- Reaction score
- 3,106
- Points
- 1,160
Followed by six months of C&P, and a promotion a year later.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,050
- Points
- 1,160
Do I think people would be "beating down the doors"? No. Do I think it would make a difference? Hell yes.
Isn't +1000 soldiers +1000 soldiers? 5000?
How many soldiers have been kicked out of the US military for being openly gay? How many have chosen to leave because sexual orientation is more important than loyalty to the military.
How many gay american citizens choose not to join the military because of their silly no gays policy?
I don't have the numbers but I think you're kidding youself if you pass the number off as just a handful.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Knowing just how close you have to live with your platoon under some circumstances, I think the US militaries regulations with regards to homosexuals is bang on.
You are free to be a homosexual, and you are free to be one in the military, just dont tell anyone, and dont ask anyone.
The military is not a giant petri dish for social engineering, there are lot's of other departments and capacities in which for gays to serve their country, they don't need to be encouraged to act out some village people - esque fantasy in uniform.
The military is a lifestyle, as is being gay - pick one.
You are free to be a homosexual, and you are free to be one in the military, just dont tell anyone, and dont ask anyone.
The military is not a giant petri dish for social engineering, there are lot's of other departments and capacities in which for gays to serve their country, they don't need to be encouraged to act out some village people - esque fantasy in uniform.
The military is a lifestyle, as is being gay - pick one.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Harsh, dude, harsh.
I believe the facts should speak for themselves. There are Armed Forces out there who allow homosexuals (the UK, Israel, Canada) and ones who do not ( Argentina, Egypt, Syria, Italy). Now lets see how they have done in some conflicts:
The Falklands:
UK: OK Argentina: Not so hot.
Suez War, Six day war, Yom Kippur war:
Israel: OK Egypt: Not so hot, Syria, Not so hot.
And oh yeah, Italy: cough WWII cough.
Bart
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,050
- Points
- 1,160
Thats a fair point. Personally the only way I see it as an issue is a violence issue. A homosexual being assaulted by heterosexual peers OR a heterosexual soldier feeling like he's going to be raped by homosexual soldiers. That of course brings up the issue of females working along side males and again we see a difference between Canadian and American methods.
As far as I'm concerned, homosexuals are burried on the beaches of Normandy so I don't have a problem working along side them.
Getting off topic though sorry. Being gay doesn't seem to be the issue here but soldiers breaking the uniform code or whatever.
- Reaction score
- 6,482
- Points
- 1,360
...and Lord knows we have enough pages on that topic.......keep it on the original story please.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Here's a question - If this exact situation happened in Canada - would there be any repercussions for the soldiers involved?
Preseumably, all they would need is their COs permission - and since troops are permitted to play rugby, skydive and be bouncers in their spare time - the health risks involved in this employment are kind of a non issue.
"Lt. Twink, what is this?"
"An application to be a gay porn fluffer sir....."
Preseumably, all they would need is their COs permission - and since troops are permitted to play rugby, skydive and be bouncers in their spare time - the health risks involved in this employment are kind of a non issue.
"Lt. Twink, what is this?"
"An application to be a gay porn fluffer sir....."
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,050
- Points
- 1,160
Where do you get that? From what I'm getting on the news the army is struggling to to meet recruiting goals (both active duty and reserve) and there is also issues with re-enlistment. This is part of the reason we are seeing 40 and 50 year old soldiers being brought back to actvive duty from nowhere.
Probably wouldn't be much different than asking for a boob job or sex change.
- Reaction score
- 4,268
- Points
- 1,260
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.
Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military
JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI, New York Times, 2 Jan 07
Article Link
TWO weeks ago, President Bush called for a long-term plan to increase the size of the armed forces. As our leaders consider various options for carrying out Mr. Bush’s vision, one issue likely to generate fierce debate is “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy that bars openly gay service members from the military. Indeed, leaders in the new Congress are planning to re-introduce a bill to repeal the policy next year.
As was the case in 1993 — the last time the American people thoroughly debated the question of whether openly gay men and lesbians should serve in the military — the issue will give rise to passionate feelings on both sides. The debate must be conducted with sensitivity, but it must also consider the evidence that has emerged over the last 14 years.
When I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I supported the current policy because I believed that implementing a change in the rules at that time would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders. I still believe that to have been true. The concern among many in the military was that given the longstanding view that homosexuality was incompatible with service, letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion.
In the early 1990s, large numbers of military personnel were opposed to letting openly gay men and lesbians serve. President Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban during his campaign, was overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition, which threatened to overturn any executive action he might take. The compromise that came to be known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” was thus a useful speed bump that allowed temperatures to cool for a period of time while the culture continued to evolve.
The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. Much evidence suggests that it has.
Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers. (Poster's note: Interesting that after hearing from front-line troops, he felt comfortable with opening the doors a bit, but not when he was receiving advice through the chain of command - evidence that good leaders -- especially the higher up they go -- should hear straight from the horse's mouth once in a while to get more of the entire picture.)
This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.
I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job. (Poster's note: Don't know if recruitment will skyrocket with more liberal policies, but it makes sense from a "we're here to reflect (within operational limits) the tolerance of the society at large" point of view).
But if America is ready for a military policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, the timing of the change should be carefully considered. As the 110th Congress opens for business, some of its most urgent priorities, like developing a more effective strategy in Iraq, share widespread support that spans political affiliations. Addressing such issues could help heal the divisions that cleave our country. Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing, and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track.
By taking a measured, prudent approach to change, political and military leaders can focus on solving the nation’s most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose. (Poster's note: I can see radical critics saying, "Oh, it's the right thing to do, but it's not the right time to do it? Is there ever a wrong time to do the right thing?")
John M. Shalikashvili, a retired army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997.
Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military
JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI, New York Times, 2 Jan 07
Article Link
TWO weeks ago, President Bush called for a long-term plan to increase the size of the armed forces. As our leaders consider various options for carrying out Mr. Bush’s vision, one issue likely to generate fierce debate is “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy that bars openly gay service members from the military. Indeed, leaders in the new Congress are planning to re-introduce a bill to repeal the policy next year.
As was the case in 1993 — the last time the American people thoroughly debated the question of whether openly gay men and lesbians should serve in the military — the issue will give rise to passionate feelings on both sides. The debate must be conducted with sensitivity, but it must also consider the evidence that has emerged over the last 14 years.
When I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I supported the current policy because I believed that implementing a change in the rules at that time would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders. I still believe that to have been true. The concern among many in the military was that given the longstanding view that homosexuality was incompatible with service, letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion.
In the early 1990s, large numbers of military personnel were opposed to letting openly gay men and lesbians serve. President Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban during his campaign, was overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition, which threatened to overturn any executive action he might take. The compromise that came to be known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” was thus a useful speed bump that allowed temperatures to cool for a period of time while the culture continued to evolve.
The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. Much evidence suggests that it has.
Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers. (Poster's note: Interesting that after hearing from front-line troops, he felt comfortable with opening the doors a bit, but not when he was receiving advice through the chain of command - evidence that good leaders -- especially the higher up they go -- should hear straight from the horse's mouth once in a while to get more of the entire picture.)
This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.
I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job. (Poster's note: Don't know if recruitment will skyrocket with more liberal policies, but it makes sense from a "we're here to reflect (within operational limits) the tolerance of the society at large" point of view).
But if America is ready for a military policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, the timing of the change should be carefully considered. As the 110th Congress opens for business, some of its most urgent priorities, like developing a more effective strategy in Iraq, share widespread support that spans political affiliations. Addressing such issues could help heal the divisions that cleave our country. Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing, and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track.
By taking a measured, prudent approach to change, political and military leaders can focus on solving the nation’s most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose. (Poster's note: I can see radical critics saying, "Oh, it's the right thing to do, but it's not the right time to do it? Is there ever a wrong time to do the right thing?")
John M. Shalikashvili, a retired army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
The US military has been steadily throwing out gay lesbian service members in spite of their invaluable abilities. The most recent example I recall is a gay US Army translator, an occupation struggling with a lack of personnel, who was released. It is reasonable to assume that the US military reflects the US national percentage of gays and lesbians.
That's a lot of talent to be potentially thrown out in a time of a military starving for people.
The Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated incompetence in it's handling of Iraq, since the toppling of Saddam, that I have serious doubts it will do the right thing and allow openly gay lesbian to serve.
That's a lot of talent to be potentially thrown out in a time of a military starving for people.
The Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated incompetence in it's handling of Iraq, since the toppling of Saddam, that I have serious doubts it will do the right thing and allow openly gay lesbian to serve.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
FWIW, I think that it is not in the recruiting phase that the US military will benefit from allowing Gay & Lesbians to serve. It is more a case of the ones who enrolled and are forced to release (or get thrown out).
At a time when the US forces are struggling to keep & grow it's strength, this may be the right moment for them to "open the closets".
At a time when the US forces are struggling to keep & grow it's strength, this may be the right moment for them to "open the closets".
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Survey: 1 in 4 troops knows gay colleague
By Teri Weaver, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Saturday, January 6, 2007
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=42590
TOKYO — Nearly one in four servicemembers knows definitively that a member of his or her unit is gay or lesbian, according to a survey released last month.
Twenty-three percent of the 545 servicemembers surveyed online over three days in October said they knew “for certain” they were serving with someone who is gay, according to a Zogby International poll. The poll was commissioned by and designed in conjunction with the Michael D. Palm Center, a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara, that was formerly the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military.
The institute’s main goal includes studying the U.S. military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. According to its Web site, the institute “promotes the interdisciplinary analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other marginalized sexual identities in the armed forces.”
When survey respondents were asked how they knew the person’s sexual orientation, 59 percent said they had been told by that individual, according to the poll.
However, when the respondents were asked whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military, 37 percent disagreed with the idea, 26 percent agreed with the idea, and 32 percent said they felt neutral about changing the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
The survey, released last month, was one piece of evidence former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. John Shalikashvili used this week in calling for a new discussion about the 1993 policy that prohibits gays from openly serving in the military.
Shalikashvili, a retired Army general, headed the Joint Chiefs when the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was created. Back then he supported it. This week, he called on leaders to revisit the policy in part because Zogby’s poll, released Dec. 19, found that three-quarters of those surveyed “said they were comfortable interacting with gay people,” he wrote in an opinion piece in the Jan. 2 edition of The New York Times.
The online poll targeted active-duty, veterans, reservists and Guard members from every military branch who are deployed to or recently returned from wartime missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Dr. Aaron Belkin, a political science professor at Santa Barbara and head of the Palm Center.
Belkin said he believed the finding that one in four servicemembers knows of a gay colleague shows the current policy isn’t working.
“No one is supposed to know a gay peer,” Belkin said during a phone interview Thursday. “To see that was a surprise.”
The questions ranged from the servicemembers’ personal feelings about the presence of gay people in any setting, to the effect an openly gay servicemember might have on unit morale, to the frequency of private showers while in combat conditions.
The survey also allowed participants to comment on their views on the morality of both homosexuality and the military’s ban of openly gay members.
On one hand, 25 percent of those surveyed said homosexuality violates their religious or moral beliefs. On the other, 30 percent said it is wrong of the Pentagon to discriminate against servicemembers based on sexual orientation.
Overall, the results found that those who believed they knew someone gay in their unit were more likely to be tolerant of the idea of openly gay servicemembers, as were less-experienced military members and women. Longer-serving servicemembers and officers, as well as all men surveyed, were less likely to be comfortable serving side-by-side with gay or lesbian people.
Of the total 545 surveyed, 78 percent said they would join the military regardless of the existence of openly gay servicemembers in the ranks. But one in 10 said they would “definitely or probably not” have joined the military if gays served openly.
The current policy states that gays and lesbians may serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation private. Commanders may not ask, and gay servicemembers may not tell.
Over the years, thousands have been dismissed under this policy. Two dozen countries, including U.S. allies such as Great Britain and Israel, allow for openly gay members.
The survey respondents also gave high marks to their overall training, and the training of their leaders. Eighty-two percent felt very well or well trained for their wartime mission. Four in five respondents said they felt their noncommissioned officers were good leaders.
By Teri Weaver, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Saturday, January 6, 2007
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=42590
TOKYO — Nearly one in four servicemembers knows definitively that a member of his or her unit is gay or lesbian, according to a survey released last month.
Twenty-three percent of the 545 servicemembers surveyed online over three days in October said they knew “for certain” they were serving with someone who is gay, according to a Zogby International poll. The poll was commissioned by and designed in conjunction with the Michael D. Palm Center, a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara, that was formerly the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military.
The institute’s main goal includes studying the U.S. military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. According to its Web site, the institute “promotes the interdisciplinary analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other marginalized sexual identities in the armed forces.”
When survey respondents were asked how they knew the person’s sexual orientation, 59 percent said they had been told by that individual, according to the poll.
However, when the respondents were asked whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military, 37 percent disagreed with the idea, 26 percent agreed with the idea, and 32 percent said they felt neutral about changing the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
The survey, released last month, was one piece of evidence former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. John Shalikashvili used this week in calling for a new discussion about the 1993 policy that prohibits gays from openly serving in the military.
Shalikashvili, a retired Army general, headed the Joint Chiefs when the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was created. Back then he supported it. This week, he called on leaders to revisit the policy in part because Zogby’s poll, released Dec. 19, found that three-quarters of those surveyed “said they were comfortable interacting with gay people,” he wrote in an opinion piece in the Jan. 2 edition of The New York Times.
The online poll targeted active-duty, veterans, reservists and Guard members from every military branch who are deployed to or recently returned from wartime missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Dr. Aaron Belkin, a political science professor at Santa Barbara and head of the Palm Center.
Belkin said he believed the finding that one in four servicemembers knows of a gay colleague shows the current policy isn’t working.
“No one is supposed to know a gay peer,” Belkin said during a phone interview Thursday. “To see that was a surprise.”
The questions ranged from the servicemembers’ personal feelings about the presence of gay people in any setting, to the effect an openly gay servicemember might have on unit morale, to the frequency of private showers while in combat conditions.
The survey also allowed participants to comment on their views on the morality of both homosexuality and the military’s ban of openly gay members.
On one hand, 25 percent of those surveyed said homosexuality violates their religious or moral beliefs. On the other, 30 percent said it is wrong of the Pentagon to discriminate against servicemembers based on sexual orientation.
Overall, the results found that those who believed they knew someone gay in their unit were more likely to be tolerant of the idea of openly gay servicemembers, as were less-experienced military members and women. Longer-serving servicemembers and officers, as well as all men surveyed, were less likely to be comfortable serving side-by-side with gay or lesbian people.
Of the total 545 surveyed, 78 percent said they would join the military regardless of the existence of openly gay servicemembers in the ranks. But one in 10 said they would “definitely or probably not” have joined the military if gays served openly.
The current policy states that gays and lesbians may serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation private. Commanders may not ask, and gay servicemembers may not tell.
Over the years, thousands have been dismissed under this policy. Two dozen countries, including U.S. allies such as Great Britain and Israel, allow for openly gay members.
The survey respondents also gave high marks to their overall training, and the training of their leaders. Eighty-two percent felt very well or well trained for their wartime mission. Four in five respondents said they felt their noncommissioned officers were good leaders.
In my time neither gays nor women were knowingly allowed or tolerated. Now this is a US publication, but I think in the intervening years, once women were accepted in the combat arms, sexual orientation/gender in the field has became a moot issue.
Aside from what the policy states, I found that people generally don't give a rat's ass about it, unless it is pushed on them. I couldn't care less what the guy next to me does or does not do, as long as I don't have to be involved and he/she is pulling their weight where it counts.
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
During the draft Army, the only way to get out of the Army - still is I guess, is to admit to being gay. Not sure I would want that on my discharge though. The US military has always felt that open homosexuality was against good order and discipline. Hey thats just us and our Puritan heritage. 
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
GAP said:
Agreed. No matter when this happens, this issue is going to come out (pun intended) and will get dealt with like any other new thing. I have to imagine that by now most CF members have had contact with someone who was gay and of the same gender as them. In all likelyhood that contact did not entail a constant barage of come on's and sexual harassment. It has also been my experience that the ones who are the most vocal against gays are the ones who are the least likely to be hit on by them (notwithstanding the guaranteed stud factor of wearing your "Kill 'em all and Let God Sort 'em Out" QL-3 course t-shirt from '94. :
)Serving this country is just that. IMO it doesn't really matter what gender your loved one back home happens to be.
Hell, it might be a bonus at inspection time to have a guy on your BMQ that can iron like a champ and put a room together ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
tomahawk6 said:
I take it that 'the activists' are wrong and the policy should remain in effect? Wasn't the original 'official' reason for not allowing gays in the military was the possibility of them being extorted or blackmailed and thus becoming a security risk? If their orientation is public, how could that be used against them?
And there was the 'they will destroy unit cohesion' argument. I'll admit to supporting this idea in my younger days. But with the changes to society, with more people being ok with the idea of working with gay people, this argument doesn't carry the weight it once used to.
How is there any justification in a democratic country to keeping people out of the military because of their sexual orientation? Isn't such an action against the very principles and values the military is supposed to be protecting?
Out of curiosity, why did you lose respect for Gen. Shalikashvili? I know nothing of the man except that he was once the chairman and has a memorable name.
Similar threads
