quote: Hundreds of those discharged held high-level job specialties that required years of training and expertise, including 90 nuclear power engineers, 150 rocket and missile specialists and 49 nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare specialists.
Eighty-eight linguists were discharged, including at least seven Arab language specialists.
Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the military, said the loss of gays and lesbians serving in specialized areas is irrelevant because they never should have been in those jobs in the first place.
"We need to defend the law, and the law says that homosexuality is incompatible with military service," Donnelly said. "There is no shortage of people in the military, and we do not need people who identify themselves as homosexual."
What do you think?
(Hey, at least this isn't a gay marriage thread)
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The arguments for homosexuality being incompatible with military service mostly make sense in combat situations, or at least when said soldier is somewhere near the front lines. If the gay guy's working a desk job, what's the problem? Also, I wouldn't dismiss an Arab linguist if he admitted to being a ten-year-old hermaphrodite Martian. However, the rules are the rules, especially in the military.
Edit to add: Okay, the guy in the article was apparently in combat zones. My point about the Arab linguists still stands, though. People are expensive to train, especially the specialists.
posted
The major one I've heard was that sexual relationships would be too distracting during combat. This is also one of the reasons that women aren't allowed to fight.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Men in the battlefield are supposed to make extremely difficult choices under high-stress situations. Triage and the like. Romantic relationships do a good enough job of screwing things up for civilians ... I'd personally prefer that soldiers weren't distracted or influenced by them.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There already are THOUSANDS of gays in the military and have been for years. I was one. I knew of at least 5 others in my own unit. We have been serving in the US Armed Forces for a long time without the country falling apart.
"Don't ask, Don't tell" simply underscored that the government recognizes the bullshit nature of most of the arguements against gays in the military but is too chickenshit to appear to "endorse" homosexuality by letting it out of the closet.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty much. As long as the army has the fraternization rules, they should be able to handle the potential conflicts of interest/distraction issue.
Both the ban and don't ask don't tell increase the possibility for horrible abuse and exploitation, just as illegal aliens can be much more easily enslaved because they have no recourse to authority. Frankly, with an all-volunteer army, I don't want to discourage otherwise qualified people from enlisting. They're doing a job we should all be grateful to them for.
quote: Romantic relationships do a good enough job of screwing things up for civilians ... I'd personally prefer that soldiers weren't distracted or influenced by them.
Worrying about your family back home can really distract a soldier and make him less effective. Should we ban married men from serving in the military? We already have men and women serving together in the military, and regardless of the "fraternization rules" they date and have sex ALL THE TIME. Why do you believe that these issues are more critical when gay men are involved? In what way are gay men less able to deal maturely with sex/relationships in military situations than straight men?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. And the only "security issue" is with people still in the closet, since any secret is possible blackmail material. And this policy encourages people to stay in the closet, so it's probably detrimental to security.
posted
The "Shouldn't be in those jobs in the first place" quote really is naive. I was a Korean Linguist in the USAF and served honorably for 6 years. Who is this "holier-than-thou" person to tell me that I "shouldn't be in that job in the first place"?
When I went in the Air Force, I was celebate. I considered myself a normal guy who was tempted by homosexual thoughts, but didn't believe I was "gay". After about 4 years in the Air Force I came to accept my sexuality. Also by then I pretty much hated military life and my job was intensely boring. I could have just waived my hand, declared myself gay, and opted out. Saved myself 2 years of trouble. But I decided to stay active and finish my term of duty.
My former job is second only to pilot in expense of training (or so we were constantly told). I belive what I did by finishing my term of duty was the more honorable thing to do, even though it required me to completely hide an integral part of myself. Nothing about me made my unit less effective. I never had a problem with a single bunkmate. I probably saved taxpayers at least a couple hundred thousand dollars by staying in. I was honorably discharged at the end of my term of duty. The only injustice here is that at any given time during this part of my life, the US government didn't have to show me the same kind of respect and honor and duty I showed to it.
quote: Romantic relationships do a good enough job of screwing things up for civilians ... I'd personally prefer that soldiers weren't distracted or influenced by them.
What about ordinary friendships? How can anyone say the influence of an ordinary friendship is any less strong than a romantic relationship? I don't think this is a particularly viable argument.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And in the military, especially in combat areas, friendships become much more than "ordinary." Soldiers bond together tightly, as close as many married couples.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Discharging a translator specilizing in Arab languages...sheer idiocy. We need that service urgently right now, and have far too little of it.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: How can anyone say the influence of an ordinary friendship is any less strong than a romantic relationship?
I'll go ahead and say it. Sex is one of the strongest things that can affect our thoughts/feelings. Take any relationship, add sex, and it will make the effects of the relationship bigger, for good or for ill.
Personally, I think the current status of gays in the military is idiotic. Either it's bad for homosexuals to serve, or it's not. Make up your mind, and stick with it.
posted
I'll grant Geoff's point a degree of validity, but only a degree. And if it's a question of "triage and the like", you'll have to grant Chris's counterpoint a degree of validity too.
And my point, too, for that matter. The same issues exist for straight relationships currently in the military. Why is it that straight men and women are expected to deal with the situation maturely and professionally, but it is assumed that gay men and women can't?
(Please note that there have been women in combat positions increasingly since 1992).
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it be sexual harassment for a woman to be forced to shower with men?
Why wouldn't it also be sexual harassment for a straight man to shower with a gay man?
There are serious privacy issues in a field situation and which can't be rectified easily when homosexuals are introduced (is it sexual harassment for a gay man to be forced to shower with another gay man whom he doesn't like?). Put some effort into solving those, and I can probably go along with it.
However, I disagree with the premise that military service is somehow a right. The military should exist to be as effective as possible and if the resulting exclusion forms a good ol' boys club that seems a small price to pay.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ARatNamedDog's point is valid, but also disinformed. The Achilles-Patroclus relationship was romantic, which is why Briseis could only be a minor diversion.
And also why wives were financial&political rather than romantic partners. The Greek paired fighting-style of LeftHand and RightHand demanded absolute confidence by the RightHand that his LeftHand would die to protect him from attacks from the left, and absolute confidence by the LeftHand that his RightHand would die to protect him from attacks from the right.
Romantic love being the strongest guarantor of an adult's willingness to die for the other, Greek boys were given the ideal of finding another male as their chosen one, as their lover and fighting partner.
While there's a lot of foomfarah about "For God, Queen, and Country", the bottom line has always been that, in battle, men stand&fight* for their buddies, not for the "Honor of the Corp".
quote: Why is it that straight men and women are expected to deal with the situation maturely and professionally, but it is assumed that gay men and women can't?
Good point, Karl, that has only been a problem recently (as you said, since 1992). My uninformed opinion is that both are as likely to cause problems as the other (potential heterosexual partners together vs. potential homosexual partners together).
posted
You know, this is also a serious problem with blacks in the military. And Jews. And really smart people. And the rich.
They all know each other (well, not the Jews and the Black people, but the Blacks and the Blacks, and the Jews and the Jews, etc.)!
How can we expect them to make rational, critical decisions if all they're going to do is try to help out their fellow blacks, or Jews, or really smart people, or rich, or whatever, all the time?
We need to go back to the good old army of old:
Poor, white, stupid, gentiles.
Like in the World War II movies.
Now there's a victory just waiting to happen! [/irony]
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I always thought that exposing morons to ridicule was a good approach. Certainly one of the more fun ones.
More "Queer Eye" shows?
Less George W. Bush and the religious right?
More information, less fear?
More open discussions of sexuality in our society?
Pick one. Or state your own.
Up to this point, I thought we were delineating the problem. I thought we'd start posting solutions on the second page of the thread, and have it all solved by the third.
posted
If there was a serious war on, I doubt they'd care who their soldiers slept with. I'd fear more for the sort of harrassment straight men would give to gay guys...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One way to judge the depths of a prejudice is the extent to which people are willing to inconvenience themselves or act against their own interests to uphold a policy based on it.
Here's a perfect example. We don't require soldiers in general to live up to any strict sexual morality - in fact, there's a wink-wink approach to soldiers getting laid in many cases. When it starts affecting the troops, they pass out condoms and give VD lectures; they don't kick the soldiers out. The security concerns are pretty easily demonstrable as bogus, and could be overcome by requiring soldiers to state if they are straight or gay. The only possible one left is the distraction issue, which seems weak to me, given the other distractions, and doesn't even apply to the instant case.
I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to civil gay marriage opponents that many are not acting out of prejudice. This is a much harder BotD to extend. Self-interest is sacrificed to keep gays out.
posted
When I was in the AF gays were given an "Administrative" discharge, which, while not exactly dishonorable was not an "Honorable Discharge" and thus held the stigma of not receiving an Honorable discharge. I believe that may have changed in these increasingly enlightened times.
quote: Would it be sexual harassment for a woman to be forced to shower with men?
Why wouldn't it also be sexual harassment for a straight man to shower with a gay man?
There are serious privacy issues in a field situation and which can't be rectified easily when homosexuals are introduced (is it sexual harassment for a gay man to be forced to shower with another gay man whom he doesn't like?). Put some effort into solving those, and I can probably go along with it.
Jim-me, is it sexual harrasment for a man to be "forced" to shower with a gay man at the local gym? How about for straight men to have to use the same public restroom? Locker room at the public pool? Changing room at the beach? Well it happens ALL THE TIME in the free world and guess what? We gays have a remarkable ability to keep our hands to ourselves.
Straight men are already "forced" to shower with gay men in the military. The only difference would be knowing who is gay and who is straight, and that still wouldn't solve the problem of those who consider themselves straight upon enlistment and "come out" while enlisted. Or those who simply think their sexuality is no one's business and choose to remain closeted for whatever personal reasons. And what about all the bisexual servicemen/women? They already exist, too.
If showers are the worst worry a commander has to face then he/she can set up a shift schedule.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, it comes down to how you choose to enforce the rules against fraternization.
If you think it's a good idea to leave it up to the honor system and risk more problems for the sake of showing trust and egalitarianism, then yeah, there's no reason to bar gays from the military.
If you think it's a good idea to make the rules more enforceable by limiting membership in combat units to individuals who are highly unlikely to fraternize with one another, then gays should be restricted the same way women are, because both represent the same level of risk. Restricting gays is far less enforceable, but on principle, it seems the only fair way to handle it.
If women are restricted from joining combat units because of their potential to have sex or pursue romances with men, it would be silly to say that gays shouldn't face the same restriction.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, it sounds like a good argument for re-thinking our ideas on modesty, yes, but since we haven't yet done that, the rotating shift plan sounds workable... any ideas on how to do that without labeling people?
I don't think I implied, BTW, that gay people are predators, but rather that most people feel uncomfortable being naked around people who could potentially be sexually attracted to them. I certainly wouldn't expect a woman (or a gay man) to jump my bones because I am naked in front of them, but I would be embarassed and hestiant in that situation nonetheless.
To the group at large: Is there any way to provide the kind of privacy people have been used to in the past? especially given Karl's points about locker rooms at public gyms etc.?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The credible reason for keeping women out of combat units is efficiency. If women pass the physical tests much more often than men, and if the tests can't be administered without a lot of sunk costs (preliminary training, etc.), then it might make sense to save the sunk costs with a general rule. The other reason often cited is how women will be treated if captured. I don't see a big difference between how a gay man would be treated and a straight man, unless the army puts something on their dog tags.
The fraternization rule isn't really an issue. Besides, women are allowed in the military; gays technically aren't. At all. Even in non-combat positions they're highly qualified for, where the sunk costs factor goes the other way.
quote:rather that most people feel uncomfortable being naked around people who could potentially be sexually attracted to them.
I'm more worried about being naked around people I might find sexually attractive who don't consider me sexually attractive. And it's always better to be naked around someone with first-hand knowledge of shrinkage than someone who doesn't understand it at all.
and an interesting though process I hadn't tried on-- is my desire for modesty a desire not to appear revolting to someone I'm attracted to? Interesting psychological question that I might even try to answer some day Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought women were kept out of combat for other reasons--Less Upper Body Strength, Lack of Killer Instinct/training, poor dainty creatures shouldn't be hurt. These are teh arguments I've heard before, not that sexual relations would complicate matters.
The biggest reason that my friends in the military don't want gay men in their units is because they are misinformed on what homosexuality is, and they fear the differences.
That fear and dehumanization creates its own reasons for denying gay people the opportunity to defend their country.
Here are the facts:
Some people are gay.
Not evil people or sick people or wrong people. Just people. (Although some evil, sick, and wrong people are also gay, just as some are Jewish or left handed or Hungarian).
The military has four choices:
It can diminish itself by not allowing these people to serve.
It can stick its collective head in a box and deny these people exist.
It can try to change those people into being something they are not.
or
It can train their people to accept these differences, as they have done with differences in race, religion, and even national heritage.
I have full confidence in our military that they can do this. I have full confidence in the members of our military that they can accept this. I have little confidence in our political system that they will allow this. Its too different, to easy to take a stand on.
It is a shame, we are back to diminishing the military for some politician's narrow mindedness.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You make a good point, Dan. The military had much less trouble integrating than almost any other institution I can think of. If anyone can do it, they can.
quote: Karl, it sounds like a good argument for re-thinking our ideas on modesty, yes, but since we haven't yet done that, the rotating shift plan sounds workable... any ideas on how to do that without labeling people?
and
quote: To the group at large: Is there any way to provide the kind of privacy people have been used to in the past? especially given Karl's points about locker rooms at public gyms etc.?
My point is that they have NOW the very same privacy they have had in the past. And it is done without labels. There are gays showering right next to straights in the military even as I type this. Somewhere in the world US military members are having sex with each other RIGHT NOW, and some of them are gay.
The very easiest way to integrate gays into the military is to stop singling them out for discharge. We're already there. We're showering with you already. We're bunking with you already. Ending the discrimination doesn't mean adding anything. You don't need to ask who's gay and whose straight. Why do you need to know? You don't know now, so why do you need to know then? Yeah, it will come out in the natural course of conversation among friends. Then the handful of people really too paranoid to shower with a known homosexual will either have to get over it or make other adjustments. And the ones who can't behave themselves like responsible adults in an environment where gays might be present can be disciplined just like racists and mysogynist are dealt with today in the military. Case solved. This is only a Big Deal because of the politics involved in appearing to support homosexual equality.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Instead of rehashing everything, I'll just put my vote with everything KarlEd said. Good job fellow Karl.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"We need to defend the law, and the law says that homosexuality is incompatible with military service," Donnelly said. "There is no shortage of people in the military, and we do not need people who identify themselves as homosexual."
There, you see? We don't need a draft after all. There is no shortage of people in the military!
Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed, well said, Karl. I *do* hope I'm not coming off as personal... I'm just exploring here and if anything I've said has been offensive to hear as a gay man (or lesbian, for that matter), I do sincerely apologize.
As for the level of privacy thing, people have been accustomed to pretending that they have it. This will shatter that delusion, and while, that's generally a good thing, it's also generally to be accomplished with great care. It takes time to adjust to these things, and Dan is very right to compare the situation to the integration of Blacks into military service. There will be headaches, there will be pain, there will be ugliness... maybe less in the military than elsewhere, but there *will* be some, and in an organization of a few million, "some" is a significant number.
I think we might be getting down to the *real* reason here... that "now" is always a bad time for a PR black eye... and there will be plenty when this process goes forward. I think this integration is probably inevitable, but no one wants to be in charge when it happens, because it will be hard.
Not an excuse, much less a reason, but a theory as to what may really be happening.
quote: If you think it's a good idea to make the rules more enforceable by limiting membership in combat units to individuals who are highly unlikely to fraternize with one another, then gays should be restricted the same way women are, because both represent the same level of risk. Restricting gays is far less enforceable, but on principle, it seems the only fair way to handle it.
If women are restricted from joining combat units because of their potential to have sex or pursue romances with men, it would be silly to say that gays shouldn't face the same restriction.
So, you are OK with gays in the military but just not in combat positions?
Now what about Dan's arguement that sexual issues aren't the reason for the restriction of women in other combat positions (such as special forces)? If this is, indeed, the case and women are restricted from serving in these positions because of a general lack of the physical attributes associated with these positions, would you then be OK with gays being allowed to serve in those positions?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think we might be getting down to the *real* reason here... that "now" is always a bad time for a PR black eye... and there will be plenty when this process goes forward. I think this integration is probably inevitable, but no one wants to be in charge when it happens, because it will be hard.
I had a great post thought up (or atleast as good as I can do) and then I checked the updated thread and found that Jim-me had already said what I was going to say
quote: I don't think I implied, BTW, that gay people are predators, but rather that most people feel uncomfortable being naked around people who could potentially be sexually attracted to them.
quote: Jim-me, is it sexual harrasment for a man to be "forced" to shower with a gay man at the local gym? How about for straight men to have to use the same public restroom? Locker room at the public pool? Changing room at the beach? Well it happens ALL THE TIME in the free world and guess what? We gays have a remarkable ability to keep our hands to ourselves.
Speaking as a high school athlete who has showered with openly gay men, it's not that bad, i mean it's not like they even look at you, they just hop in, clean up, dry off, snap their towl at a freshman (which we all do) and get dressed. no staring at other mens gentials, or anything else.
Stryker
[ June 21, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: J T Stryker ]
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-me, I haven't taken anything you've written as personally insulting. My response to your first post probably seemed like I did because this is a personal issue with me. Your subsequent posts have made it clear that you are participating in a discussion and not making an attack.
As a gay man the issue is very personal. It is offending to me to the Nth degree to read someone say that I had no business serving my country and that had I not done what I did it would be no loss because I never should have been there in the first place. People who think like that need to amend their "Support our troops!" bumper stickers to read "Support our troops (except the gay ones)!" so their genuine bigotry can be seen as easily as their bumper-sticker patriotism.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wanted to stick my head in the thread to thank KarlEd for taking the heat on this one. I agree.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
