"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[Homyrrh]

There was a brief article (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/students-protest-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy/index.html?hp)in the Times today about two student protestors (one from Harvard Divinity, the other a Boson U. graduate) who staged a sit-in at the NYC armed services recruiting station.

The guy from Harvard tried to enlist, yet said he was gay. Obviously, as per the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, he was not allowed to. He then refused to leave, was arrested after being asked several times to, and was escorted to the precinct where he was processed and told to report to a judge at a later date.

With that said, what should be made of the military's policy with homosexuals?

[someguy]

It's pretty fucking disgraceful that countries still follow this stupid line of thinking.

[MadsenOMC]

If a gay person wants to enlist, they should be allowed to.

[unspoken]

I go by the Chris Rock theory on this (with a little editing) ... "If they wanna fight, let 'em fight, cause I ain't fighting. Go ahead and call me a f****t. When the war's over, I'll be the f****t with two legs."

What do they think is going to happen, the gay guy (or girl) is going to contaminate the rest and create a whole gay militia? We really have some idiots in this world.

I'm typically a conservative (moreso fiscally than socially), but this shit is just ridiculous.

[jolanar]

I'm kind of on the fence. On the one hand it's definitely stupid to not allow someone to join the military simply because of the fact they are gay. On the other hand, if it were me, the fact that I was gay would be a complete non issue and I would feel no need to tell the military. Just as I would feel no need to tell my employer in a hiring interview.

Don't ask, don't tell is not a perfect solution to the problem. It's a compromise between the crazy social conservative nut jobs and regular folk. At least that's how I see it, and until the world runs out of racist, sexist homophobic assholes it's probably the best were gonna get.

[KcMsterpce]

I'm a little on the fence with this one myself.

A lot of the problem doesn't just stem from years and years of religious and political hatred to gays.
The other reason is that there are a LOT of homophobes in this world. In a military situation, it becomes more tense. Also, there are plenty of people who aren't gay that would just plain feel uncomfortable being naked in public showers with flaming homos. I don't know if I wouldn't feel the same way.
The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a way of trying to keep the completely hardcore homosexuals from being so open and extreme about it that it would make tensions escalate to extremely dangerous levels.

Imagine being on a submarine, and there are 6 gays on the submarine walking around and flaunting their homosexuality. Then, on that boat are also 40 guys that are adamantly opposed to the concept of gays (either by the way they are raised, self-denial, whatever).
Or being stationed somewhere in which there is no way around showering with other guys or gals... openly gay people could start "eye raping" other guys or gals...
and there'll be all kinds of horrible results on and off the field because of this.

While I feel that "it's not right" to discriminate, there are plenty of people in this world that are on the sexual preference extremes (super PRO, or super ANTI gay), which in an environment where trusting the people in your unit means life or death. It's hard enough dealing with race, religion, social backgrounds, rank, and personal opinions with people across so many cultures. The homosexual issues would only exacerbate things to a whole new level.

Thus, "don't ask, don't tell" is a pretty clever idea for me. You don't ask me if I'm gay, and I won't tell you I am.
There are some obvious gay people - male and female - in the military. But there are probably a lot MORE that don't reveal themselves.

[Homyrrh]

I think the very general term "unit cohesion" has to be considered.

Gays can serve in the miltary, as per the rule, but cannot say they are homosexual. What I think gets overlooked or ignored is the element of "brotherhood". I've personally never been in the military, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who's been in numerous football locker rooms; I also graduated from an all-male boarding school.

With that said, the presence of a homosexual does disrupt this "unit cohesion". I will say litte else than that there was a student in my 12-student living group who, while not necessarily inehrently homsexual, had performed homosexual acts.

Though it obviously wasn't made known to administration for the sake of several people, the rest of us, heterosexuals all, were uncomfortable knowing this. While we all have homosexual friends and family members, it's irrefutably and compeltely different to sleep in the same room (well, actually it was a big tent) as room. Regardless of homophobia (though there were a good few legitimately hateful of gays), living with that discomfort, however mild or severe it was for certain people, was ultimately a detriment to the cohesion of the group and to its progress through all aspects of school.

Were this to happen in the military, an environment where soldiers really must be brothers, well, it would be adverse to the greater objectives of the unit. With that said, and with all respect to any and all homosexuals, both my personal experiences and political ideologies hold that this policy is the best conceivable at present.

[KcMsterpce]

With that said, the presence of a homosexual does disrupt this "unit cohesion".

I thought it would increase male "unit" cohesion! Which is bad, right?! HAHA me so funny.

No, but I agree with your post, which was being typed at the same time as me. But you did a little better job at stating the exact same idea as I was trying to express.

[electriclite]

Its just always funny to me how straight men feel gays are just out to get them. Like its a little conceited to think that gay men have a target on every straight male that gets in their eye sight.

I mean I brought this issue up to a straight cousin of mine and he was like:

Cousin: "Well what would you do if a woman hit on you?"

Me: "Ummm tell her I'm not interested. Just like I would any guy."

Cousin: "Yeah well what if she didn't get the hint and kept bothering you?"

Me: "Then I'd either get security or leave. Once again, same thing I'd do if it were a guy"

Not all gay related social complications have to end up in either gay rape or a fist fight, as apparently most straight males believe.

Also I would imagine that just as the straight soldiers know there is a certain decorum expected once they enter the military, gay soldiers know this as well. If someone does act out of the professional manner expected in the military they should definitely be drummed out.

But until most straight males evolve past the above scenarios I just mentioned, "Don't ask, Don't tell" is as good as its gonna get.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

The wordplay here astounds me. What does it mean to "serve openly," exactly? As long as someone is in the military, that makes them sexually neutral? The fear that morale would be lowered directly contradicts the military's Army of One bullshit. Isn't it the individual soldier's responsibility to keep a stable level of morale, provided that he has no rational reason to feel disheartened?

I also love it how politicians try to gain experience points when they say it would be unwise to reverse the policy in a time of war. As if the lack of body armor is a lesser detriment than gays serving openly.

[QUENTIN]

I'm a little on the fence with this one myself.

A lot of the problem doesn't just stem from years and years of religious and political hatred to gays.
The other reason is that there are a LOT of homophobes in this world. In a military situation, it becomes more tense. Also, there are plenty of people who aren't gay that would just plain feel uncomfortable being naked in public showers with flaming homos. I don't know if I wouldn't feel the same way.
The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a way of trying to keep the completely hardcore homosexuals from being so open and extreme about it that it would make tensions escalate to extremely dangerous levels.

Imagine being on a submarine, and there are 6 gays on the submarine walking around and flaunting their homosexuality. Then, on that boat are also 40 guys that are adamantly opposed to the concept of gays (either by the way they are raised, self-denial, whatever).
Or being stationed somewhere in which there is no way around showering with other guys or gals... openly gay people could start "eye raping" other guys or gals...
and there'll be all kinds of horrible results on and off the field because of this.

While I feel that "it's not right" to discriminate, there are plenty of people in this world that are on the sexual preference extremes (super PRO, or super ANTI gay), which in an environment where trusting the people in your unit means life or death. It's hard enough dealing with race, religion, social backgrounds, rank, and personal opinions with people across so many cultures. The homosexual issues would only exacerbate things to a whole new level.

Thus, "don't ask, don't tell" is a pretty clever idea for me. You don't ask me if I'm gay, and I won't tell you I am.
There are some obvious gay people - male and female - in the military. But there are probably a lot MORE that don't reveal themselves.


I'm with you and I was just saying the same thing about Mexicans. Illegal immigration and the general influx of Latino people into the U.S. is a very controversial topic and like it or not, there are people out there who are very opposed to Mexicans entering this country. There are plenty of servicemen and women who have been downsized or have family who lost their jobs to outsourcing or illegal aliens. This just adds to the existing tension that arises when you put any diverse group of people together and make them function as a unit. For the sake of the soldiers' safety and to avoid conflict, Mexicans should just never mention their ethnicity and hope to pass for dark Italians. None of the people they serve with and are stationed with for years should ask them about their lives and background and they need to be prohibited from ever mentioning where they are from or their relatives. Obviously "flaunting" their country of origin by speaking Spanish in public or cooking traditional Mexican dishes needs to be outlawed, otherwise all the racists have the potential to be uncomfortable and the group won't function as a cohesive, effective whole. Imagine being stationed in Iraq with some "Jose" whose brother just took your father's job because he'll work for $3/hour with no benefits, how could they really expect you to risk your life for him or treat him as a brother? The same also applies to Jews, Muslims, Arabs, and Chinese people. They can do whatever they want and be whoever they want in the privacy of their own homes, but they need to keep it hidden in their professional lives or risk termination.

[Homyrrh]

Its just always funny to me how straight men feel gays are just out to get them. Like its a little conceited to think that gay men have a target on every straight male that gets in their eye sight.

I mean I brought this issue up to a straight cousin of mine and he was like:

Cousin: "Well what would you do if a woman hit on you?"

Me: "Ummm tell her I'm not interested. Just like I would any guy."

Cousin: "Yeah well what if she didn't get the hint and kept bothering you?"

Me: "Then I'd either get security or leave. Once again, same thing I'd do if it were a guy"

Not all gay related social complications have to end up in either gay rape or a fist fight, as apparently most straight males believe.

Also I would imagine that just as the straight soldiers know there is a certain decorum expected once they enter the military, gay soldiers know this as well. If someone does act out of the professional manner expected in the military they should definitely be drummed out.

But until most straight males evolve past the above scenarios I just mentioned, "Don't ask, Don't tell" is as good as its gonna get.
I think this is in response to my post, but I'm not quite sure.

Regardless, I speak from aforementioned experience that apart from homophobia or any hatred towards gays, there is an undeniable feeling of discomfort in such a close environment.

Ever had to share a mattress with a guy? I've done so; splitting a queen-size with another straight dude beats bunking on the floor, right? I have a hard time envisioning myself being comofortable while splitting that same bed with a homosexual. This has nothing, in any way, to do with their character.

The "don't ask, don't tell" is the best I can see in practice for the current time. I cannot imagine a more appropriate policy, as allowing gays openly into the services would be an enormous hindrance on this "unit cohesion" (that joke earlier was humorous). The morality of this can be legitimately called questionable, but in such a literal matter of life-and-death for American soldiers, what's most important?

[MadsenOMC]

Do heterosexuals keep their sexual orientation to themselves in the military? I highly doubt it.

I shared a room with a gay guy for three years while I was an undergraduate student. We were also pretty good friends during that time. He never put a move on me or tried to convert me. The idea that I would be uncomfortable around him is absurd. I can't imagine choosing to sleep on the floor rather than share a queen size bed with him.

[The Heart Collector]

Though it obviously wasn't made known to administration for the sake of several people, the rest of us, heterosexuals all, were uncomfortable knowing this. While we all have homosexual friends and family members, it's irrefutably and compeltely different to sleep in the same room (well, actually it was a big tent) as room. Regardless of homophobia (though there were a good few legitimately hateful of gays), living with that discomfort, however mild or severe it was for certain people, was ultimately a detriment to the cohesion of the group and to its progress through all aspects of school.

All due respect, that's your problem. The solution to that problem isn't for the gay guy to hide his life to the group, it's for the group to grow the hell up.

[Scarfather]

I like where this thread is going.

I can't sleep in the same room as a homosexual, he obliviously wants to have sex with me because he's a homosexual. Because we all know they want to have sex with every man they see. am i rite?

I find this incredibly presumptuous. I mean, Bill Hicks was right on general principle: Anyone dumb enough to want to join the military should be allowed in.

But either way, with all these pent up closet cases who 'hate queers' roaming around trying to make sure EVERYONE knows that they are DEFINITELY not homo, I'd think the ladies in the armed forces should be far, far more worried about late night tent rape.

[Cop No. 633]

I like where this thread is going.

I can't sleep in the same room as a homosexual, he obliviously wants to have sex with me because he's a homosexual. Because we all know they want to have sex with every man they see. am i rite?

I find this incredibly presumptuous. I mean, Bill Hicks was right on general principle: Anyone dumb enough to want to join the military should be allowed in.

But either way, with all these pent up closet cases who 'hate queers' roaming around trying to make sure EVERYONE knows that they are DEFINITELY not homo, I'd think the ladies in the armed forces should be far, far more worried about late night tent rape.

Exactly what I was thinking. Heterosexual soldiers have more issues than anybody else in the military. The problem isn't the gay soldiers, it's the straight ones. They have a bigger problem facing them with female soldiers being raped by their fellow officers. So is it the females fault for wanting to join? Is it just too awkward for women to be in a military because it makes men want to have sex?

[Moviefan1234]

I like where this thread is going.

I can't sleep in the same room as a homosexual, he obliviously wants to have sex with me because he's a homosexual. Because we all know they want to have sex with every man they see. am i rite?

I find this incredibly presumptuous. I mean, Bill Hicks was right on general principle: Anyone dumb enough to want to join the military should be allowed in.

But either way, with all these pent up closet cases who 'hate queers' roaming around trying to make sure EVERYONE knows that they are DEFINITELY not homo, I'd think the ladies in the armed forces should be far, far more worried about late night tent rape.


Great points Scarfather. As a straight male, I don't go around wanting to bang every woman I see walking down the sidewalk. And there's also this thing called professionalism, most people don't go around trying to sleep with their coworkers. Of course, there's going to be the slim pickings that do, but for the most part that won't be happening. And if you feel uncomfortable laying next to someone that has a different sexual orientation than you do, then you have a lot bigger problems than the 'Don't ask, Don't tell' policy.

[Homyrrh]

All due respect, that's your problem. The solution to that problem isn't for the gay guy to hide his life to the group, it's for the group to grow the hell up.
Which would be great.

But the average age of an Army recruit is, what, 19? I think the average immaturity in especially males at this age is usually rather evident. It is unfortunate that many homosexuals will suffer emotionally and/or mentally because the VAST majority cannot perform with their presence, but as this is inevitable, American military practice has to be adjsuted accordingly.

It has less to do with homosexuals than the majority heterosexuals, but as the latter greatly outnumbers the less cultured minority, their "best" interest must be kept in mind. THis all entirely based on performance and efficiency rather than morality.

I think my post(s) in the CA gay rights thread made certain things clear about my views on gay rights, but something that adversely affects "unit cohesion" unfortunately has to be handled in the interest of the majority.

As unfortunate as it may be, I think it's a matter of idealism having to take a backseat to realism. Do I think it'd be greatto have homosexuals in the armed services? Yes, it'd be ideal to allow any and all males/females the privilege to serve their country. However, I cannot envision a better practice at present.

[MadsenOMC]

So in order to accommodate homophobic heterosexual teenagers, the policy needs to stay? It's nice that you are so worried about the emotional and mental suffering of homosexuals in the military, but isn't joining ultimately their choice? If they are willing to take their chances, shouldn't that be up to them?

Also, do heterosexual soldiers always keep their sexuality to themselves?

[Homyrrh]

So in order to accommodate homophobic heterosexual teenagers, the policy needs to stay? It's nice that you are so worried about the emotional and mental suffering of homosexuals in the military, but isn't joining ultimately their choice? If they are willing to take their chances, shouldn't that be up to them?

Also, do heterosexual soldiers always keep their sexuality to themselves?
I'm not sure what you mean by the first paragraph and consequently think you didn't understand what I was saying. Like I said it's unfortunate that they cannot openly discuss their livelihood and persona; they are free to join and serve but cannot disclose their orientation. Should heterosexuals follow this same rule? I am not quite as sure, as it would drastically and adversely afflict the military in general, specifically enlistment and morale (as per the heterosexuality of the majority).

And no they don't. Is this fair? No, not in theory or in practice, but this has become such a social staple of very young adult males that it is normalcy in this vast majority.

I'm unfamiliar with being homosexual, being homophobic, or being in the military, or any of the two (besides homosexual and homophobic...not sure how that works, heh), so I can't speak with too much authority.

I don't think an all-homosexual regiment would be quite the answer...:rolleyes::D That annihilates my "unit cohesion" argument...

[MadsenOMC]

To be clear, you are saying that because it will make the straight soldiers uncomfortable, homosexuals in the military should refrain from sharing their sexual orientation, even though the straight soldiers do not keep their sexuality a secret?

[Homyrrh]

No, it shouldn't be restricted to a minor level of discomfort; in fact, being comfortable isn't something many in the military often are.

Yes, they should "refrain from sharing their sexual orientation" because it would, again, adversely affect unit cohesion. Do I feel disturbed by a gay man discussing his lifestyle with me? Not really, and actually it's somewhat intriguing. Could I serve knowing my "brother-in-arms" was gay? Probably could. But the reality is that the majority of green enlistees are ignorant (which, in saying this, is an ironic stereotype in itself) and would not be able to maturely handle the rights of homosexuals, let alone any experience beyond verbal (for purposes of consideration).

Ultimately, as every recruit learns, the needs of the group outweigh the needs of the individual, however unfair or unfortunate that may be.

[MadsenOMC]

If a majority of soldiers really can't handle openly gay soldiers, as you claim, rather than cater to their puerile convictions in order to not upset "unit cohesion," maybe it would be better to remind them that it is 2008 and not 1940.

[Homyrrh]

If a majority of soldiers really can't handle openly gay soldiers, as you claim, rather than cater to their puerile convictions in order to not upset "unit cohesion," maybe it would be better to remind them that it is 2008 and not 1940.
I've tried to emphasize my understanding; it'd be great if we could all just get along.

But we can't. And unfortunately won't.

Again:

Ultimately, as every recruit learns, the needs of the group outweigh the needs of the individual, however unfair or unfortunate that may be.

[someguy]

But isn't the reason why people get so homophobic because of the way gay people have been treated over time, including stuff like barring them from the military if their orientation is found out? Maybe it's me but I think that allowing anyone into the military would be a step towards having gay people become more accepted in society for the future and to stop it because ignorant kids today will be disturbed isn't helping anything.

[MadsenOMC]

But we can't. And unfortunately won't.[/I]

How can you be so sure? That's rather defeatist of you. I think it'd be better to enlighten the soldiers and bring them into the 21st century rather than continue to condone their current mentality.

Good points someguy.

[QUENTIN]

At least until the 1970's, but certainly in 1948 when the military was desegregated, the vast majority of white military personnel were racist and uncomfortable serving with black soldiers. But the military took the stance "Fuck you if you're racist, get over it", was and is extremely hard on perceived racist actions by service people, and now we have a fully integrated military where rednecks from Alabama frequently salute, respect, and take orders from black officers. The solution is not to continue to cater to ignorance and childishness, it is to follow the constitution, grant every individual full, equal rights, and force the ignorant and childish to get over it.

The nice thing about the military is that you can give people direct orders and force them to do something or face serious consequences. The average homophobic recruit would rather get used to bunking next to a gay guy than having to deal with constant shit for treating him differently. Institute such a fair, reasonable policy now and in 10 years gays openly serving in the military will be as much of a non-issue as racial desegregation in the military.

[MadsenOMC]

The solution is not to continue to cater to ignorance and childishness, it is to follow the constitution, grant every individual full, equal rights, and force the ignorant and childish to get over it.

Thank you. I always know that I can count on you to express what I'm thinking better than I can. That is exactly right. Excellent post.

[QUENTIN]

Homyrrh, I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, but your solution is to simply accept a status quo problem and refuse to deal with it. Yes, most recruits when they get in are very immature and ignorant. But then comes lots and lots of training and being told what to do and how to behave --or else. An extremely high degree of professionalism is required in the military and it is unprofessional to treat fellow soldiers differently based on their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. It doesn't matter if in their private time many soldiers are still homophobes and let the term "faggot" fly, they can be made to act in a professional manner on the job when serving with gay fellow servicemen and women. It will be tough on gays and homophobes alike for awhile, just as desegregation was tough on blacks and racists for awhile, and then they'll get over it. You can't cater to the worst of the pack, you have to demand the best from people in uniform and over time, they will grow, learn, and strive to give their best. That's how positive social change happens. It will be gradual, but it is necessary.

[KcMsterpce]

This isn't a thread about whether YOU YOURSELF are comfortable with gay guys.

This is about how military soldiers/sailors would react to openly gay people in the military.
That's fine that gay people "doesn't bother you," or you don't have a concern about gays "oggling you".

The fact of the matter is, the military has people from every walk of life, and every kind of upbringing you could imagine. There is already enough tension between some people because of their race, sex, or religion. Throw gays into the mix, and these individuals will take violent action and much lower tolerance against other prejudices that they are already taught/forced to deal with.

"Army of One" is a motto. Sure, it sounds great in concept. But so does Communism. It doesn't work because of the human factor.

For the most part, soldiers can look past the hatred and dislike of one another when it comes to doing the job and watching each others' back. Which is the way it needs to be in order to survive.

I'm sure those that hate the gays will see that gay person as having an eye for him/her. Others will get blamed (I'll speak from a guy's perspective to save time on PC-ness) for getting sucked off by him, and/or fucking him. The gay guy will become a relentless punchline for all harsh-minded and mean-spirited jokes that would circulate (which are numerous) within the command/unit/whatever.
It's not just about the safety of the UNIT, but it's also about protecting the gay person. Whether or not he/she is not hitting on anyone at all, the fact that they're openly gay will be enough to bring down a shitstorm of hatred and violence from the one - to three - out of ten who hate them for that single fact alone. That hatred can be contagious.

You can talk all you want about how gays don't bother YOU. It's not about that. It's about how it really DOES bother a LOT of people out there, and when it comes to issues of life and death amongst those that have been taught how to kill... it's just more nitro that could be thrown into an already dangerous mix.

[MadsenOMC]

Throw gays into the mix, and these individuals will take violent action and much lower tolerance against other prejudices that they haven.

Gays are already in the military. I haven't heard about soldiers taking violent action against fellow (gay) soldiers.

[Homyrrh]

But isn't the reason why people get so homophobic because of the way gay people have been treated over time, including stuff like barring them from the military if their orientation is found out? Maybe it's me but I think that allowing anyone into the military would be a step towards having gay people become more accepted in society for the future and to stop it because ignorant kids today will be disturbed isn't helping anything.
Interesting. Personally I've never considered it this way, that there is a fear of self-confrotation I guess. I guess an inversed affirmative action (?).
How can you be so sure? That's rather defeatist of you. I think it'd be better to enlighten the soldiers and bring them into the 21st century rather than continue to condone their current mentality.

Good points someguy.
Again, this is considerably unfortunate, perhaps defeatist. But I feel I'm being realistic above all else...
At least until the 1970's, but certainly in 1948 when the military was desegregated, the vast majority of white military personnel were racist and uncomfortable serving with black soldiers. But the military took the stance "Fuck you if you're racist, get over it", was and is extremely hard on perceived racist actions by service people, and now we have a fully integrated military where rednecks from Alabama frequently salute, respect, and take orders from black officers. The solution is not to continue to cater to ignorance and childishness, it is to follow the constitution, grant every individual full, equal rights, and force the ignorant and childish to get over it.

The nice thing about the military is that you can give people direct orders and force them to do something or face serious consequences. The average homophobic recruit would rather get used to bunking next to a gay guy than having to deal with constant shit for treating him differently. Institute such a fair, reasonable policy now and in 10 years gays openly serving in the military will be as much of a non-issue as racial desegregation in the military.

Homyrrh, I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, but your solution is to simply accept a status quo problem and refuse to deal with it. Yes, most recruits when they get in are very immature and ignorant. But then comes lots and lots of training and being told what to do and how to behave --or else. An extremely high degree of professionalism is required in the military and it is unprofessional to treat fellow soldiers differently based on their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. It doesn't matter if in their private time many soldiers are still homophobes and let the term "faggot" fly, they can be made to act in a professional manner on the job when serving with gay fellow servicemen and women. It will be tough on gays and homophobes alike for awhile, just as desegregation was tough on blacks and racists for awhile, and then they'll get over it. You can't cater to the worst of the pack, you have to demand the best from people in uniform and over time, they will grow, learn, and strive to give their best. That's how positive social change happens. It will be gradual, but it is necessary.

...yet still would love to see an ideal, constitutional military. I can see it happening, but as I've mentioned, I don't know how much better it will be in these coming decades. I just feel it has to be accepted for the immediate time with patient optimism; it is a drastic improvement over an entire ban on homosxual enlistment.

[Homyrrh]

This isn't a thread about whether YOU YOURSELF are comfortable with gay guys.

This is about how military soldiers/sailors would react to openly gay people in the military.
That's fine that gay people "doesn't bother you," or you don't have a concern about gays "oggling you".

The fact of the matter is, the military has people from every walk of life, and every kind of upbringing you could imagine. There is already enough tension between some people because of their race, sex, or religion. Throw gays into the mix, and these individuals will take violent action and much lower tolerance against other prejudices that they are already taught/forced to deal with.

"Army of One" is a motto. Sure, it sounds great in concept. But so does Communism. It doesn't work because of the human factor.

For the most part, soldiers can look past the hatred and dislike of one another when it comes to doing the job and watching each others' back. Which is the way it needs to be in order to survive.

I'm sure those that hate the gays will see that gay person as having an eye for him/her. Others will get blamed (I'll speak from a guy's perspective to save time on PC-ness) for getting sucked off by him, and/or fucking him. The gay guy will become a relentless punchline for all harsh-minded and mean-spirited jokes that would circulate (which are numerous) within the command/unit/whatever.
It's not just about the safety of the UNIT, but it's also about protecting the gay person. Whether or not he/she is not hitting on anyone at all, the fact that they're openly gay will be enough to bring down a shitstorm of hatred and violence from the one - to three - out of ten who hate them for that single fact alone. That hatred can be contagious.

You can talk all you want about how gays don't bother YOU. It's not about that. It's about how it really DOES bother a LOT of people out there, and when it comes to issues of life and death amongst those that have been taught how to kill... it's just more nitro that could be thrown into an already dangerous mix.
A rather emboldened illustration of some of my justifications.

[KcMsterpce]

Gays are already in the military. I haven't heard about soldiers taking violent action against fellow (gay) soldiers.

It is a "don't ask, don't tell" environment. I have personally seen prejudice against a couple guys (and a chick) that everyone knew was gay.

That's not what I'm getting at.
If all the gays came "out" and the flamboyant ones (or the 'butch' ones) then had the freedom - and the right - to flaunt their ways... let's imagine like, Chris Crocker... then there would be some violent reactions. No doubt.

[MadsenOMC]

The freedom and the right to flaunt their ways? Really?

[KcMsterpce]

The freedom and the right to flaunt their ways? Really?

Don't know what you're implying here. But thanks for reading.

"Don't ask, don't tell" means they technically don't have the right or freedom to "be gay" while in the military.

[jolanar]

Now I'm sure it may not always work out this way, but "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't mean "Don't ask, don't act gay" because thats what you guys are making it out to be.

[Criminal Rock]

This policy is vile, homophobic, prejudice, and completely full of shit... nothing but egregious in EVERY single possible way... I can't for the fucking life of me understand how a convicted criminal, a person who has committed a crime against another human being, has more of a fucking right to enlist in the military over a gay man. Fucking backwards ass bullshit.

[Moviefan1234]

This policy is vile, homophobic, prejudice, and completely full of shit... nothing but egregious in EVERY single possible way... I can't for the fucking life of me understand how a convicted criminal, a person who has committed a crime against another human being, has more of a fucking right to enlist in the military over a gay man. Fucking backwards ass bullshit.


I have the belief that the United States military is the most unprofessional corporation in the country. People with criminal records are given waivers left and right, but no gays allowed!

[Criminal Rock]

Exactly, it's nothing but retarded logic.

[KcMsterpce]

Exactly, it's nothing but retarded logic.

I agree.
But TONS of people in the military don't.

Gays' biggest crime: sucking cock/licking slit.
Criminals' biggest crime: murder/rape/insider trading.

Well, at least the criminals can use their skills for our war efforts, right? Haha!

[boombche_stum]

This isn't a thread about whether YOU YOURSELF are comfortable with gay guys.

This is about how military soldiers/sailors would react to openly gay people in the military.
That's fine that gay people "doesn't bother you," or you don't have a concern about gays "oggling you".

The fact of the matter is, the military has people from every walk of life, and every kind of upbringing you could imagine. There is already enough tension between some people because of their race, sex, or religion. Throw gays into the mix, and these individuals will take violent action and much lower tolerance against other prejudices that they are already taught/forced to deal with.

"Army of One" is a motto. Sure, it sounds great in concept. But so does Communism. It doesn't work because of the human factor.

For the most part, soldiers can look past the hatred and dislike of one another when it comes to doing the job and watching each others' back. Which is the way it needs to be in order to survive.

I'm sure those that hate the gays will see that gay person as having an eye for him/her. Others will get blamed (I'll speak from a guy's perspective to save time on PC-ness) for getting sucked off by him, and/or fucking him. The gay guy will become a relentless punchline for all harsh-minded and mean-spirited jokes that would circulate (which are numerous) within the command/unit/whatever.
It's not just about the safety of the UNIT, but it's also about protecting the gay person. Whether or not he/she is not hitting on anyone at all, the fact that they're openly gay will be enough to bring down a shitstorm of hatred and violence from the one - to three - out of ten who hate them for that single fact alone. That hatred can be contagious.

You can talk all you want about how gays don't bother YOU. It's not about that. It's about how it really DOES bother a LOT of people out there, and when it comes to issues of life and death amongst those that have been taught how to kill... it's just more nitro that could be thrown into an already dangerous mix.

I'm sorry but this logic is ridiculous.

Up until well past Vietnam, the military was a hotbed of racism. Hell, in the 70's they still had seperate military barracks for Blacks and Whites... should they have continued that simply because of historical prejudice?

This whole "unit cohesion" shit is a joke. I'm sure a lot of people in the military don't like Islam or Arabs for that matter, given the rampant Islamophobia in this country, does that suddenly mean we shouldn't allow them to serve for the sake of the "unit?" Hell, I can garauntee you there are still racists a plenty, does that mean Blacks shouldn't be allowed to serve because they might make some racist piece of trash uncomfortable? I'm just really not seeing your point.... you're basically saying that it would more than okay to keep a discriminatory status quo in place because a few people might be upset they have to serve with someone they don't like? I fail to see, given how gays are citizens of this country like everyone else, how that is moving us in the right direction. And I'm sorry, but this whole "unit cohesion" crap is bullshit that's nothing more than an excuse to justify excluding rights to a group of people simply because a few people might be "uncomfortable."

:rolleyes:

[KcMsterpce]

The topics of gays in the military isn't all "black" and "white".

I stand by everything I've posted, but it's not just about race in this instance. You not only have the race card, but many who believe that homosexuality is a choice. Which pisses the extreme haters off more in some ways than being born black.

[QUENTIN]

My point about Mexicans is as solid and well-reasoned as Kc's about gays. I know a shit ton of people who loathe Mexicans and I'm sure many who enlist do so because there are no more good manufacturing or plant jobs. A Mexican can pass just like a gay person can too. Apparently we should institute policies that protect the worst kind of people and demands nothing better of them, rather than being sensible, fair, and right.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I'm with Heart Collector. People are going to have to do what they did when women started fighting in combat: grow the fuck up and learn to accept it. Anybody who feels like their service is somehow less significant or tainted because they're fighting with an openly gay person does not truly believe in the cause they're fighting for, because otherwise they would be more concerned with more important matters....like winning the war. Just because some Faulknerian country idiot objects doesn't mean it will be a detriment to the cause. There are soldiers fighting in Iraq right now who don't even agree with the war. I'm sure their service doesn't alleviate anything, but that doesn't mean you send them home.

[MadsenOMC]

Don't know what you're implying here. But thanks for reading.

I thought it was a poor choice of words on your part.