…saying things like, “the military is strong enough to handle gays..”

The implication, of course, is that we are weak, or have a PROBLEM if we do not want to handle or deal with homosexuality.

TTheoLogan on January 11, 2009 at 2:26 PM

I love the term “homophobic.” I always picture Butters from South Park stomping around in his flamboyant little Dr. Chaos outfit, imagining that all of the simple-minded villagers are fleeing from him in a blind panic. When, in reality, the most he can ever manage to do is be an occasional irritant.

Oh and for those who say gays shouldn’t have joined in the first place, we are talking about 18 year olds who don’t always even know that they are gay. Trust me you can delude yourself for a fair amount of time until you wreck your life and those around you trying to be something you can’t be. That’s why it’s important to gays that you can come out as gay and not loose your job or get kicked out of the military. Would you want your daughter to marry a gay guy and after a few kids decide that this really wasn’t working and leave her? Or would you prefer that he not push so hard to try to be “normal” and refrain from doing something that will hurt himself and others?

I won’t debate the existence of capable homosexual military personnel, but if the military wants to discriminate against people that it thinks would hurt operational effectiveness it reserves that right. This seems like common sense to me.

That seems like common sense to me as well, as a general principle. The argument being made is that having homosexuals within the ranks does not harm operational effectiveness.

My hunch is that very little would change. Low-key homosexuals who keep their sexuality to themselves and do good work will be tolerated…as they are today. Obnoxious gays will be on the receiving end of what’s known as a “blanket party,” which I seriously doubt is ANYONE’s idea of a good time.

Exactly. It’s rather a self-regulating thing. A homosexual isn’t going to ostracize himself or herself by flaunting their sexuality. They know it will make some people uncomfortable. They’re not looking to rock the boat — they just don’t want to have to be paranoid that one slip in a private letter or one MySpace profile revelation is going to destroy their military carerer.

As far as blacks or women being used as comparisons earlier in this thread, I don’t see the similarity. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders v3 listed homosexuality as abnormal sexual behavior and as a dysfunction up until about 1994 when DSM4 was released. The definition has been revised so that it is only dysfunction if you’re unsure or conflicted about your sexuality. Does this mean that the nature of homosexuality has changed or that there has been increasing pressure to normalize aberrant behavior?

blankminde on January 11, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Actually, it was removed from the DSM as a de facto mental illness in 1973. (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/2/210).

That bit of trivia aside, we don’t really know what would happen if DADT were repealed.

Some will err on the side of civil rights.

Some will err on the side of national defense.

I remember a late-night discussion about this topic back when Clinton was first elected and I was in the Tennessee Army National Guard. Most everyone in the room hated the DADT policy (which replaced an explicit “no gays” policy), but as the conversation wore on, everyone knew that there were gays in the Army, and this group of east Tennessee “good ole boys” could draw a distinction between those who they could work with and those who they detested.

My hunch is that very little would change. Low-key homosexuals who keep their sexuality to themselves and do good work will be tolerated…as they are today. Obnoxious gays will be on the receiving end of what’s known as a “blanket party,” which I seriously doubt is ANYONE’s idea of a good time.

As far as blacks or women being used as comparisons earlier in this thread, I don’t see the similarity. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders v3 listed homosexuality as abnormal sexual behavior and as a dysfunction up until about 1994 when DSM4 was released. The definition has been revised so that it is only dysfunction if you’re unsure or conflicted about your sexuality. Does this mean that the nature of homosexuality has changed or that there has been increasing pressure to normalize aberrant behavior?
My point remains, the military should not be tasked to integrate special classes of people if there is evidence that it could lead to a loss of operational readiness or mission capability. Of course they’re going to do it anyway, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t still make the case against it.

The military also kicks out people for adultery, being overweight, and having about a zillion other issues. The idea that the military is as fair as civilian life is ridiculous.

But you are making my point about “most affected.” You want to please 1% or so of the military to the exclusion of the other 99%. You also seem to repeatedly be ignoring the sensitivity training and zero tolerance implications that I have REPEATEDLY brought up here. The sensitivity training that will occur will be a massive failure because of the inability of those such as yourselves to understand that you’re basically telling people to change their religion, because a large portion of people opposed to homosexuality do so for religious reasons. Of course, china and russia are intolerant toward homosexuals in the military from a utilitarian purpose.

I think we can take a lot from what is being said here. People such as ashleymatt are saying things like, “the military is strong enough to handle gays..”

The implication, of course, is that we are weak, or have a PROBLEM if we do not want to handle or deal with homosexuality. This, of course, must be addressed by sensitivity training. Just watch… it’s coming.

It’s completely reasonable that women do not want to have forced intimacy, shower, or be undressed around straight men they do not want to be in such a situation with. In the same way, it’s completely reasonable for men to feel uncomfortable and not be forced to be in forced intimacy with homosexual men. The argument that “sexuality can be controlled” is as idiotic as telling a woman she has to shower with a man, but not to worry, because he turned his sexual attraction switch off.

ashleymatt on January 11, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Women still aren’t permitted to serve in combat arms MOSs in the Marine Corps. War isn’t exactly 2 dimensional so women do occasionally wind up in situations where they come under fire, and women in the Marine Corps have the necessary training to at least be a basic rifleman. Gender equality is a damn lie and allowing political correctness to hobble our military is foolish. That’s what this conversation is all about though isn’t it?

tree hugging sister on January 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM

I stopped reading your post when you said that you had individual showers in Parris Island…

3rd Bn, “M” Co – Parris Island. Graduated 2001. Our showers were a 10×10 tiled box with heads pointed to the center. We lined up nude after PT and walked around the wall – showering as we walked until we came out the other end of the box. Every base gym I’ve ever used also had open showers. We also stack 3 guys to a room in the barracks pretty commonly, and 2 or more rooms will share one head. If your argument is based entirely on the non-existence of communal bathing in today’s military then I think you’re just wrong.

I personally could care less about bathing around gays, or women for that matter, but this isn’t about me…

Homosexuality is a lifestyle that is at increased risk for HIV and AIDS. In the military we are tested annually for AIDS because we have this tendency to get shot or blown up while we’re busting our asses to protect America.

The military’s regulations also demand adherence to traditional and conservative norms – appearance and behavior are two big areas that regulations require us to discard trends. We don’t just cater to lifestyles and cultural trends…it isn’t in our best interests and it hurts morale and mission effectiveness. The case for communal living has already been made so I won’t make it again, but the impact of integrating a small but selective segment of society would be huge.

If they tell me that it is in the best interests of the nation that we integrate homosexuals and they can make a case for it then I’m all ears. If they just tell us that the interests of the nation are secondary compared to the ideal of equal treatment for all supposed ‘classes’ of people then I’m done. What’s next? Child molesters? Rapists? When immorality becomes a protected class I’m moving to Montana.

That brings up the very interesting point that the people who are the most affected by this, gays and lesbians currently serving, are not ALLOWED to participate in the discussion touting their background and service, for fear that they will be found out and kicked out.

And those of you who are obsessed with a homo not being in your foxhole, what about saying gays can’t serve in combat, just like women can’t? This is a generational issue that’s going to be changed sooner than later, and you’re going to get over it. If your the kind of unstable psycho that’s going to not re-enlist because a gay man might give you cooties, we don’t need you fighting for us.

Are fags sissies or threatening predators? You can’t have it both ways.

I’m thinking maybe it’s a fantasy scenario dreamed up by folks who can use it to indulge naughty visions, like “Hard Core Lesbians’ Loofah!” While acting outraged at the thought, of course.

Before we start those flaming arrows about cred, mine’s 12 1/2 yrs. active duty USMC (And yes, LOTS of lesbians there for YEARS already. Somehow we all survived.) married to major dad who has 30 1/2 yrs. active duty USMC.

The kids today are too worried about a helluva a lot more that Obama might do than this STOOPID thing. And you’re right, Mark Jaquith. This rule is an out for anyone right now. If your enlistment experiment fails, well…be GAY! You get out, no harm no foul. get rid of the stupid thing and the only gays you’ll get are the ones who want to serve just like the rest of us. The drama queens with feather boas and platform heels will not be applying.

Gays are allowed to serve in the military, they are just asked to keep their sex life to theirself. Why is that a problem? Shouldn’t everyone?

I’m sorry, are you implying that heterosexual soldiers keep their sex life to themselves? Come on, be serious.

Also consider that just because someone gay can openly serve doesn’t mean that they’re going to broadcast their sexuality. Gay soldiers in the UK can openly serve, but they don’t run around advertising it. Homosexual soldiers don’t want to broadcast their sexuality, they just don’t want to hide it. Right now, you can be discharged if the military finds your MySpace page and finds out you’re gay. That’s a witch hunt. That’s what needs to end.

Just ask Rome, or Sodom, or Gomorrah.

91Veteran on January 10, 2009 at 6:07 PM

We had a gay corpsman at Pendleton. This was in the early 80’s. Nobody gave a rat’s @$$. The fact is that gays have been in the military for more than the 20 years since I got out. Anyone who has spent anytime on board a naval vessel in the past 25+ years and did not know someone who was gay is blind or lying.

Sorry, but it sounds like those crying girls need some sensitivity training. It’s obvious they are the problem.

One captain told me one time, the Navy works on the “Reverse Yak” theory. When Yaks are threatened by a pack of lions, the females and young will get into the center of the heard and all the big horned bulls will circle them and point their horns out and the lions don’t want any part of that so they eventually go away. In the Navy, we something goes wrong and somebody is going to get in trouble, the seniors throw the young juniors out to take the heat.

Liberals believe everyone is as androgynous and unsure about their sexuality as they are. People like, me, your sister, her husband, etc, all need to be trained on accepting such things. Trust me, the sensitivity training is coming and coming fast.

One of my brothers-in-law is in the Army Reserve, but has been called up three times in the last 4 years. He once was propositioned by one of his fellow unit members. The guy was nuts and told my brother in law that he loved him and well, he almost got his ass kicked. It wasn’t a good scene. My brother-in-law does not want to share quarters or foxholes with openly homosexual men.

One of my sisters is in the Air Force. She does not want to share quarters with homosexual women when she is on exercises or deployed. Her husband is in the Air Force and he doesn’t want to share quarters with openly homosexual men…need I go on?

The fact is, military personnel tend to be even more conservative than the general public, especially the males. They are the ones that are going to actually be impacted by this. Obama needs to listen to them.

factoid, ashleymatt, etc. You guys are clueless. You have ridiculous arguments like “the military is strong enough to withstand gays.” We’re tough and strong enough to withstand pink uniforms and beanies with propellers on the top, that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be idiotic and no one wants to wear them.

This makes my point. It’s all THEIR fault. If you don’t want to shower with a guy staring at your wee, YOU are the problem.

I guess all the female military members can’t get along with straight men because they don’t want to shower with them, bunk with them, etc, either.

ashleymatt is the exact kind of thinking that’s going to lead to hundreds of hours of sensitivity training.

factoid, russia doesn’t allow gays to publicly servce in the military, and neither does china. both are nowhere near as free as america, but both have the best militaries outside of us.

This is the question I have for any congressman who wants to force this on us. When can I watch your daughter shower? I promise I’ll turn off my sexual attraction switch before I do.