Gays in U.S. military (merged)

[nexxyboi]

For those of you who may not know, Don‘t Ask Don‘t Tell Don‘t Pursue Don‘t Harass (DADTDPDH) was signed into law in 1993 and allows GLB Americans to serve in the armed forces as long as they keep their orientation hidden and do not act on their sexuality.

Speaking from personal experience, it‘s common to hear anti-gay slurs in the ranks. This has completely stopped with my men (because they not that I do not tolerate any kind of bull****) but it‘s rampant in most of the armed services. Ironically, it‘s least common in the army and most common in the navy - ironic considering the navy‘s reputation. Proportionally, the other services discharge significantly more service members for being gay than the army does.

IMO, this policy is based on fear and a ghastly portrayal of GLBT people from the right-wing in this country. The policy fuels anti-gay behavior in the armed services because this discrimination is backed by the government.

Considering that gays have served and always will serve in large numbers in the military, is it fair to ask them to hide their orientation? Whether or not they are officially recognized, they exist. I‘m certainly not an advocate of gay pride parades in the military, but IMO this policy is more detrimental to morale for several reasons:
a) GLBs are frightened. Witch Hunts, though now illegal, are frequently conducted by commanders.
b) Non-GLBs, afraid to be associated with GLBs, feel that they have to brag/lie about their machoness to mask any perceived orientation. Also, to distance oneself from GLBs, one feels pressured to use anti-gay slurs and make fun of GLBs. Those more feminine are often teased.

People who are adamant about keeping this policy in place claim that removing the policy would hurt troop morale and trust. Now, I‘m in special forces, and I don‘t give a **** whether the person to my left or right is gay, straight or transexual, as long as they do their jobs correctly.

Recently, a LTC in the army was discovered to be having sex off base with another man. He faced an administrative discharge board in which 5 of the 6 COLs on the board claimed that homosexuality was a disease. He received a dishonorable discharge and thus lost all his benefits and pension, etc.

Does Canada have any problem with GLBs in the military?

Sorry about the poor grammar, I haven‘t slept in over 24 hours, really tired and not making much sense I‘m afraid. Forgive me.

 

[onecat]

Not sure what they have here in canada. But its good to see someone, who isn‘t uptight and anti-gay in the US military. Intolerate behaivor like taht just makes the Military look bad.

Receiving a dishonourable discharge for something he did in his own time, is just wrong. And them to lose your benefits and pension on top of that, is a crime if you ask me.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Special Forces and your grammar goes out the window after being awake a wee 24 hours? Guess we make ours a little tougher See with me i have an excuse, im naturally horrible with grammar.

Canada does not discriminate against anyone. In our military you‘ll get charged for "fratanizing" with your wife or girlfriend (Read be seen with them too much) but you can *** grab with the guys all day and your one of the boys.

I‘ve even worked with transexuals here in the canadian forces. Tell that to some of your mates and watch them shiver.

 

[Pte. Bloggins]

On course, we had one of the most openly gay guys I‘ve ever seen and no one cared. That‘s the beauty of such a diverse country as Canada.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I don‘t mean to harp on the US (well MAYBE a little) but it kinda frightens me that a country SO devoted to freedom and human rights has a military that kicks a soldier out for their sexual preference. Unless your a movie star, i think medically they say wether your gay or not isn‘t something you can control. Just like the colour of someones skin.

 

[Gunnar]

I figure the only reason for discrimination against gays in the military is the possibility of blackmail for national secrets. If you‘re openly gay, I don‘t care...but if you‘re hiding it, you‘re hiding it from someone, and that makes you a good target for blackmail, and therefore a security risk.

Don‘t ask/don‘t tell just exacerbates the problem.

 

[Danjanou]

Gunnar, you hit the X-ring with that one.

That in fact was the major official rational waaay back when for prohibiting Gays in the military and probably a host of other like positions too, both here, in the US, and other countries.

Go back about 50-60 or so years and realize that a Gay lifestyle was not as open and accepted as it is in todaý‘s society. In fact more likly it was something hidden, secrative, and perhaps even sordid or "dirty." There‘s plenty of evidence still around in popular culture of the time, literature and even laws on the books to support that.

Remember society then was not as tolerant or enlightened as today. Other accepted "great" concepts back then included "woman‘s work" and the idea that persons of certain races were not capable of certain professions or even in some places basic rights like voting or sitting where ever they felt like on public transit. Hey as a species fortunately we seem to have grown and matured.

So if being a Homosexual was something perceived as not easily acceptable or secretive then naturally it stands to reason that such persons would have been excellent targets for blackmail were they in fact in a position of responsibility or otherwise worth blackmailing. Hence the prohibitation in place for gays at the time in the military and elsewhere.

As society evolved or matured, the rational for the prohibitation disappeared right? And eventually so did the prohibitation itself (or at least in some countries).

I realise that is somewhat of an over simplification of things but you get the idea.

 

[mattoigta]

Originally posted by S_Baker:
[qb] Hey SF LT,

be careful what you post...you never know who might be watching :warstory:

One question, though, which SF unit are you with? A National Guard or Army Reserve unit? [/qb]

There is such thing as reserve and national guard special forces?

 

[L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan]

SF is San Fransico right? So thats TTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHSSSSSSSSSSSPecial Forcthhhessssss.....

 

[Da_man]

when you wake up in the morning with a hard on, you dont want any gays around

 

[GrahamD]

Why, are you worried they may take a peek and laugh at you?

 

[Slim]

Originally posted by S_Baker:
[qb] Hey SF LT,


One question, though, which SF unit are you with? A National Guard or Army Reserve unit? [/qb]

I‘m really interested in this. Do you folks have a reserve or National Guard SF unit?
I know that the Brits have 21 and 23 SAS wich are Territorial Units ( their word for Army Reserves.)

 

[Chimo]

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - U.S. army officials are investigating allegations members of the celebrated 82nd Airborne Division appear on a gay pornography website, a spokeswoman said Friday.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/01/27/1414933-ap.html

Isn't it time the US Army realized that "don't ask don't tell" is ineffective?

 

[Jarnhamar]

I bet the US wouldnt be suffering so much from troop shortages if they didn't have that no gays policy.

 

[Praetorian]

True

I dont see any problems with gays in the military
The RN actively recruits in gay communities
From a military that is reducing standards for recruitment (MSNBC)
why would you eliminate a potential recruit zone (albeit a minor one.)

Cheers :cheers:

 

[FastEddy]

I bet the US wouldnt be suffering so much from troop shortages if they didn't have that no gays policy.

So on that tone, your saying that Homosexuals would be beating down the Doors of the Recruiting Centres if there was a Welcome sign out side for them.

Do you actually think that their numbers would even make a dent in the U.S. Recruitment Requirements.

Could there be a possible thought, that this policy might be disagreeable and have a detrimental effect on recruitment such as it is, or its Armed Forces.

 

[tomahawk6]

What is being investigated is a violation of the UCMJ - Uniform Code of MIlitary Justice. At least 7 soldiers have been reassigned out of their infantry unit and the aviation brigade is being investigated. The web site is down. Its a very sad state of affairs.

 

[48Highlander]

This is more of an issue because soldiers appeared in a porn video.  Hardly good conduct for personnel, regaurdless of the sexual orientation.

However, with that said, here's some interesting info about the US policy on gays in the military.  It seems most service-members feel that the policy should be scrapped:

Gays in the Military - Andrew Sullivan and Time.com look in
Andrew Sullivan, formerly of the NY Times before his conscience kicked in, now a blogasaurus who got picked up by Time.com has taken notice of the debate we had about gays in the military. I posted a piece advocating removal of the ban against gays serving openly and a very useful discussion ensued.

If you're interested in hearing a frank, smart, honest discussion of the gays-in-the-military issue among actual soldiers, gay and straight, then click here. It's a fascinating debate - and suggests to me that a new consensus now exists within the military that the ban makes little to no sense any more.

I appreciate Andrew's shining his powerful light on this and I will post an update tomorrow regarding this.

It's now tomorrow, and I read back through much of the discussion reaching pretty much the same conclusion I did previously which I summed up:

"If I am lying by the road bleeding, I don't care if the medic coming to save me is say. I just hope he is one of those buff gay guys who are always in the gym so he can throw me over his shoulder and get me out of there.

There are several reasons that President Bush should remove this ban, the first of which is it's flat out the right thing to do. Any rationale for the ban involves allowing irrational prejudices of one group to override the rights of another. There was a time when homophobia or homohateia was a big enough problem that readiness would have been affected, but we have evolved since then as a people. And honestly it's past the point where don't ask, don't tell is really needed, most of the folks who chimed in said that they knew who the gay people were in their units. Maybe the policy should just be "Don't ask, don't care".

But pure political expediency would be another great reason. The public supports ending the ban in fairly large numbers, and doing so in conjunction with a package of benefits and changes to reward those who have been doing the fighting over these past years would be a tremendous coup. Adding some funding to VA programs, job transition programs, and all around soldier care issues would go nicely with a cup of doing the right thing by ending a discriminatory policy. It also takes away the  cudgel of intolerance the left bashes the military and conservatives with, never a bad thing to hush your opposition.

Institutional discrimination is something very difficult to justify and requires impressive justification. There are few instances left other than race-based preferences for college admissions and this program for the military. We'll get to the wrongness of the college programs in due time, but I believe we can make the military truly representative of our country without hurting it and maybe even make it stronger.

 

[tomahawk6]

I don't agree with Blackfive [ a first for me I think]. The policy not to allow openly gay soldiers is a good one and should be maintained.

 

[Chimo]

I did miss the most significant point and Tomahawk6 brought it out. Regardless of any Soldiers sexual orientation they have a duty not to bring discredit upon the Army. I am sure in a similar circumstance in Canada the Soldiers would be charged for "Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Conduct" .