, regardless of how secure they are in their sexuality, would be nervous showering and bunking with men they know could be sexually attracted to them. End of story. Stop turning the military into a social engineering experiment, and stop thinking about having it as anything other than a perfectly tuned machine for defense.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Bingo.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 11:51 AM
I think if you are gay and want to serve in the military then get a sex change.
infidel on July 8, 2008 at 11:52 AM
If that were true, then our history books which talk about the openly gay soldiers in Greek times must be complete bullsh!t.
If you’re talking to me, then you should try reading for once.
I’ve said time and time again here that if our soldiers aren’t comfortable with openly gay men, that we shouldn’t abolish “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM
This is all a big joke to you, I see.
pseudonominus on July 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Let me just start off by saying that I haven’t served in the armed forces so I really have no idea of what that life is like aside from the Hollywood version of it. Therefore I really don’t know how I’d feel serving alongside openly gay troops.
However I do think that if a homosexual wants to serve his or her country in the armed forces then they should have that opportunity. There’s no reason to keep them out IMO and the long standing tradition of pretending it doesn’t exist is silly at best.
Benaiah on July 8, 2008 at 11:57 AM
When I was in the last time, there was a lesbian. She wasn’t out right, you just knew. She didn’t talk about it and I never said anything outright to her, not just because you weren’t suppose to ask but I didn’t think it wise that I butt into her business. She was a great soldier, did her job right was never the type to complain or have issues with anyone.
But like I said, I would rather still have the policy of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, because 1. I don’t care and 2. It is really no one elses business.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 11:58 AM
And maybe if they’re not comfortable with getting killed, we should stop sending them to combat zones. I’m not advocating we do that, but just pointing out that there are plenty of things that the military does that make people uncomfortable.
Big S on July 8, 2008 at 11:58 AM
If the enemy is that closely in range, then so are you. My guess is that one of you doesn’t survive.
paul006 on July 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Back in my boot camp days, there was a gay guy in our division. He actually slept in the next bunk over from mine. I had no problem with him.
SoulGlo on July 8, 2008 at 12:03 PM
If one more person starts comparing the racial integration of the military in the 50s as a model for a proposed sexual orientation integration in the near future, I have a compromise. How about we start out in the 40s before blasting headlong into the 50s. I propose we form a few homosexual battalions and see how they do in comparison to normal units.
If you think this sounds stupid, well so does your original comparison.
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 8, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Which is why unit morale and cohesion is vitial to survival in combat.
Sleeping on the ground in the woods, ontop of twigs and your ruck, trying to warm up by staying close to your budy in the cold winter night – that is uncomfortable.
Having your budy being openly gay? That is completely going to ruin a unit.
spec_ops_mateo on July 8, 2008 at 12:05 PM
However, men in general don’t particularly care if the guy in the gym shower next to him is gay. The thinking you’re describing–feeling insecure with the thought that somebody might be assessing you sexually–is a female thing.
Blacklake on July 8, 2008 at 12:06 PM
No you moron, I use the term that is most common these days.
Richard Romano on July 8, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Of course gay men were and are sexually attracted to me. Hell, straight men are sexually attracted to me. I’m just that damned good looking.
But that’s just my cross to bear.
I really don’t understand what the problem is here.
“No” works. “No, thank you” if there was free beer involved.
And, by-the-bye Private Pyle, FYI the Navy is about combat, too. Oddly enough all of those guns and missiles and damage control stations aren’t just for show. The Navy is more than a cruise-line for Marine tourists. Yeah, we may not be toe-to-toe looking the enemy in the eye when we shoot him, but unless you’re a moron you aren’t either. One of the rules for a fire fight is, after all, if you can see the enemy the enemy can see you. I do have to admit that the Navy’s main rules for a fire fight are to send the Marines and eat doughnuts while lobbing Tomahawks and other munitions ashore. Damn, I miss the New Jersey class.
TABoLK on July 8, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Privacy issue. You can segregate heterosexuals into sexually neutral areas but you can’t do that with homosexuals. You don’t call that a “reason”? There’s already way too much fraternization. This would make it much worse, as well as infringe on the rights of the straights who deserve a degree of privacy. Don’t even talk about what’s good for the military.
Paul-Cincy on July 8, 2008 at 12:07 PM
It seems the least that can be said is that an officer who thinks his fighters are hot has an additional reason for trying to keep them alive and healthy. Of course, from the standpoint of the end, keeping one’s fighters alive and healthy seems to be neither wholly bad nor wholly good.
Kralizec on July 8, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Ahh no Blacklake. I know a few guys who would not be comfortable in that situation either.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 12:09 PM
There was also talk in the history books about teenagers training to be soldiers being paired with adults for erotic purposes. Should NAMBLA now have a say in military policy?
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Probably not. They might be uncomfortable if propositioned, but that’s a different matter entirley. If they’re uncomfortable simply with the thought that there might be a gay male around, I’d say they have some issues.
Blacklake on July 8, 2008 at 12:10 PM
I also know a few guys who would not be comfortable with that situation :P
apollyonbob on July 8, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Yes, they have this issue: They’re not gay.
apollyonbob on July 8, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Probably for the same reason that straights feel the need to have their orientation known.
Try going even a one day without making reference to your spouse or children. Take off your wedding ring. Remove the pictures from your desk. When co-workers ask what you did over the weekend, be evasive. Conceal and deny your life.
When you’ve done that, i.e. when you’ve shut up about your own sexual orientation, you can ask gay people to shut up.
paul006 on July 8, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Black, this isn’t being snide or mean.
I do not want to know about the person serving next to me and their sexual pref. It isn’t because I am uncomfortable, or the fact I do not like them. It is the fact that I just don’t want to know. I don’t want to know someone on that level.
Maybe it is just me but I am more a Don’t Kiss and Tell person. I don’t want to know what you do after hours with whomever. Heck you could be a submissive and your Dom Woman is making you lick her boots. I just don’t wanna know!
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Maybe I don’t have a problem with DADT because I’m an existentialist. If someone’s laying pipe in the barracks and they don’t make a sound, did it really happen?
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 8, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Yeah, you’re right you didn’t use the word “surprise”…how embarrassed are you to argue such a point?
I think you are the one who pointed out something about being over confrontational or something like that. Calling me an “outright liar” for interpreting your post as “surprise”, how about insinuation, or suggestion, or implying, or…well you get the idea. You didn’t post this to be “innocent” of course if I was banned, you wouldn’t be surprised?
Please, argue something worthwhile…
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 12:16 PM
this isn’t about ‘comfort’ its about whats best for the military and for our country.
if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
leave the issue to the professionals in the military, instead of politicizing it, and using our military as a social experiment
right4life on July 8, 2008 at 12:16 PM
This “social experiment” will require more than a policy change, it will require significant changes to the UCMJ.
In 1948 Harry Truman, by executive order desegregated the US Military with no ill effects, however, it was not until the LBJ admin that the Civil Rights Act was put into law.
I served for 28 years and I can state that close living conditions on deployment is not suitable for the majority of
Soldiers to accept homosexual behavior. I served in three wars and I can advise anyone that had not lived that experience that don’t ask, don’t tell or open acceptance of homosexuality is a no go.
The Never Served Clinton admin forced don’t ask don’t tell on the Military. Bill Clinton despised the military.
Deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan are very stressful. Anyone forcing a Brokeback Mountain fantasy on folks under the stress of a hostile environment will encounter significant resistance from career military personnel.
old trooper on July 8, 2008 at 12:16 PM
That is horrible, so why did I laugh?
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Sorry, your sooooo wrong on this.
Retired Navy meself… but played in the spook community for a few years… worked with Seals, Force Recon, Beachmasters, Army Rangers… even the French Foreign Legion one time (lonnnnggg story).
The stresses and needs are totaly different. The amount of time stressed is different. The ability to “get away” from stress is non existant in the suck. But most importantly, the closeness you have with your unit is WAYYYY different.
Most of the Navy has no conception of what being shot at is like. I mean, come on, when was the last time a US ship was in actual combat (not air, but ship to ship?).
Romeo13 on July 8, 2008 at 12:18 PM
We had a fella in boot who had a bad habit of letting his eyes wonder way too much in the showers. To express our disdain for his gayness, we gave him a blanket party one evening. After that all was well, and eyes front became his new shower stance.
fogw on July 8, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Gays perform their duties fine. However, I think it is reasonable for straight men/women to be uncomfortable living with gays in the close quarters (shared group showers, the group berthing areas on ships, etc.) that are often required.
And Romeo13 had a valid post about the potential problems that openly gay lovers in a unit would cause.
exhelodrvr on July 8, 2008 at 12:21 PM
This is a good post, but sadly some people around here will gloss over it. It’s really hard to understand unless you’ve lived it. You do NOT want to be the sh**bag soldier (i.e., “blue falcon”) in your platoon…unless you like the worst details. And as spec_ops said: ANYTHING that messes with morale can screw up a company. When you can minimize or avoid those things all together then you do that.
watchmen on July 8, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Alternative Future Military Recruiting Ad:
Young, horny men wanted to get naked and put on unusual clothes together.
(Girls, too! But not with the guys- just each other.)
The military is not a proving ground for socio-sexual experimentation but an instrument of the populace for securing the survival of the Constitution and the nation, and for killing our enemies.
If it does the job, don’t screw with it.
(Maybe a useful sign to post in the barracks, also.)
profitsbeard on July 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Scenario: bloody battle. Lots of casualties. Blood transfusions needed for operations on wounded.
I’m sure the wounded will appreciate knowing the whole company / battalion, including those openly homosexual, donated blood to help out.
BowHuntingTexas on July 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Of course neither am I, and I don’t worry that somebody who might be gay around the locker room might see me. So clearly there’s more to it.
Blacklake on July 8, 2008 at 12:23 PM
That’s idiotic, and I generally avoid talking to you since you can’t seem to understand my basic points and always twist them into something idiotic.
I wasn’t advocating anything. I was only saying that obviously straight men have been comfortable with gays in the past, no more, no less.
That’s just a fact, not what should or shouldn’t be.
That’s a bad example.
Being in places that can get you killed is the sole purpose of the military.
Shattering someone’s anti-PC notions, is not.
And, as has already been pointed out, that’s all the more reason to make them comfortable in every other way possible.
Being a woman, I’ll just have to take your word for that, though there are other men here who disagree with you.
Even still, there are female homosexuals, so my point still stands there.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Do you feel that everyone then has the same rights, that is every “5%” of the population should have the same rights.
I have a ring, a gay person can have a ring, I have pictures of my children, they can have a picture of their children, I have a picture of my wife, they can have a picture of their wife…I don’t have a picture on my desk of my business partner or tennis partner. I don’t walk around saying what sexual orientation I am, people make assumptions. I have never said to anyone I remember, “I am heterosexual”, it just doesn’t come up in conversation very often. So how does one find out the other is homosexual? Gaydar?
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Speak for yourself…
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 12:32 PM
I think that’s probably untrue. Does it bother you when somebody talks about going to a movie with his wife or girlfriend? Are you irritated if a woman you work with mentions, say, that she liked a new restaurant but her boyfriend didn’t? I’m willing to bet not–because in that context you genuinely don’t care. You neither want to know nor don’t want to know. Conversely, you’re actively irritated by hearing even passing details about the personal lives of gay people.
Blacklake on July 8, 2008 at 12:32 PM
I mean, come on, when was the last time a US ship was in actual combat (not air, but ship to ship?).
I’m pretty sure the guys on the Stark, John Rogers, and Cole thought they were in combat situations. Just a couple of months ago, a show of force turned back some of those Iranian boats that screwed over the Royal Navy.
Yes, there’s different demands in each service, but being crammed onto a destroyer for six months in the middle of the Red Sea ain’t no picnic, either.
French Foreign Legion, huh? I heard a joke about a new butter-bars in the Legion. “Uhhhh, sir, normally we use the camel to ride into town.”
TABoLK on July 8, 2008 at 12:33 PM
With all due respect, that’s not the common term.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 12:34 PM
No, I’ll go ahead and venture that I speak for all secure straight men. We certainly don’t want to be propositioned or subjected to any other kind of inappropriate behavior, but we could care less who looks at us in passing.
Blacklake on July 8, 2008 at 12:36 PM
As has already been shown – you do not speak for all secure straight men.
apollyonbob on July 8, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Military personell eat, drink, sleep, shower and live together. Nobody wants to wake up in the barracks and find two lovers going at it in the bed next to you.
Nobody wants to have some guy getting his jollies by staring at you in the shower.
If gays are in the military they should have their own batalion and get the most dangerous work. 100% gay companies doing very dangerous work. That is a good solution. They get to join up, and the generals can take them out.
The Rock on July 8, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Yeah, but if they are looking at you like a stuffed pig (guy or girl) ….
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Blacklake: I mean, there’s different levels of “secure” right?
I mean, I don’t care being around gay people. They don’t make me nervous. So I guess that makes me some level of secure.
Clearly, you’re so secure, you could take a hot steamy shower with a gay guy. That’s great, for you, to be so awesomely secure.
I guess there are guys who are so secure they can have sex with other men. That’s good for them too, I guess.
Really though, I’m not certain they should be all lumped together – and I don’t think you should presume to speak for them :P
apollyonbob on July 8, 2008 at 12:45 PM
My point was is that you cannot draw an equivelency between all types of units. The Air Force is far different in Mentality than the Marine Corps. A Mechanic fixing trucks aboard Al Asad is in a far different world than his grunt counterpart living in a crappy patrol base in Dulab. It creates a different mentality which is why there is a big difference between a combat arms MOS and a support type of MOS view on this topic. Based upon 18 years of experience I know that my Navy and Air Force Bretheren tend to view thing differently as their mission is different. Only a small percentage of their ranks are SEALS, field corpsman and Pararescue. Combat on ship or from a plane is a bit different than what an Army/Marine grunt sees. I hope your husband is safe! Believe me I know about those rockets!
gator70 on July 8, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Operation: Hide Behind the Swishies?
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 8, 2008 at 12:51 PM
With all due respect to the very interesting hypotheticals I’ve read, this has been tried and it works.
RightOFLeft on July 8, 2008 at 12:54 PM
That would be pretty aggregious fraternization, and worthy of pretty substantial disciplinary action, no matter what genders were involved.
Clearly, you’re so secure, you could take a hot steamy shower with a gay guy. That’s great, for you, to be so awesomely secure.
I guess there are guys who are so secure they can have sex with other men. That’s good for them too, I guess….
apollyonbob on July 8, 2008 at 12:45 PM
The fact that you freely conflate being in a locker room with gay men who aren’t going out of their way to bother you with actively engaging in gay sex, I think, speaks volumes about your perspective (or lack thereof). Not caring if a gay guy glances at your weiner in a public area is being secure. Having sex with another man is being gay. I believe most men are well aware of the gulf between those extremes.
Blacklake on July 8, 2008 at 12:56 PM
I would rather not know about couples either.
You see, straight or gay, same issues different people. I do not want to know about the lives of anyone. Especially in the bedroom or homelife. I work with them it doesn’t mean I need to know more then the norm.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 12:58 PM
I find it fascinating how liberals get conservatives to honestly debate something from an angle they only intended merely as a means to an end. Do I honestly think that liberals care so much about gays and their treatment within the “Military Industrial Complex”? Hell no!
Liberals have always and will always strive for the dismantling of our military infrastructure in any way, shape, or form that they can come up with and this is a big feather in their caps to that end. Liberals use the numbers of enlisting and re-upping troops as a reason to bring the troops home. IMHO this is just meant to effect the amount of heterosexual males enlisting. To have these men weigh being forced to worry about dealing with other social constructs on top of all of the other hardships for chump change. It’s a means to distrupt and break a part something that isn’t and hasn’t been broken.
Sultry Beauty on July 8, 2008 at 12:58 PM
OK, then. How about boot camp, extended deployments, MREs, and the apparent prevalence of homophobic morons? There’s a lot to make a guy or gal uncomfortable in the military. I’m surprised so many here think it’s the military’s job to cater to their feeeelings. Once you join up, it’s no longer about you.
Big S on July 8, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Uh, EIGHT sea service Ribbons…. Enlisted Surface Warfare Spec… Shellback, Bluenose, Golden Dragon…
My twins were born while I was LITERALY leading a Boarding Team searching ships during Storm.
As stated, I’ve scene both sides of that street. I’m not minimizing what the Navy goes through, but it is WAY different than the grunts.
Romeo13 on July 8, 2008 at 1:05 PM
I will give you that. Talking to my cousins (as I am the only one whom is Army) is interesting when it comes to the Navy.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Wouldn’t one’s marital status or whether or not he or she has a girlfriend or boyfriend fall within the realm of “the norm”? I simply find it hard to believe that you’re offended when somebody you work with mentions his wife, or wears a wedding band. Occasional referrences to one’s significant relationships is simply a normal part of human discourse. Obviously, details about one’s specific sexual activities are inappropriate, but that holds true regardless of one’s sexual orientation.
Blacklake on July 8, 2008 at 1:08 PM
With the exception about homophobic morons, those too are all the entire purpose of the military.
I think you’re missing the point a little here. It’s not about catering to anyone’s feelings, but it’s also not about being PC.
If the vast majority of the military (and that’s a big IF by the way, I have no idea if that’s true) is as uncomfortable around gays who are openly gay as many who served are claiming here, then it’s a serious problem and distraction for people who should be focusing on something else instead.
And maybe it’s the right thing to do, but I’m under the impression that our military is about keeping us safe, not doing the right thing, which is why I support things like water boarding.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Yes. To Liberals this is all a means to an end.
pseudonominus on July 8, 2008 at 1:10 PM
As you think I am homophbic or something. I have friends, outside of work who are gay. I also have straight friends… who would have thunk it.
But while AT work, I try not to ask to many personal questions. It gets you in trouble in the long run and make you and the person you work with uncomfortable.
As I said, I don’t ask becuase I don’t want to know. We can discuss a movie or cooking, but when it comes to relationships, etc. I walk away because I have enough to deal with on my plate then another persons relationship or sex life.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Was that Truman’s goal in 1948 when he issued an executive order that pushed for desegregation of the military well ahead of the social constructs of parts of the U.S.? Should Truman have held off based on the disapproval from some in the military?
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Uh, yuh. one more REMF writes himself another citation from an airconditioned office.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 1:13 PM
And it’s a fact that the same military you referred to also accepted pederasty as a good practice of military training. If you don’t like it, maybe you shouldn’t have referenced that culture.
And another fact: This is not Greece. This is America. American men for decades have, at various degrees, seen open homosexuals as a weak link in the unit, and acted accordingly. Again, social engineering has no place in the military. The military is a place to establish close-knit brotherhoods, with a minimum of animosity. There are enough other differences they have to deal with, adding more is just weakening the cohesiveness of the whole.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 1:18 PM
My husband and I met each other serving on the same watch floor. When it became known we were dating (at a luncheon held by my watch section, we showed up and left together), I was transfered out of that department. Having served in the inbred Naval linguist community, our case was nothing new. Point being, there are already measures in place to deal with couples (married and dating), to the effect that after we were married my husband and I were never even at the same duty station. If gays are allowed to openly have relationships with other military members, they can be dealt with in the same way.
And there are units that use co-ed barracks. One of my best friends was a Marine in a co-ed barrack. The guys were fiercely protective of their fellow Marines.
I will admit, though, that the Navy is not the same as the Army (or Marines), so what might work for one service might not work for another. Maybe we should funnel all the gays into the Air Force. (Or on subs. Heh.)
And to Esthier, before my luck runs out, I think they were not only discreet to not get caught, but because they were more reserved in general. One girl I knew got busted for sleeping with a chief because she couldn’t shut up about it.
Anna on July 8, 2008 at 1:26 PM
It’s funny how everyone wants to compare us to another country or military. With that said, if you expect us to be like everyone else, shall we give up the ship at the first sign of an Iranian gun boat? If it aint broke, don’t fix it!
gator70 on July 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Here’s why it would be disruptive. This is the conversation which would happen EVERY DAY in front of the entire platoon. If it were a line company. Probably different for the slacks in the rear.
Gny Sgt Lee: “Yo, Pyle, you’re hootchin with the new boot Jones.”
Pyle: No way Gunney, I aint hootchin with the fag
Gunney: Pyle, you’re pulling watch 1-3 AM too, now get your ass over there and set up your hootch with Jones.
Pyle: Screw that Gunney, I’ll sleep under my poncho. I aint hootchin with a fag.
Gunney: Pyle I’ll have your ass locked and cocked in front of the First Shirt if you don’t get over there.
Pyle: Fuck that shit Gunney, Top wouldn’t hootch with a fag either. (entire platoon laughs hysterically, Jones like shit)
Gunney: You hootch up with Jones or I’ll have you in Captains Mast by 0800 tomorrow.
Pyle: Sheeiiit, Gunney, I aint no boot, NJP don’t scare me. I’ll set up my shelter half, but Im not sleeping in there.
Gunney: Pyle, I’m giving you a direct order, hootch up with Jones or I’ll have you hauled of to the brig.
Pyle: Gunney, I’m so short I gotta look up to see down. I’m outside the wire 5 out of every 8 days. I haven’t showered in week, I haven’t sat in a chair in 6 months or had ice in my bug juice since Christmas. Sending me to the brig would be a vacation compared to this shit. You hootch with the fag, I’ll be next to the CP under my poncho.
Gunney: Yo Lopez, you’re hootchin with Jones.
Lopez: Naaaw that hits fucked up Gunney, I aint hootchin with no fag either
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Is there a possible compromise here? Perhaps allow openly gay folks but keep them out of the infantry for practical reasons?
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 8, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Great.
spmat on July 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM
The same arguments were made regarding race. The feared disruptions to cohesiveness, potential for animosity, and disgust with social experimentation were all very real concerns. Race and sexuality present very different issues but the concerns expressed by some have many similarities.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM
One is a skin color, one is a behavior. The comparison is like apples and baseballs, entirely different worlds.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Hah! Again a REMF, There have been coed Marine barracks for some time (top floor female, bottom two male) but only for the office pogeies.
Brass won’t let grunts anywhere near the females even back stateside. We’re liked caged dogs they poke with sticks to piss us off, then when they need to bring the big hurt they let us loose to bring the pain.
Back at LeJeune, mainside, they they wouldn’t even let us in their chow hall, they’d turn us away like the plague. Our chow hall sucked, no milk, baloney sandwiches for dinner. We snuck into the H&S chowhall, it was like a friggin restaurant, tableclothes and everything.
Again, this is a prime example of how a line unit is a whole nother animal from the civilian world or even a rear echelon unit. What works there won’t work in a line unit, sorry, even your rose colored glasses can’t change that.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Two words…
Shore duty.
If you had been shipboard, to transfer you out would have put a hole in the unit. I’m an electronics type, and had many times when I only had ONE guy trained on a specific piece of gear. You scenario works on shore… does not at sea because theres no place to transfer you to, or anyone trained who can replace you.
Apples and Oranges…. oh, and by the way, I’m sure you were aware of the Regs, yet fraternized inside your Chain anyway? Why do you think gays would be any better controled?
Romeo13 on July 8, 2008 at 1:53 PM
So you feel that heterosexual men and women shouldn’t be segregated from each other at any time during their military service?
Buddahpundit on July 8, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Sure, that’s a fact, but it’s not a relevant fact. Surely you can tell the difference.
Why, because I should only reference cultures I like?
Again, missing the point entirely.
No sh!t.
Try reading what I write for once. I don’t use big words.
I responded to someone who claimed it was human nature to be repulsed by homosexuals. Greeks are humans too, and somehow their culture was OK with it.
America is very different. That’s been my point all along. In case you haven’t noticed, which you rarely do in your narrow-minded attacks on people you perceive as enemies, we’re arguing the same point.
My point all along has been that if our military isn’t comfortable with open homosexuality as a general rule, then it will be a problem for our military.
The point I made about the Greeks had and has nothing to do with my main point.
If you took of your blinders and learned to read entire points instead of picking apart side points you perceive as wrong, you might actually figure that out.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Wow. She doesn’t sound like someone you’d want in the military anyway.
I’d certainly agree that in general girls are more talkative about their relationships, sometimes instilling drama where none need exist.
I don’t get along too well with people like that. It’s too draining.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Then why are the fears so similar? Why didn’t the military fall apart following Truman’s executive order in 1948, given that the fears about racial integration were very powerfully felt and expressed? At the time societal discrimination against blacks was more accepted and institutionalized than discriminatin against gays is today.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »