Slog
News & ArtsFriday, February 5, 2010
Homo / War Interview with a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army Reserve about DADT
Posted by Christopher Frizzelle on Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Here's another conversation about Don't Ask, Don't Tell between a gay guy and an active-duty service-member. (I had a similar conversation with my brother earlier this week.)
Jon Brock, an intern at The Stranger, had a conversation over Facebook chat the other day with a friend, Chris, who's a 2LT in the United States Army Reserve. They've known each other since middle school. Chris is stateside now, but he was previously an enlisted soldier deployed to Iraq in 2004 and 2005, stationed in Nasiriyah. He's a conservative, a college graduate, and he's been in the Army since 2001. He has consented to having his thoughts published.
The text of this chat is unedited, though it begins midstream. It's after the jump.
Chris
Frankly, I understand both sides of the argument. But the reasons that this policy are in place is to keep unit cohesion and not deter from the mission. There are many homosexuals serving in the military and with distinction. It is no different if you worked at a law firm or were public figure, you're personal life has no place in the work environment.
there are similar polices for police departments/fire. which have the same reasoning
8:00 pmJon
can you name some? i'm interested into verifying that information.
and if someone worked for a law firm, they would not be fired if they mentioned, in whatever manner, that they were homosexual. unless, of course, the person responsible for hiring/firing has a personal issue with it, and decides to fire the person.
8:02 pmJon
and, forgive my ignorance on unit composition, but if you and your unit were on a mission, would you fall apart if you knew one of your fellow soldiers was gay? or a lesbian?
8:03 pmChris
law firm bad example. but in public/government agencies, your personal life really does not have a place
8:04 pmJon
you could say that of any job. that one is suppose to leave their personal issues at home. however, people in public service are not being fired because they are gay. the exception being the military.
8:04 pmChris
unit cohesion/composition can be affected by numerous thigns. which could include someone talking too much about their homosexuality. or the same way that a heterosexual would talk about fucking some other guys wife
8:05 pmJon
so you just admitted that it's indistinguishable. a straight guy talking too much about fucking some girl is just as bad as some guy talking too much about fucking a guy. right? but there is no law in place preventing that heterosexual male from serving.
8:05 pmChris
and it is very different issue in the military with people living together. not many jobs require you to live with strangers
in some cases it is indistinguishable
8:06 pmJon
i understand that aspect. but again, could you not sleep at night if you knew the guy one bunk over was gay?
that would imply that one has the ingrained notion that we're predatorial.
if a gay guy is in the military, he's there for a reason. and it is not to make passes on other guys.
8:07 pmChris
i personally would be fine. BUT there are cases where homosexuals have made advances to guys. this is not cool in an all male environment
8:08 pmJon
have there been instances where male soldiers have made advances on women soldiers? would that be cool for those in an all female environment, if separated that way?
8:08 pmChris
There are fraternization policies for male/female which prohibit this kind of action
thats where the dont ask dont tell policy kinda falls under
you can have relationships with other members of the military if they are not in your direct chain of command/ and or unit
8:09 pmJon
the downside to that is that it is attempting to work as a discretionary advisory, but instead it acts as a basis for immediate termination.
8:11 pmChris
another aspect to this is safety. it sucks that it has happened. but gays who come out in the military have gotten hurt. obviously the people were punished
this also happens outside the military
8:12 pmJon
then that matter needs to be addressed directly, not by further dehumanizing us and pushing us out of the military.
that makes us the perpetrator, not the victim.
8:13 pmChris
its hard to explain but there some serious policies in place on the subject of fraternization, talking about personal stuff, sexual orientation
8:13 pmJon
that's the classic "well, if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have dressed like that" argument.
8:14 pmChris
even a heterosexual who talks about inapproiate topics have been fires
fired
8:14 pmJon
yes, but for their action, not just BEING of a different sexual orientation.
okay, i have to go, so i will give you the last remark.
8:15 pmChris
i understand that. and you can be homosexual in the military, you just don't tell people. i know it sucks but it thats how it is and it's their for legit reasons to keep everyone happy and not force homosexuals out
i just don't like it when gays think that they have no right to be in the military when in fact they do
8:16 pmJon
i understand the point you're trying to make, i think it is more sympathetic than other conservatives would argue, but i still disagree. thank you for the lively debate.
8:17 pmChris
your welcome. until next time
8:17 pm
2
I wish the politicians, pundits and reporters could be as civil as these two when covering controversial issues. I do believe that I have a better understanding of the complexity of the policy, and what it will take to change the culture now - so thanks!
3
LOL.
The UK changed policy in a day.
Canada changed policy in two days.
Are you SERIOUSLY telling me it takes us YEARS to change policy?
By the way, the first units to stop discriminating INCREASED combat efficiency - at least in the UK and Canada ...
The UK changed policy in a day.
Canada changed policy in two days.
Are you SERIOUSLY telling me it takes us YEARS to change policy?
By the way, the first units to stop discriminating INCREASED combat efficiency - at least in the UK and Canada ...
5
I love that our soldiers are so fragile and their psyches so weak that the mere thought that there may be a homosexual lurking behind a door or in a bunk can damage them.
Thank god we don't ask them to do anything difficult.
Thank god we don't ask them to do anything difficult.
6
I want to know what Chris' response is to the statistic that over 1/3 of women who have chosen to serve in the armed forces have been sexually assaulted or raped. Should they just drop out? Do they deserve it? Is it their fault for, you know, being female?
And some of the nastiest sex talk I've ever heard is from enlisted guys, they talk about sex constantly and in some cases, an incredibly degrading way. But it's always in a heterosexual context, so that's okay, but some guy one bunk over who gets a stiffie for Neil Patrick Harris is a complete detriment to national safety?
And some of the nastiest sex talk I've ever heard is from enlisted guys, they talk about sex constantly and in some cases, an incredibly degrading way. But it's always in a heterosexual context, so that's okay, but some guy one bunk over who gets a stiffie for Neil Patrick Harris is a complete detriment to national safety?
7
These thoughts from service members about DADT aren't really relevant. If you'd asked them 40 years ago what they thought about allowing blacks into the military you'd have gotten a lot of opposition. People aren't comfortable with change. That's nothing new. They'll adjust. It's not their call to make.
8
...Gays do NOT have a right to be in the military. the most discreet gay person ever could still be kicked out if someone sees them, ontheir personal time, engaging in activities that implicate them as homosexual. ARGH
9
Perhaps I should be clearer there. Chris' agument that gays can serve is really, really misguided.
11
At my old consulting firm, I worked with a gay guy who was "out, but not really." Anybody who knew him for more than a few weeks could figure out that he was gay, but he never talked about his romantic life. Never dates, never boyfriends, whatever. And our practice was pretty liberal and knew each other very well (we went out drinking and pretty frequently, etc.). He was a fairly senior guy in the firm, and I always wondered if his silence was because he just didn't want to talk about his romantic life, or because he was afraid it would hurt his career (the rest of the firm was perhaps not as liberal as our practice was). Meanwhile, my assistant was also gay and we talked all the time about what he and his partner were up to -- in the casual kind of idle chit-chat way that co-workers do (e.g., what did you and Randy do this weekend?).
How does this relate to DADT? Well... the "your personal life has no place in the work environment" comment... The difference is that my co-worker would not have been fired if he had let it slip that he had a boyfriend. It seems like some in the military think that when DADT is repealed all the gay people are going to make a big fucking deal about how they're gay (they're going to drag their personal life into their professional life). I strongly suspect that even when DADT is repealed, that many gays will act just like my co-worker -- "out, but not really". Or like my assistant, who didn't go around talking about fucking guys, but about how he and his partner went to their lake house or whatever. In other words, like normal people.
How does this relate to DADT? Well... the "your personal life has no place in the work environment" comment... The difference is that my co-worker would not have been fired if he had let it slip that he had a boyfriend. It seems like some in the military think that when DADT is repealed all the gay people are going to make a big fucking deal about how they're gay (they're going to drag their personal life into their professional life). I strongly suspect that even when DADT is repealed, that many gays will act just like my co-worker -- "out, but not really". Or like my assistant, who didn't go around talking about fucking guys, but about how he and his partner went to their lake house or whatever. In other words, like normal people.
12
i'm all for giving DADT the boot, but it is starting to make me mad that anti-DADT folks don't give more serious consideration to the issue that soldiers are living together in close quarters. you just can't compare that to any 9 -5 job back home. give these guys that. at least when "everyone" is heterosexual, they really really don't have to worry about modesty, emotional issues of a certain type, etc.
i do think with a little work, it could and should all be fine. but c'mon, that's going to be hard from some folks, and the cohabitation bit about the military makes it not "just like any old job" where discrimination is illegal. some people brush this issue aside like it doesn't exist, or shouldn't exist.
can someone in the military tell me if men and women are commonly housed together in close quarters? if they are, then maybe this is moot.
i do think with a little work, it could and should all be fine. but c'mon, that's going to be hard from some folks, and the cohabitation bit about the military makes it not "just like any old job" where discrimination is illegal. some people brush this issue aside like it doesn't exist, or shouldn't exist.
can someone in the military tell me if men and women are commonly housed together in close quarters? if they are, then maybe this is moot.
13
@5 hahhaa, nice.... It seems that all this hype about unit cohesion etc is coming from a male-only perspective. Can we get some female views on this? Do the women in the military feel the same way these men do (jane might jump mary in the middle of the night because now that she's allowed to be out shes obviously predetory)?
PERHAPS this comes down (unfortunately) to an irrational fear/loathing/misunderstanding/homophobic view of gay sex, and not so much sexual orientation. If the military really stood by its policies and standards they would repeal DADT and enact severe consequences for fraternization for ALL people (it sounds like that's what they rely on to deter male/female relationships, just beef it up a bit for all those loose homosexuals).
PERHAPS this comes down (unfortunately) to an irrational fear/loathing/misunderstanding/homophobic view of gay sex, and not so much sexual orientation. If the military really stood by its policies and standards they would repeal DADT and enact severe consequences for fraternization for ALL people (it sounds like that's what they rely on to deter male/female relationships, just beef it up a bit for all those loose homosexuals).
14
One thing about DADT that I've never understood: Somebody earnestly obeys the rules: Nobody asked, and they didn't tell -- yet they get kicked out anyway because SOMEBODY ELSE told.
Seems like the policy should've been called more accurately: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Don't Anybody Else Tell Either. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding something.
Seems like the policy should've been called more accurately: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Don't Anybody Else Tell Either. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding something.
17
@13 - "unit cohesion" is military code for "kicking out all the uppity lesbians".
If you actually look at the real numbers, and project the percentages, you realize that DADT is used more often on an actively serving lesbian - or a woman who turned down a male request for sexual favors - than it is on the average gay male soldier.
One of the dirty little secrets they don't admit.
Man, the things I could tell you from all the unit personnel files and charge sheets that got buried ...
If you actually look at the real numbers, and project the percentages, you realize that DADT is used more often on an actively serving lesbian - or a woman who turned down a male request for sexual favors - than it is on the average gay male soldier.
One of the dirty little secrets they don't admit.
Man, the things I could tell you from all the unit personnel files and charge sheets that got buried ...
18
Lame. He's just spouting the conservative line: "hurts unit cohesion", without even understanding what it means. That and blaming the victim. The gays make him some people uncomfortable. So in order to make those people comfortable, lets not allow any (known) gays.
19
I will admit up front that I could only read about half of this conversation and the one previously posted by Christopher Frizzelle.
Why you ask? Because it doesn't and shouldn't matter what one or two junior officers or one or two enlisted men think when our politicians are deciding to change military policy. When Truman desegregated the Army in the middle part of the last century do you think the majority of white soldiers were comfortable with the decision? Military officers, enlisted men, Congressman, Senators, members of the public, screamed to high heaven about unit cohesion and degradation of fighting ability if those white men had to bunk with black men. Did any of the dire predictions come true? NO. Our military remained as effective as ever in carrying out their missions. Truman ended the racist policy of segregation because it was the right thing to do.
The policy of DADT should be ended because it is discriminatory and does more harm than good to the armed forces. Those serving in the military are trained to take orders. Will there be some challenges, sure there will be, but I am pretty confident that the military will adjust just like they adjusted to women serving in a multitude of roles and blacks serving in non-segregated units. Change is always scary, but the military will eventually man-up and deal with this in a professional and soldiery manner. So is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff.
Why you ask? Because it doesn't and shouldn't matter what one or two junior officers or one or two enlisted men think when our politicians are deciding to change military policy. When Truman desegregated the Army in the middle part of the last century do you think the majority of white soldiers were comfortable with the decision? Military officers, enlisted men, Congressman, Senators, members of the public, screamed to high heaven about unit cohesion and degradation of fighting ability if those white men had to bunk with black men. Did any of the dire predictions come true? NO. Our military remained as effective as ever in carrying out their missions. Truman ended the racist policy of segregation because it was the right thing to do.
The policy of DADT should be ended because it is discriminatory and does more harm than good to the armed forces. Those serving in the military are trained to take orders. Will there be some challenges, sure there will be, but I am pretty confident that the military will adjust just like they adjusted to women serving in a multitude of roles and blacks serving in non-segregated units. Change is always scary, but the military will eventually man-up and deal with this in a professional and soldiery manner. So is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff.
20
Onion @12, your argument doesn't hold water.
Yes, military people sometimes have to live together in close quarters, share tents, community showers, etc. And yes, it would undoubtedly make a few homophobic people uncomfortable if they could no longer pretend that 100% of their tent-mates are straight (which has never actually been true anyway).
But the same was true in the late 1940s. I'm sure it was very uncomfortable for some racist white soldiers to have to share tents and showers with blacks.
No rational person today would argue that we shouldn't have integrated blacks because it made some soldiers uncomfortable to share tents and showers with them. And we shouldn't use that excuse to exclude gays today.
Yes, military people sometimes have to live together in close quarters, share tents, community showers, etc. And yes, it would undoubtedly make a few homophobic people uncomfortable if they could no longer pretend that 100% of their tent-mates are straight (which has never actually been true anyway).
But the same was true in the late 1940s. I'm sure it was very uncomfortable for some racist white soldiers to have to share tents and showers with blacks.
No rational person today would argue that we shouldn't have integrated blacks because it made some soldiers uncomfortable to share tents and showers with them. And we shouldn't use that excuse to exclude gays today.
21
This is the dumbest argument ever (the whole "should we repeal DADT", not this specific exchange).
The arguments against de-segregating the army were similar, and did we wait until all the enlisted men were comfortable before doing that? Hell no.
The arguments against giving women the right to vote were similar, and did we wait until all the men were comfortable before doing that? Nope.
17 states still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books when Loving v. Virginia was decided. More importantly, public opinion, even in states where interracial marriage was legal, was solidly (75%) opposed to interracial marriage.
But now we've got a situation where we've got to wait for the bigots to all die off or change their minds, and where 52% of Californians can deny equal rights to gays - or 51% of Washingtonians can prevent progressive change - but 59 Senators representing 60+% of the US population aren't allowed to pass a damn thing benefiting Americans. Worst of all possible worlds, you know?
The arguments against de-segregating the army were similar, and did we wait until all the enlisted men were comfortable before doing that? Hell no.
The arguments against giving women the right to vote were similar, and did we wait until all the men were comfortable before doing that? Nope.
17 states still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books when Loving v. Virginia was decided. More importantly, public opinion, even in states where interracial marriage was legal, was solidly (75%) opposed to interracial marriage.
But now we've got a situation where we've got to wait for the bigots to all die off or change their minds, and where 52% of Californians can deny equal rights to gays - or 51% of Washingtonians can prevent progressive change - but 59 Senators representing 60+% of the US population aren't allowed to pass a damn thing benefiting Americans. Worst of all possible worlds, you know?
22
I suspect most of them will remain in the closet. The military will not guarantee their safety any more than it guarantees the safety of female servicemembers.
when DADT is repealed, that many gays will act just like my co-worker -- "out, but not really".
I suspect most of them will remain in the closet. The military will not guarantee their safety any more than it guarantees the safety of female servicemembers.
23
@19 & @20, good stuff.
What I don’t get here is why this conversation is any different than the decision to allow women to serve? Dealing with the issues of women in the service has got to be much more difficult than gays. The only reason why it’s any different is that we as a society believe that discrimination against women is no longer acceptable (well, let’s say 90%+ do), but we haven’t reached that point with gays.
What I don’t get here is why this conversation is any different than the decision to allow women to serve? Dealing with the issues of women in the service has got to be much more difficult than gays. The only reason why it’s any different is that we as a society believe that discrimination against women is no longer acceptable (well, let’s say 90%+ do), but we haven’t reached that point with gays.
24
reverse polarity, so do you think heterosexual women and heterosexual men should be housed together in close quarters in the military?
again, i think DADT is an unfair policy. i'm not "arguing" for retaining DADT. this issue of cohabitating with individuals who could be sexually interested in one another can be overcome, but saying this is a "non-issue" just isn't true. ESPECIALLY if you are gonna stick with a policy of separation of the sexes. it's just hypocrisy.
again, i think DADT is an unfair policy. i'm not "arguing" for retaining DADT. this issue of cohabitating with individuals who could be sexually interested in one another can be overcome, but saying this is a "non-issue" just isn't true. ESPECIALLY if you are gonna stick with a policy of separation of the sexes. it's just hypocrisy.
25
I wonder what an average soldier might have said about serving with African Americans before they desegregated the military. I realize that the issues aren't quite the same, but I think that the mindset off the average soldier might have been comparable.
26
@ 24 Your argument is Gay Panic and nothing more. Gay men are not sexual predators, as you seem to think, that will pounce on straight soldiers because they are "housed together in close quarters." If they were they would be pouncing right now as there is probably at least one closeted solider in every barracks the military currently maintains.
There are serious personal safety issues when discussing cohabitation between men and women. The issues are NOT the same when discussing gay men and straight men bunking together. Gay men do not routinely if ever rape straight men. Straight men routinely rape women. Or are statistics of sexual assault "just hypocrisy?"
The fact of the matter is the armed forces of our allies such as England, France, Germany, and Israel, among many others, allow gay men and straight men to sleep in the same barracks. They also allow for separation of the sexes, my guess is because of safety issues. Last time I checked man on man rape was not rampant in any of those organizations.
You and your friends in the military need to get over the icky feelings you have toward gay sex and grow-up. Change is coming and your queasiness and transparent homophobic arguments will not stop it.
There are serious personal safety issues when discussing cohabitation between men and women. The issues are NOT the same when discussing gay men and straight men bunking together. Gay men do not routinely if ever rape straight men. Straight men routinely rape women. Or are statistics of sexual assault "just hypocrisy?"
The fact of the matter is the armed forces of our allies such as England, France, Germany, and Israel, among many others, allow gay men and straight men to sleep in the same barracks. They also allow for separation of the sexes, my guess is because of safety issues. Last time I checked man on man rape was not rampant in any of those organizations.
You and your friends in the military need to get over the icky feelings you have toward gay sex and grow-up. Change is coming and your queasiness and transparent homophobic arguments will not stop it.
27
Who gives a shit what he thinks! This is why we have civilian control over the military and we don't live in some goddamn banana republic.
When I was in the military I hated dealing with Christian Fundamentalists. Guess what, I fucking coped; I didn't whine about it.
Chris, if you don't like the soon to be new policy then don't re-enlist.
As for the "close quarters" argument: what a bunch of BS. For one thing, unless you are in a forward combat area, most jobs in the military are a 9-5 type job. You do your work and then you go home.
I'm not sure about combat areas, but when I did annual training women and men did sleep in the same barracks and tents. It was no big deal.
Just because a person is gay doesn't mean that he is going to be attracted to other men in his platoon, and it definitely doesn't mean that he would ever attempt to act on it. There's no place for that in a combat area. The rules already are in place for heterosexual soldiers of the opposite sex working alongside each other; having those same rules also apply to homosexuals is not a big deal.
When I was in the military I hated dealing with Christian Fundamentalists. Guess what, I fucking coped; I didn't whine about it.
Chris, if you don't like the soon to be new policy then don't re-enlist.
As for the "close quarters" argument: what a bunch of BS. For one thing, unless you are in a forward combat area, most jobs in the military are a 9-5 type job. You do your work and then you go home.
I'm not sure about combat areas, but when I did annual training women and men did sleep in the same barracks and tents. It was no big deal.
Just because a person is gay doesn't mean that he is going to be attracted to other men in his platoon, and it definitely doesn't mean that he would ever attempt to act on it. There's no place for that in a combat area. The rules already are in place for heterosexual soldiers of the opposite sex working alongside each other; having those same rules also apply to homosexuals is not a big deal.
28
Onion, I was in the military. I did two enlistments. I spent years sharing barracks and showers. Amazingly, I never sexually assaulted any of my straight brethren.
This was way back even before DADT (I'm old). But if I had been allowed to serve openly, nothing would have been any different. Why? Because I'm not in the habit of hitting on nervous straight guys in the showers. Because it isn't acceptable behavior, in the military or out. I get a much better response if I hit on other actual gay men. That would not change, regardless of whether the military allowed me to serve openly, or required me to stay in the closet.
This was way back even before DADT (I'm old). But if I had been allowed to serve openly, nothing would have been any different. Why? Because I'm not in the habit of hitting on nervous straight guys in the showers. Because it isn't acceptable behavior, in the military or out. I get a much better response if I hit on other actual gay men. That would not change, regardless of whether the military allowed me to serve openly, or required me to stay in the closet.
29
@12, 24
Mr Onion,
Yes women and men are often housed during training in the same barracks.
Again I do not have experience being in a combat area (thank God!) so I don't know the situation there.
What I do know is that during basic training we had less than five minutes to shower. We were all too busy and too scared shitless to check out other guys or to care about other guys checking us out.
And again, gays are no more predatory than heterosexual men. There are already laws against unwanted advances and harassment. Having gays and lesbians be open about their sexuality doesn't change anything.
But maybe you are saying that American men cannot be trusted in such situations? Is that what you are alluding to?
I take offense to that notion (being an American male) but I do know that many American males are immature when it comes to sex and sexuality.
The only anecdotal story I have is from a woman I use to date who served with the US Army in Somalia. She told me how she preferred to hang out with soldiers from the Indian Army rather than her fellow Americans, who would often harass her. She mentioned that US Marine helicopters would often fly over the shower area when women soldiers were showering.
That disgusted me. There is no place for such shenanigans in the military. Hopefully, because of more women soldiers and officers (especially in combat), the situation is better now.
Anyway, gay men and women have as much right to serve their nation as straight men and women. Those that harass other soldiers, regardless of the reasons, need to be weeded out.
Mr Onion,
Yes women and men are often housed during training in the same barracks.
Again I do not have experience being in a combat area (thank God!) so I don't know the situation there.
What I do know is that during basic training we had less than five minutes to shower. We were all too busy and too scared shitless to check out other guys or to care about other guys checking us out.
And again, gays are no more predatory than heterosexual men. There are already laws against unwanted advances and harassment. Having gays and lesbians be open about their sexuality doesn't change anything.
But maybe you are saying that American men cannot be trusted in such situations? Is that what you are alluding to?
I take offense to that notion (being an American male) but I do know that many American males are immature when it comes to sex and sexuality.
The only anecdotal story I have is from a woman I use to date who served with the US Army in Somalia. She told me how she preferred to hang out with soldiers from the Indian Army rather than her fellow Americans, who would often harass her. She mentioned that US Marine helicopters would often fly over the shower area when women soldiers were showering.
That disgusted me. There is no place for such shenanigans in the military. Hopefully, because of more women soldiers and officers (especially in combat), the situation is better now.
Anyway, gay men and women have as much right to serve their nation as straight men and women. Those that harass other soldiers, regardless of the reasons, need to be weeded out.
30
Chris says " . BUT there are cases where homosexuals have made advances to guys. this is not cool in an all male environment"
If DADT was repealed and gay soldiers were allowed to be open about their sexuality, they would know which other soldiers were gay and NOT HIT ON THE STRAIGHT ONES.
If DADT was repealed and gay soldiers were allowed to be open about their sexuality, they would know which other soldiers were gay and NOT HIT ON THE STRAIGHT ONES.
31
Blind squirrel, meet acorn - Will @17 actually made a true statement. Lesbians are far more likely to be kicked out of the armed forces under DADT than gay men. "The disparity was particularly striking in the Air Force, where women represented 20 percent of all personnel but 61 percent of those expelled."
So all this gay panic about dropping the soap in the showers is just that: fear and ignorance.
Another large group of servicemen and women who are not at risk of being gayed up in the barracks are the many non-combat troops, who push paper, not bayonets. Remember all those gay Arabic analysts we fired? Those guys weren't trying to get into your ass in the shower; they were trying to SAVE YOUR FUCKING LIVES.
Such a stupid argument.
So all this gay panic about dropping the soap in the showers is just that: fear and ignorance.
Another large group of servicemen and women who are not at risk of being gayed up in the barracks are the many non-combat troops, who push paper, not bayonets. Remember all those gay Arabic analysts we fired? Those guys weren't trying to get into your ass in the shower; they were trying to SAVE YOUR FUCKING LIVES.
Such a stupid argument.
32
Why is it that so many people have a really difficult time understanding that even though a word sounds the same It don't mean the same thing! They're, there and their are different words that have different meanings. Sheesh! It's called a homophone. Deal with it.
33
26 danindowntown - holy shit your reading comprehension really sucks.
1) i think dadt should be repealed because it blatantly bigoted and homophobic (how many times do i have to say that?) i think gays should serve openly! WOOT! :)
2) i'm asking an honest question about cohabitation rules because I am NOT in the military and I don't know the answers. I admit that! shit!
I really really really didn't know the answer to "why hetero men and women don't cohabitate" in the military out on front lines. Or if sometimes they do. I THANK YOU ALL for informing me why not. I also thank you for informing me that while in training, they DO COHABITATE.
Apparently in instances where the sexes ARE separated it is because heterosexual men will rape or coerce or bully women? A couple of you suggested that is the reason. It is to protect women, you say. Because HETERO men are the big nasties.
And some of you say that while it is a problem for heterosexual men to come on to women in the military, it is either a) not likely that homosexual men will make passes at the objects of their desire or, b) if it does happen, it is not a problem, because the asymmetries that exist between men and women don't exist between men and men.
Thank you! Thanks for enlightening me! That's all I wanted!
Repeal DADT! (I really mean that)
sheesh.
(again - it just seemed a little funny that there is an acceptance of non-integration of hetero men and women, but an expectation that heteros and gay/lesbians should completely integrate. but apparently hetero men and women ARE integrating. so the logic can be applied in all instances. integrate hetero men and homo men, integrate hetero women and lesbians, integrate hetero men and hetero women. integrate homo men and lesbians. COOL.)
More...
1) i think dadt should be repealed because it blatantly bigoted and homophobic (how many times do i have to say that?) i think gays should serve openly! WOOT! :)
2) i'm asking an honest question about cohabitation rules because I am NOT in the military and I don't know the answers. I admit that! shit!
I really really really didn't know the answer to "why hetero men and women don't cohabitate" in the military out on front lines. Or if sometimes they do. I THANK YOU ALL for informing me why not. I also thank you for informing me that while in training, they DO COHABITATE.
Apparently in instances where the sexes ARE separated it is because heterosexual men will rape or coerce or bully women? A couple of you suggested that is the reason. It is to protect women, you say. Because HETERO men are the big nasties.
And some of you say that while it is a problem for heterosexual men to come on to women in the military, it is either a) not likely that homosexual men will make passes at the objects of their desire or, b) if it does happen, it is not a problem, because the asymmetries that exist between men and women don't exist between men and men.
Thank you! Thanks for enlightening me! That's all I wanted!
Repeal DADT! (I really mean that)
sheesh.
(again - it just seemed a little funny that there is an acceptance of non-integration of hetero men and women, but an expectation that heteros and gay/lesbians should completely integrate. but apparently hetero men and women ARE integrating. so the logic can be applied in all instances. integrate hetero men and homo men, integrate hetero women and lesbians, integrate hetero men and hetero women. integrate homo men and lesbians. COOL.)
34
Aside from the small problem that he doesn't seem to want it applied equally, Chris's first statement is all that should really matters here:
"There are many homosexuals serving in the military and with distinction. It is no different if you worked at a law firm or were public figure, you're personal life has no place in the work environment. "
35
@6 & @16, that's an argument against ending DADT. If I were this guy and you asked me about women and sexual assault, I'd say "exactly, we tried to tell you 20 years ago (or whenever) that allowing women in the military was a bad idea, and look how well that turned out! Listen to us this time."
When trying to get a controversial policy changed, emphasizing how poorly a past controversial policy change turned out usually isn't the best strategy.
I don't agree, and the reasoning Chris offers is even more bullshit than Frizzelle's brother gave. I'm just saying your reasoning sucks too.
When trying to get a controversial policy changed, emphasizing how poorly a past controversial policy change turned out usually isn't the best strategy.
I don't agree, and the reasoning Chris offers is even more bullshit than Frizzelle's brother gave. I'm just saying your reasoning sucks too.
36
You know, after a hard day of flying drones over /P/a/k/iAfghanistan, there's nothing worse than realizing that the radio operator on the ground and the guy in the drone flying near you are gay.
Seriously.
How can you work in an environment like that?
It reminds me of fighter pilots. All enclosed by their lonesomes, having to worry if the guy in the plane next to them had a picture of his boyfriend instead of a picture of his girlfriend.
(this is sarcasm, in case you're not paying attention and think the modern military can't cope)
Seriously.
How can you work in an environment like that?
It reminds me of fighter pilots. All enclosed by their lonesomes, having to worry if the guy in the plane next to them had a picture of his boyfriend instead of a picture of his girlfriend.
(this is sarcasm, in case you're not paying attention and think the modern military can't cope)
37
Hey ONION.... Gays currently serve in the military.
The discussion isn't about letting them in with the real he-men--- they are there already.
The discussion is about letting them serve without having to lie etc.
Society already knows what will happen when gay guys live in the same barracks as straight guys. Not much.
The discussion isn't about letting them in with the real he-men--- they are there already.
The discussion is about letting them serve without having to lie etc.
Society already knows what will happen when gay guys live in the same barracks as straight guys. Not much.
38
OK people. Listen up. I'm tired of all you stuck-up western washington liberals who are so close-minded. The military is not in the business of pleasing the personel first. MISSION comes first and the needs of the country. Now is not the time to be changing policy when we are in the midst of a global war on terrorism with more than 4 theatre of operations. The "DADT" policy, put in place by your beloved President Clinton, stopped the ban on homosexuals in the military. He made it possible for homosexuals to be able to serve but not reveal their sexual orientation because: "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." THIS is exactly what is at risk. I have been in the battlefield with men and women (yes women), and that last thing we soldiers want to know is that someone has homosexual tendencies or thoughts. I spoke with another soldier today who told me she was constantly "hit" on by another female soldier during training. She was assigned a two person sleeping quarter. This is NOT acceptable!
For all of you people who are confused about the living conditions and rules, here is it. Men and Women in the military live SEPERATELY. Unless you are married, you must live on base in housing barracks. You are assigned with soldiers in your same unit, and same sex. This is to ensure that no environment for fraternization can grow. Fraternization is strictly regulated and almost forbidden. Now, if homosexuals are allowed to freely express their sexual orientation etc, then this can create another strain on the command and structure of units. NOW commanders will need to create other living quarters for homosexuals (male and female) to seperate them from heterosexuals in an effort to aviod further FRATERNIZATION. That is the whole point. So in an essense, by allowing homosexuals to serve, you are creating the possibility of further segregation of indivuduals within the military.
The military is not a place to find romance. It's a place to serve your country and to fight for those who can not. But human nature always gets in the way. Thats were regulations keep soldiers from harrasing each other, dicriminating each other, and so forth. Of course dumb soldiers will always break the rules and they are penalized. BUT these rules are in place for good reason. As a commander, I don't want to have to come up with living quarters for straight men, gay men, gay women, and straight women. Then come up with showers and bathrooms for the same. This will put a giant strain on resources and weaken our military.
Since most of you will disagree with me, it's because you haven't had the guts to join and serve your country.
More...
For all of you people who are confused about the living conditions and rules, here is it. Men and Women in the military live SEPERATELY. Unless you are married, you must live on base in housing barracks. You are assigned with soldiers in your same unit, and same sex. This is to ensure that no environment for fraternization can grow. Fraternization is strictly regulated and almost forbidden. Now, if homosexuals are allowed to freely express their sexual orientation etc, then this can create another strain on the command and structure of units. NOW commanders will need to create other living quarters for homosexuals (male and female) to seperate them from heterosexuals in an effort to aviod further FRATERNIZATION. That is the whole point. So in an essense, by allowing homosexuals to serve, you are creating the possibility of further segregation of indivuduals within the military.
The military is not a place to find romance. It's a place to serve your country and to fight for those who can not. But human nature always gets in the way. Thats were regulations keep soldiers from harrasing each other, dicriminating each other, and so forth. Of course dumb soldiers will always break the rules and they are penalized. BUT these rules are in place for good reason. As a commander, I don't want to have to come up with living quarters for straight men, gay men, gay women, and straight women. Then come up with showers and bathrooms for the same. This will put a giant strain on resources and weaken our military.
Since most of you will disagree with me, it's because you haven't had the guts to join and serve your country.
39
@Chris84, and what of us who DID have the guts to join and serve who do disagree with your bigoted idiotic ignorant statments?
40
If they get rid of DADT, which if I call was an executive order (right?), do things then revert to the way they were before that when gays were still not allowed in the military except that they were asked upon joining and expected to answer (of course they could still lie about it I suppose and stay closeted)? My point is that DADT was, in fact, a step forward (albeit a tiny one), but I'm in the camp that thinks a much larger step forward is long overdue.
I can't help but think that not long ago these same debates were raging about racial equality. It wasn't legal for people of two different races to marry, non-caucasions (pardon my extra PC-ness, I can't help myself) weren't allowed to serve in the military and then when they were they had to have seperate units for them...and these same reasons why were given then, but when things finally changed the consequenses weren't anywhere near as dire as people thought they would be.
I can't help but think that not long ago these same debates were raging about racial equality. It wasn't legal for people of two different races to marry, non-caucasions (pardon my extra PC-ness, I can't help myself) weren't allowed to serve in the military and then when they were they had to have seperate units for them...and these same reasons why were given then, but when things finally changed the consequenses weren't anywhere near as dire as people thought they would be.
41
@ Akbar, if you did serve in the military, i commend you for your patriotism. But my statements are not idiotic or ignorant. AGAIN, close minded liberals, like yourself, failed to see any of the facts I stated which explain why the DADT is a good policy.
42
@ 41 Even when judged by the low standards of SLOG trolling you can only be classified as a dip shit.
@ 33 My reading comprehension is just as accurate as that of everyone else that has taken you to task for your asinine questions.
@ 33 My reading comprehension is just as accurate as that of everyone else that has taken you to task for your asinine questions.
43
Danindowntown, are you a sociology professor? Because you seem to be able to judge others so well... I love it how ignorant, close-minded, idiotic, tree-hugging liberals can never see past their own little world on capitol hill and msnbc. Anytime conservatives make a reasonable argument or comment, the immediate response is "you're a bigot", or "you're a dip shit".
Is everyone ignoring the facts I posted earlier regarding the cons of abolishing the "DADT" policy? Or is everyone so set on this "change"? And frankly our Allies in Europe might have different policies regarding homosexuals in their armed forces, but those are different countries. Those small armies do not compare to the sheer size of our military and we can not afford to just change policy from one day to another like they have.
And when you commented earlier regarding "it doesn't and shouldn't matter what one or two junior officers or one or two enlisted men think when our politicians are deciding to change military policy", it's those junior officers like myself that need to deal with these policy changes that come down from the politicians. So don't comment on shit you have no idea about and never will. Because you're comfortable in your capitol hill apartment, watching msnbc, and bitching that the world "owes" you something.
Is everyone ignoring the facts I posted earlier regarding the cons of abolishing the "DADT" policy? Or is everyone so set on this "change"? And frankly our Allies in Europe might have different policies regarding homosexuals in their armed forces, but those are different countries. Those small armies do not compare to the sheer size of our military and we can not afford to just change policy from one day to another like they have.
And when you commented earlier regarding "it doesn't and shouldn't matter what one or two junior officers or one or two enlisted men think when our politicians are deciding to change military policy", it's those junior officers like myself that need to deal with these policy changes that come down from the politicians. So don't comment on shit you have no idea about and never will. Because you're comfortable in your capitol hill apartment, watching msnbc, and bitching that the world "owes" you something.
44
Chris84, the recruiters lied. It's really not an army of one. You're not the only one in the army, and some of your buddies way higher up in the chain of command have already testified they support the repealing of DADT.
45
@43, I don't think anyone is advocating changing policy from one day to another, but much like desegregation be a multiyear process.
I don't see any problem with the living situations, we already have mixed gender living arraignments on most FOBs. General Order No. 1 would still apply equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals.
As for back in the rear just make it so EVERYONE has to be out of the Bs at 0200, regardless of sex. Yeah, it'd make more of a hassle for CQ having to log everyone in and out, but they need something to do to keep them awake anyway. And don't females live in the same barracks as males in POG units?
Yes, some people aren't going to like serving with openly gay dudes, but our fighting men and women are pretty damn good at adapting and overcoming. That's the game of the game isn't it?
I don't see any problem with the living situations, we already have mixed gender living arraignments on most FOBs. General Order No. 1 would still apply equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals.
As for back in the rear just make it so EVERYONE has to be out of the Bs at 0200, regardless of sex. Yeah, it'd make more of a hassle for CQ having to log everyone in and out, but they need something to do to keep them awake anyway. And don't females live in the same barracks as males in POG units?
Yes, some people aren't going to like serving with openly gay dudes, but our fighting men and women are pretty damn good at adapting and overcoming. That's the game of the game isn't it?
46
One more reason that separate living arrangements according to sexual orientation wouldn't work: bisexuality. Just saying.
Chris84: We are at war in two different countries, which is exactly why we need all the troops we can get. Isn't that so? Losing Arabic translators and well-seasoned soldiers sounds like it would be a weakness to me, anyway. My ex-girlfriend, who has studied upwards of six languages, really wanted to join the army as a translator, but it sounds as though you wouldn't want her to join? That kind of confuses me.
DADT limits our troops when we're mired in two wars. I think it's a threat to national security, personally.
Chris84: We are at war in two different countries, which is exactly why we need all the troops we can get. Isn't that so? Losing Arabic translators and well-seasoned soldiers sounds like it would be a weakness to me, anyway. My ex-girlfriend, who has studied upwards of six languages, really wanted to join the army as a translator, but it sounds as though you wouldn't want her to join? That kind of confuses me.
DADT limits our troops when we're mired in two wars. I think it's a threat to national security, personally.
47
@ #43 - Said, "Anytime conservatives make a reasonable argument or comment, the immediate response is "you're a bigot", or "you're a dip shit"."
Response - Show me a conservative making a reasonable argument or comment, regarding gays and lesbians that isn't based on even the slightest bit of bigotry, fear or hate, then we might have something to discuss. I just love how you "conservatives" cry "we're not bigots," yet you never want to progress forward or change, and just keep the status quo. I thank God daily there are more people in this world that have the spirit of breaking through old barriers and advancing the human race, then those such as you, that truly are regressive in your way of thinking. I imagine you're one of those "conservatives" that complains that you were born 100 years too late.
@ #43 - Also said, "Is everyone ignoring the facts I posted earlier regarding the cons of abolishing the "DADT" policy?"
Response - Helloooo!! Those weren't "facts" you posted. They were "opinions." If they were "facts," then they would also dispute the "facts" that other countries have successfully, and without incident, integrated gays and lesbians into their military just fine.
Man up, little soldier boy. Your fear that all gays and lesbians are predators is unfounded. And frankly, ignorant, as well. You'll be just fine, having a gay soldier sleeping in the bunk next to you. You once thought there were monsters under your bed, but you grew up. It's time you did some more growing.
Response - Show me a conservative making a reasonable argument or comment, regarding gays and lesbians that isn't based on even the slightest bit of bigotry, fear or hate, then we might have something to discuss. I just love how you "conservatives" cry "we're not bigots," yet you never want to progress forward or change, and just keep the status quo. I thank God daily there are more people in this world that have the spirit of breaking through old barriers and advancing the human race, then those such as you, that truly are regressive in your way of thinking. I imagine you're one of those "conservatives" that complains that you were born 100 years too late.
@ #43 - Also said, "Is everyone ignoring the facts I posted earlier regarding the cons of abolishing the "DADT" policy?"
Response - Helloooo!! Those weren't "facts" you posted. They were "opinions." If they were "facts," then they would also dispute the "facts" that other countries have successfully, and without incident, integrated gays and lesbians into their military just fine.
Man up, little soldier boy. Your fear that all gays and lesbians are predators is unfounded. And frankly, ignorant, as well. You'll be just fine, having a gay soldier sleeping in the bunk next to you. You once thought there were monsters under your bed, but you grew up. It's time you did some more growing.
48
The military is an all-volunteer force, and they work for us. If some don't like the possibility that they may "shower with a gay", they can leave, and try to find work in the real world.
Push it through, and when the world doesn't fall apart, the conservatives will just have to find something else to be a victim about.
Push it through, and when the world doesn't fall apart, the conservatives will just have to find something else to be a victim about.
50
Why are people so stupid about gays in the military?
We've ALWAYS been in the military! For thousands of years! Same-sex society: duh!
We don't need "special" rights or accomodations...we're already there and doing fine without separate quarters and showers because we're so sex mad we're liable to fuck/rape all the straight soldiers.
And, I like how the American military is "special"...sure most of the rest of the free world have already dealt with the gay military issue, but the US Army/Navy is unique...we're the most powerful nation in the world because we're scared some OUT, gay guy might want to suck our dick in the middle of a sortie...
We've ALWAYS been in the military! For thousands of years! Same-sex society: duh!
We don't need "special" rights or accomodations...we're already there and doing fine without separate quarters and showers because we're so sex mad we're liable to fuck/rape all the straight soldiers.
And, I like how the American military is "special"...sure most of the rest of the free world have already dealt with the gay military issue, but the US Army/Navy is unique...we're the most powerful nation in the world because we're scared some OUT, gay guy might want to suck our dick in the middle of a sortie...
51
"The military is not in the business of pleasing the personel first"
So those, who have a problem serving with their fellow Americans, who have a different sexual orientation, should shut the fuck up. Right? I mean if the military isn't in the business of pleasing the personnel first, than the opinions of those serving, who oppose homosexuality are irrelevant.
Or did you just mean that the opinions of those who want everyone to serve openly and freely without having to lie about who they are are irrelevant? Isn't that awfully closed-minded of you?
So those, who have a problem serving with their fellow Americans, who have a different sexual orientation, should shut the fuck up. Right? I mean if the military isn't in the business of pleasing the personnel first, than the opinions of those serving, who oppose homosexuality are irrelevant.
Or did you just mean that the opinions of those who want everyone to serve openly and freely without having to lie about who they are are irrelevant? Isn't that awfully closed-minded of you?
52
So what we've established here is that Chris84 isn't professional enough to cope with working with gay guys?
53
@chris_84 I served for six years in the military and the amount of fraternization going on was incredible. In basic training, advanced, permanent duty stations, PLDC, and in the field, there was a whole lot of shenanigans going on at all levels. Yes, it's supposed to be against the rules, but none of it was enforced. The military has a real habit of only enforcing the rules when it suits them.
I speak from experience because I married a fellow soldier in my training unit and the same year there were close to 20 similar marriages (yes, I went to the Defense Love Institute where we teach languages, including the international one). The straights are going at it left and right with no consequences, but the gays can lose their jobs for holding hands in public miles away from base. It makes me sick how we waste resources.
I speak from experience because I married a fellow soldier in my training unit and the same year there were close to 20 similar marriages (yes, I went to the Defense Love Institute where we teach languages, including the international one). The straights are going at it left and right with no consequences, but the gays can lose their jobs for holding hands in public miles away from base. It makes me sick how we waste resources.
54
I don't want to have to come up with living quarters for straight men, gay men, gay women, and straight women.
I guess Chris would like separate water fountains for those gawdam, uppity homos, too.
Newsflash Chris: There are already homos in the military and they don't need segregationist, separate anything.
Duuuuuuuhhhh!
I guess Chris would like separate water fountains for those gawdam, uppity homos, too.
Newsflash Chris: There are already homos in the military and they don't need segregationist, separate anything.
Duuuuuuuhhhh!
55
Chris:
Stop for a second. You're railing against people for not knowing anything about the world you live in, and then baselessly accusing everyone who disagrees with you as being a Capitol Hill-living "ignorant, close-minded, idiotic, tree-hugging liberal". You don't know anything about the people you're arguing with, either, so don't throw stones. Unless, of course, they identify themselves as gay service-members, in which case you just ignore them.
And in any case, you haven't presented some set of "facts" that nobody knows about, you're just making predictions and relaying anecdotes. Predictions like "there will be four sets of barracks," which you are just making up out of thin air, and anecdotes like "someone I know got hit on once," which isn't a legit way to argue for policy.
Stop for a second. You're railing against people for not knowing anything about the world you live in, and then baselessly accusing everyone who disagrees with you as being a Capitol Hill-living "ignorant, close-minded, idiotic, tree-hugging liberal". You don't know anything about the people you're arguing with, either, so don't throw stones. Unless, of course, they identify themselves as gay service-members, in which case you just ignore them.
And in any case, you haven't presented some set of "facts" that nobody knows about, you're just making predictions and relaying anecdotes. Predictions like "there will be four sets of barracks," which you are just making up out of thin air, and anecdotes like "someone I know got hit on once," which isn't a legit way to argue for policy.
56
Chris - I think you seem to be operating from the assumption that once gays will no longer be fired if someone finds out they're gay, they will be out and proud and hitting on anything that moves. But, that's a pretty big assumption (both the "out and proud" part and the "hitting on other servicemen/women" part).
For the first part, I would suggest that most gay men and women will probably figure out relatively quickly that if everyone in their unit hates gays, they should probably keep a low profile about their homosexuality, if they want to be liked and accepted as a part of their unit (and, in order to not impede their careers). Sucks for the gay folks, but that’s probably how it’s going to be for awhile. Until people in the military are more accepting, gays will probably be relatively quiet about it. The only difference is, they won’t be able to be fired if someone discovers they are gay.
On the second part (hitting on other servicemen/women), for one thing, gay people generally find that hitting on straight people doesn't get them very far. More importantly, almost everyone, gay or straight, knows that there are lots of potential problems with coming on to a co-worker or even expressing any indication that you are attracted to them. I would think that would be multiplied by a factor of ten in the military. Gay servicemen/women do not want to destroy their unit's cohesion. Really. They don't. If there are issues with romantic relationships (gay or straight) or people hitting on other servicemen/women (gay or straight), then deal with THAT problem.
I honestly don't see what the problem is with working with or living with someone who is attracted to your gender (not to YOU, specifically). Do you not work with female soldiers every day? Are you not around them almost all of your waking hours? Does even the possibility that one of them might be attracted to you make you uncomfortable? Let’s say it’s an ugly woman (i.e., someone who there’s no chance you would ever be interested in them, maybe you would even find their attraction completely repulsive). Do you not ever want to spend time around her because there’s a chance that she might be attracted to you (mind you, she hasn’t shown any attraction yet and you have no idea whether she’s actually attracted to you or not)? Would having an ugly woman around destroy unit cohesion?
I find it tough to buy that sleeping six feet away from a gay person is any scarier than working with one all day. Maybe, if gay people make you uncomfortable, you have to walk around naked a little less? Is that really such a big sacrifice for ending discrimination and making sure our country has more of the people it needs serving (soldiers, translators, etc.)?
More...
For the first part, I would suggest that most gay men and women will probably figure out relatively quickly that if everyone in their unit hates gays, they should probably keep a low profile about their homosexuality, if they want to be liked and accepted as a part of their unit (and, in order to not impede their careers). Sucks for the gay folks, but that’s probably how it’s going to be for awhile. Until people in the military are more accepting, gays will probably be relatively quiet about it. The only difference is, they won’t be able to be fired if someone discovers they are gay.
On the second part (hitting on other servicemen/women), for one thing, gay people generally find that hitting on straight people doesn't get them very far. More importantly, almost everyone, gay or straight, knows that there are lots of potential problems with coming on to a co-worker or even expressing any indication that you are attracted to them. I would think that would be multiplied by a factor of ten in the military. Gay servicemen/women do not want to destroy their unit's cohesion. Really. They don't. If there are issues with romantic relationships (gay or straight) or people hitting on other servicemen/women (gay or straight), then deal with THAT problem.
I honestly don't see what the problem is with working with or living with someone who is attracted to your gender (not to YOU, specifically). Do you not work with female soldiers every day? Are you not around them almost all of your waking hours? Does even the possibility that one of them might be attracted to you make you uncomfortable? Let’s say it’s an ugly woman (i.e., someone who there’s no chance you would ever be interested in them, maybe you would even find their attraction completely repulsive). Do you not ever want to spend time around her because there’s a chance that she might be attracted to you (mind you, she hasn’t shown any attraction yet and you have no idea whether she’s actually attracted to you or not)? Would having an ugly woman around destroy unit cohesion?
I find it tough to buy that sleeping six feet away from a gay person is any scarier than working with one all day. Maybe, if gay people make you uncomfortable, you have to walk around naked a little less? Is that really such a big sacrifice for ending discrimination and making sure our country has more of the people it needs serving (soldiers, translators, etc.)?
57
You guys are all missing the point. Gays in the military can serve they just can "act gay" as the bigots would say or "serve while out" as we liberals would say. There is an important distinction to be made here. The bigots are afraid that gay men who are allowed to be "out" would be a distraction. My good friend is back from Iraq on his second tour for a vacation and I asked him about this recently. He said this absolutely would cause moral issues for bigots. He is not a bigot but he pointed out that not everyone grew up in Seattle and lived on Capitol Hill before shipping out. You might not like the fact that bigots exist in the military but they have a mission that takes precedence over the rights of the soldiers.
Ending DADT is the right thing to do right now. However you have to consider this is a poor strategic move for liberals to be pushing for it at the moment. I think the best way to move forward is to continue to support ending DADT but to take the time and resources spent fighting it and put those towards gay marriage. Once gay marriage is more common it will pull the rug out from under the bigots. Once their neighbors are out and proud gays they won't have such a hard time going to war with them at their side. This has less to do with the war going on overseas and more to do with the culture war going on at home. Win here first and the military won't resist.
Ending DADT is the right thing to do right now. However you have to consider this is a poor strategic move for liberals to be pushing for it at the moment. I think the best way to move forward is to continue to support ending DADT but to take the time and resources spent fighting it and put those towards gay marriage. Once gay marriage is more common it will pull the rug out from under the bigots. Once their neighbors are out and proud gays they won't have such a hard time going to war with them at their side. This has less to do with the war going on overseas and more to do with the culture war going on at home. Win here first and the military won't resist.
58
Chris, you seem to be missing the point that we "stuck-up western washington liberals" get: the gays are already there in your barracks -- and yes, in your showers too. Your arguments about fraternization are stupid and illogical, have absolutely nothing to do with military readiness, and everything to do with irrational fear.
I say this with nothing but the greatest respect for your service to our country, as I am a military brat myself with plenty of friends (both gay and straight) in the armed forces.
Grow up.
I say this with nothing but the greatest respect for your service to our country, as I am a military brat myself with plenty of friends (both gay and straight) in the armed forces.
Grow up.
59
So only people with the guts to join the military can weigh in? I did enroll/join up, did the duck walk, and couldn't get in at the end because of a medical technicality that I couldn't complete a waiver on. I had the guts, determination, and will to do it--Air Force, for me--at 19, but the military decided I wasn't needed. Fine. Do I get to weigh in?
I think it's a bullshit practice. If so many other standing armies can do fine with gays serving, why is the US military so special that we can't manage?
Does Colin Powell get to weigh in?
He said to get rid of DADT too.
I think it's a bullshit practice. If so many other standing armies can do fine with gays serving, why is the US military so special that we can't manage?
Does Colin Powell get to weigh in?
He said to get rid of DADT too.
60
Yeah, Chris, romance has no place in the military-- that's why all you soldiers rape the female soldiers. If they're not available, you rape the afghanis or iraqis.
Wait, what's that you say? You're calling me an ignorant lout who castigates an entire group of honorable men on the basis of a few bad apples?
You're right. I am. And if you are angry w/ that, then your entire post should be ignored & discounted, because that's your entire attitude. You think in absolutes, which is what makes you a bigot. Therefore your opinion is worthless.
Does the SLOG want to offer up any other member of the military, maybe someone capable of critical thinking? Or do we have to sit through more of CF's secret woody for his bro?
Wait, what's that you say? You're calling me an ignorant lout who castigates an entire group of honorable men on the basis of a few bad apples?
You're right. I am. And if you are angry w/ that, then your entire post should be ignored & discounted, because that's your entire attitude. You think in absolutes, which is what makes you a bigot. Therefore your opinion is worthless.
Does the SLOG want to offer up any other member of the military, maybe someone capable of critical thinking? Or do we have to sit through more of CF's secret woody for his bro?
61
Yeah, gonna take the opinion of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff over some fucking butter bar.
62
Oh my God a homo saw my tweeter in the shower!
Mr. Frizzelle is trying to get the comment meter up again. I will assist.
Pitbulls
Critical Mass
Apartment buildings with underground parking
Sarah Palin
Teabag
Uncle Fuckers
Dan has Loveschild, Chris has Chris84.
Mr. Frizzelle is trying to get the comment meter up again. I will assist.
Pitbulls
Critical Mass
Apartment buildings with underground parking
Sarah Palin
Teabag
Uncle Fuckers
Dan has Loveschild, Chris has Chris84.
63
One last comment - I know you probably don't hang around on slog that much, but there are actually lots people who served or people whose partners served on here. And even more people whose friends, parents, siblings, etc. served. I am probably completely typical of the commenters here -- lifelong friend served in the Air Force and now works for the VA, another lifelong friend's boyfriend was killed in Iraq, childhood friend is a captain in the Marines, college friend was a Naval officer, etc.
There isn't this world where us "liberals" are totally isolated from military folks with no idea how they live or what issues they face. You're creating this wall because you want to believe that anybody who knew anything about the subject would agree with you. I definitely found your comments and Frizzelle's brother's comments to be interesting -- you, in particular, made me think about how I would feel as a straight girl, being made to live with lesbians (BTW, I figured it wouldn't bother me - I wouldn't even have to stop walking around naked as I don't make a habit of doing that very often). But, I don't find either of you guy's arguments to be convincing -- you are certainly entitled to your opinions and feelings on the subject, but in terms of thinking logically about what makes sense for the military and for our society, I still come down in favor of ending DADT.
There isn't this world where us "liberals" are totally isolated from military folks with no idea how they live or what issues they face. You're creating this wall because you want to believe that anybody who knew anything about the subject would agree with you. I definitely found your comments and Frizzelle's brother's comments to be interesting -- you, in particular, made me think about how I would feel as a straight girl, being made to live with lesbians (BTW, I figured it wouldn't bother me - I wouldn't even have to stop walking around naked as I don't make a habit of doing that very often). But, I don't find either of you guy's arguments to be convincing -- you are certainly entitled to your opinions and feelings on the subject, but in terms of thinking logically about what makes sense for the military and for our society, I still come down in favor of ending DADT.
64
@57: We shouldn't be in the business of coddling people like Chris, who can't argue in anything more than anecdotes and hypothetical situations. He's sounding like a brat, whining about "tree-hugging capitol hill liberal hippies" and whatnot without providing any realistic statistics regarding gay conduct within the military from actual gay individuals.
Not all of us are from the insulated world that Chris apparently grew up in, some of us are from where these bigots actually come from. If gays can handle living in those cities, then they can handle meeting them face to face in the military. That's not an issue.
As to comfort, nobody can provide realistic proof that gays will be predatory within the military to a distracting or debilitating extent. No, it's all theories based on these 20-30 year old stereotypes of gay men and women and a reuse of 60 year old racist tactics like saying "we can't integrate, we'd need separate barracks to prevent crime, they're a risk to our soldiers" and so on and so forth.
And really, we, the american people, are not paying for your comfort, Chris. If you aren't going to fight because you may or may not feel uncomfortable, you're starting to sound unprofessional and unfit for service to the american people. If you joined the army because it was an easy job that fit your self-image, you need to go back and look at those portraits and statues all around Washington D.C. to find out what makes a real soldier.
Not all of us are from the insulated world that Chris apparently grew up in, some of us are from where these bigots actually come from. If gays can handle living in those cities, then they can handle meeting them face to face in the military. That's not an issue.
As to comfort, nobody can provide realistic proof that gays will be predatory within the military to a distracting or debilitating extent. No, it's all theories based on these 20-30 year old stereotypes of gay men and women and a reuse of 60 year old racist tactics like saying "we can't integrate, we'd need separate barracks to prevent crime, they're a risk to our soldiers" and so on and so forth.
And really, we, the american people, are not paying for your comfort, Chris. If you aren't going to fight because you may or may not feel uncomfortable, you're starting to sound unprofessional and unfit for service to the american people. If you joined the army because it was an easy job that fit your self-image, you need to go back and look at those portraits and statues all around Washington D.C. to find out what makes a real soldier.
65
@53, I hate, hate, hate you. I'm looking at reuping just to get DLI. Just finished up six months of lovely Russky Yizik here at the SOF Language School at Bragg.
66
"The military is not a place to find romance."
Why do you assume that gays joining the military are only doing so looking for romance? Can't they have joined for the same reasons as straight people? Or did you really just join up as part of a neverending quest for pussy and are projecting your motives onto them?
Why do you assume that gays joining the military are only doing so looking for romance? Can't they have joined for the same reasons as straight people? Or did you really just join up as part of a neverending quest for pussy and are projecting your motives onto them?
67
What's the point? Chris84 has zero credibility. He's trotted out every right-wing line there is.
You haven't served in the military so you don't know what you're talking about - and then he ignores those here who HAVE.
You're crazy, ignorant, tree-hugging, left-wing liberals...because you disagree with me.
Homos will look at my peen in the shower.
The guy has zero credibility in this discussion. Surprised he hasn't invoked the Nazis....yet.
You haven't served in the military so you don't know what you're talking about - and then he ignores those here who HAVE.
You're crazy, ignorant, tree-hugging, left-wing liberals...because you disagree with me.
Homos will look at my peen in the shower.
The guy has zero credibility in this discussion. Surprised he hasn't invoked the Nazis....yet.
70
@64 I agree with you on pretty much all points. We should not coddle bigots, we should not engage in segregation era rhetoric about fears of integration. However with those things said there are many reasonable non-bigoted people who believe that gays serving openly will bother bigots in the military. Now I think that you and me could win the debate that it does not matter but currently it is up for debate. This leads me to think the resources of progressives are better spent supporting gay marriage and equality at home. The military will fall into place soon afterwards. I coin this term as the "domino theory." :)
71
Fraternization is not the issue--sexual assault and harassment are the issues. You don't need separate quarters to solve that, you need to clean house and raise the standards for service.
Our military is largely populated with ethical, intelligent, patriotic, hard-working men and women, and I have nothing but respect for the people who follow the rules and do their jobs.
Unfortunately, the military is also populated by a significant number of scumbags who are otherwise unemployable and if not for the military, would probably end up dead or in prison. These are mostly ostensibly heterosexual men, who join the military because they have nowhere else to go, and do not deal well with the dehumanizing psychological conditioning necessary to get people to kill each other without hesitation when so ordered. These are the assholes who go around raping the female soldiers and, given an opportunity, do things like forcing enemy prisoners to watch each other jack off in Abu Ghraib. Anyone who has served in the military knows the kind of people I'm talking about. If you've served, you're picturing them right now.
It's a dirty little secret that no-one in the military or the leadership wants to talk about. In addition to patriots and the naive, the military also attracts psychopaths and criminals. While a good chunk are screened out, and military discipline and training help a huge number of people better themselves, there are plenty who simply end up as criminals in better shape who have been trained to keep below the radar of authority figures. They do not want the general public to know that if you enlist, you'll have to serve with these people.
Most people in the military are not terrified of normal gay men and women hitting on them. What they are afraid of, is that the scumbag rapists (who aren't even gay--just indiscriminate) will be able to target them. They believe that fear of dismissal under DADT is the only thing keeping same-sex sexual harassment and assault in check. They may not know how to articulate it, but make no mistake, when someone says they're concerned about "unit cohesion" they're really talking about the fear of prison-rape scenarios.
If the people in the military can look past the fear and think this process through, they should realize that ending DADT will make the situation better for everyone. If DADT is the only thing keeping the predators in check, won't removing DADT force the people who have been looking the other way to actually speak up and boot those people who have no business being in the military in the first place?
More...
Our military is largely populated with ethical, intelligent, patriotic, hard-working men and women, and I have nothing but respect for the people who follow the rules and do their jobs.
Unfortunately, the military is also populated by a significant number of scumbags who are otherwise unemployable and if not for the military, would probably end up dead or in prison. These are mostly ostensibly heterosexual men, who join the military because they have nowhere else to go, and do not deal well with the dehumanizing psychological conditioning necessary to get people to kill each other without hesitation when so ordered. These are the assholes who go around raping the female soldiers and, given an opportunity, do things like forcing enemy prisoners to watch each other jack off in Abu Ghraib. Anyone who has served in the military knows the kind of people I'm talking about. If you've served, you're picturing them right now.
It's a dirty little secret that no-one in the military or the leadership wants to talk about. In addition to patriots and the naive, the military also attracts psychopaths and criminals. While a good chunk are screened out, and military discipline and training help a huge number of people better themselves, there are plenty who simply end up as criminals in better shape who have been trained to keep below the radar of authority figures. They do not want the general public to know that if you enlist, you'll have to serve with these people.
Most people in the military are not terrified of normal gay men and women hitting on them. What they are afraid of, is that the scumbag rapists (who aren't even gay--just indiscriminate) will be able to target them. They believe that fear of dismissal under DADT is the only thing keeping same-sex sexual harassment and assault in check. They may not know how to articulate it, but make no mistake, when someone says they're concerned about "unit cohesion" they're really talking about the fear of prison-rape scenarios.
If the people in the military can look past the fear and think this process through, they should realize that ending DADT will make the situation better for everyone. If DADT is the only thing keeping the predators in check, won't removing DADT force the people who have been looking the other way to actually speak up and boot those people who have no business being in the military in the first place?
72
If the Air Force can fully integrate it's black and white service members in ONE DAY then how the hell can repealing DADT take years. Does there have to be peace on earth and then and only then when Jesus returns will it be repealed.
75
Why read the man's opinions if you're not willing to consider them? Integration will be difficult. It's going to happen. We can do a good job integrating the services or we can do a bad job. In my experience, the best way to do a good job at anything is to listen to the people who are most affected by the thing you're planning to do.
Grow up. We've won the fight. You don't have to convince this guy anything. You should, however, respect his experience and consider his opinions.
Grow up. We've won the fight. You don't have to convince this guy anything. You should, however, respect his experience and consider his opinions.
76
As a former military Officer, I can tell you that the author is absolutely wrong when he asserts that the military does not acknowledge or provide benefits to heterosexual servicemembers that are not available to gay servicemembers under DADT. In addition to the not insignificant tangible benefits such as health care for heterosexual spouses, married living quarters, and the ability to shop on military bases that would not be available to a gay servicemember lawfully married in Massachusetts, the military also conducts outreach to heteosexual spouses of servicemembers specifically to ensure that those servicemembers do not have personal problems that affect the mission of the unit. I can't tell you how much of my time as a military officer was occupied in doing things for the people who worked for me to ensure that their home life was not in turmoil, including such things as: obtaining leave for a servicemember to handle emergencies that their spouses were experiencing, helping a servicemenber to ensure that his or her spouse was financially secure; helping a servicemember to ensure that his or her spouse could obtain medical benefits; helping a servicemember defend against or disciplining a servicemember for a spousal accusation of domestic violence; helping a servicemember to arrange child care issues with a spouse, etc. This is just a short list. It is simply wrong to state that the military does not concern itself with the home life of its members and the issues that they have with their spouses--at lease heterosexual spouses, none of this is applicable to same sex spouses or partners under DADT(except that those same sex spouses have enormous power to ruin a gay servicemember's career, simply by outing them).
77
@75 - difficult?
Um, no.
Sorry, no other first world nation had a problem doing it, at least in the last three decades.
Um, no.
Sorry, no other first world nation had a problem doing it, at least in the last three decades.
79
Chris84 is precisely the type of enlisted personnel that made me deliberately abandon my intended military career track 30 years ago: watching day after day as my peers exhibited difficulties performing simple tasks such as close order drills, failing written tests AFTER having had both the questions AND answers provided to them just days before, and overhearing comments about how some of them couldn't wait to be handed a gun and "start blasting away" convinced me that, in an all-volunteer military, I simply had no desire to be in command of outright idiots, trouble-makers, bullies - and bigots.
80
what a weak fucking argument against repealing dadt. so gays and lesbians can't keep it in their pants? is that all you got??
i find it amazing that a few homophobes in the military still have such influence.
i find it amazing that a few homophobes in the military still have such influence.
81
Why hasn't anyone suggested co-ed barracks and showers... with cameras? Then every person serving could experience the joys of having their private lives subject to equal scrutiny.
82
With respect, Chris, your response is bullshit. You can start complaining about the 'giant strain on resources' caused by ending DADT when we're no longer spending $750 BILLION A YEAR on the military.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (84) RSS