Admirals, generals: Let gays serve openly

[CSM]

More likely incompetent, or maybe they pretended not to know what to do when they for sure knew. It all goes back to knowing your troops.

Yes it does. Incidents described herein are rare these days but they do happen.

If the CinC should decide that gays may openly serve in the military (and Obama may do just that) then it is the duty and responsibility of the military leadership to create the climate where being gay is no big deal...just as being heterosexual, vegetarian, a particular race and (insert religion of choice) in the military is no big deal.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Yes it does. Incidents described herein are rare these days but they do happen.

If the CinC should decide that gays may openly serve in the military (and Obama may do just that) then it is the duty and responsibility of the military leadership to create the climate where being gay is no big deal...just as being heterosexual, vegetarian, a particular race and (insert religion of choice) in the military is no big deal.

Well, fat chance of that happening in a organization where masculinity is a must it seems like. Hopefully Obama doesn't legalize gays being in the military.

 

[Sunni Man]

Indeed. The leadership should have addressed the problem. The leadership should certainly have been aware of the climate within the unit and taken measures to prevent such action. The blanket party indicates to me that the leadership in that unit either was out of touch with the soldiers involved, did not care about the unit or its soldiers or were just plain incompetent.

As we used to say: "Hey what are they going to do? Send us to Vietnam??

We were already going there anyway and didn't want that guy going with us.

The "blanket party" sent a message and didn't cause any problems. In fact we never heard another thing about the incident.

The leadership staying out of the problem was a good thing. In fact it made made our unit tighter. We had a problem. We solved it ourselves. True unit cohesion!!

 

[Ravi]

Far too simplistic an analysis, Ravi. There are real concerns involved with this issue. They are not insurmountable, but they will not be addressed with "feel good", politically correct solutions. Simply legislating that it is ok to be gay in the military will not solve the problem.

You will have guys like Sunni describes (and professes to be) that will have to be addressed. Instead of losing one gay, you now risk losing the gay person and the x number of idiots that decided a blanket party was a good idea. You also now have to deal with the climate created by such an action (fear, mistrust, etc.) that can easily render a unit combat ineffective. So now you have an entire unit that that will have to be rebuilt and retrained. That could take months if not years. This is of course and extreme example but not beyond the bounds of reality of what could happen. How many units do you think the military (and this country) can afford to have disrupted or even rendered combat ineffective at one time?

If you look at the history of how desegragation was accomplished within the military, you will realize that it was a long painful process. In the end it was a good thing IMO but it took a long, long time to accomplish.

I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you. If people like Sunni in his pals are going to beat the crap out of someone because they are gay, they are going to find any excuse to beat the crap out of someone. Making it safe for haters is just wrong.

 

[CSM]

Well, fat chance of that happening in a organization where masculinity is a must it seems like. Hopefully Obama doesn't legalize gays being in the military.

Hmmm...I'm not so sure that masculinity is a "must". Lots of females in the military these days and I would guess that the majority of those are NOT masculine.

Anecdotal but possibly relevant: I was a platoon sergeant at one time in my career. The type of unit I was assigned to at the time did not allow female soldiers but that changed. Battalion received about 52 females of all ranks as replacement for losses (normal rotation, retirements and discharges). Battalion distributed the females throughout subordinate units. Chaos resulted in those subordinate units with many, many allegations of sexual harrassment, rape, etc. with one exception. My unit took their share of females but the difference was that unit leadership decided they would be treated as SOLDIERS (I know. Strange concept!).

Our women soldiers did a great job! Since our unit seemed to be doing ok with the "transition", the Battalion Commander decided to put all the recently received replacements in our unit. All those females ended up in my platoon, to include the Platoon Leader not because the leadership decided that but because the various MOSs fit there. That platoon and the soldiers in it were recognized as the best platoon in the Brigade less than a year later because of their accomplishments in various inspections and missions accomplished. Those soldiers recieved more awards, ribbons and medals than any other collective group in the Brigade.

Once the rest of the battalion realized that 1) women soldiers were here to stay, 2) they could do a job as well or even better (in some cases) than male soldiers and 3) the Army was not destroyed, disbanded, or rendered hors de combat by the assignment of women to certain types of women, then the women were assigned and accepted throughout the subordinate units with far less problems.

The point of that long disertation is that I suspect gays could openly serve but it will take some adjustment in thinking on the part of all concerned (including the gays!).

 

[Sunni Man]

I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you. If people like Sunni in his pals are going to beat the crap out of someone because they are gay, they are going to find any excuse to beat the crap out of someone. Making it safe for haters is just wrong.

The guy didn't get beat because we were haters or just wanted to hurt someone. It was a one time incident.

We were going into combat and the beating was for our own self preservation and survival.

No soildier want's to be in a fire fight along side a soilder that they don't trust.

Same with having a homo in the unit. No one wants a homo covering their back out in the field. They aren't real men. And who knows how they will act when the real shit hits the fan.

 

[CSM]

As we used to say: "Hey what are they going to do? Send us to Vietnam??

We were already going there anyway and didn't want that guy going with us.

The "blanket party" sent a message and didn't cause any problems. In fact we never heard another thing about the incident.

The leadership staying out of the problem was a good thing. In fact it made made our unit tighter. We had a problem. We solved it ourselves. True unit cohesion!!

Horse crap. YOU didn't have a problem but your leadership sure did! I am sure it made your little group tighter...nothing like criminals sticking together..but that sure as hell isn't "unit cohesion".

 

[CSM]

I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you. If people like Sunni in his pals are going to beat the crap out of someone because they are gay, they are going to find any excuse to beat the crap out of someone. Making it safe for haters is just wrong.

You missed the point. Its not about soldiers like Sunni describes (Sunni asserts he did not participate) nor is it about making it safe for haters. It is about systemic attitude adjustment and the impact of such decisions on the overall enterprise during the transition.

 

[Sunni Man]

Horse crap. YOU didn't have a problem but your leadership sure did! I am sure it made your little group tighter...nothing like criminals sticking together..but that sure as hell isn't "unit cohesion".

We never heard a thing from our NCO's or Officers about the incident.

Most likely, we did them a favor by getting the guy out of the unit.

 

[CSM]

The guy didn't get beat because we were haters or just wanted to hurt someone. It was a one time incident.

We were going into combat and the beating was for our own self preservation and survival.

No soildier want's to be in a fire fight along side a soilder that they don't trust.

Same with having a homo in the unit. No one wants a homo covering their back out in the field. They aren't real men. And who knows how they will act when the real shit hits the fan.

Again, bullcrap. No one knows how ANY soldier will react ON ANY GIVEN DAY in combat...you know that as well as I do. Being gay or not has very little to do with it.

If soldiers were allowed to "handle their own problems" in the manner you describe the result would be anarchy and you know it.

 

[CSM]

We never heard a thing from our NCO's or Officers about the incident.

Most likely, we did them a favor by getting the guy out of the unit.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to make it all ok, eh?

It was wrong...plain and simple. You may be able to justify it to yourself through self-delusion as long as you don't look at it too closely but in the light of day it is the wrong thing to do... morally or otherwise.

 

[CSM]

We never heard a thing from our NCO's or Officers about the incident.
QUOTE]

I already think your leadership was fucked up so that doesn't justify anything.

 

[Anguille]

I'm with Gunny on this one. The gays that currently serve are there to serve. If they are there to serve anythingother than themselves(ie. self servin interest of flaunting their homosexuality for social change)......

I don't agree with your premise that removing don't ask, don't tell equals permission to or the desire to flaunt homosexuality. I don't think that what gays are asking for. I think they just want to be able to fell safe, if asked, in responding truthfully that they are gay.
Imagine if it was the reverse. Would any straight person feel good about having to pretend to be gay in order to keep your job? I saw part of a TV documentary, (wish I could remember the title), where a highly decorated and clearly upstanding career officer decided he had to resign from the military because the obligation to go to great lengths to hide the fact that he was in a homosexual relationship was tearing him apart. It made him feel isolated from his his fellow soldiers and undermined teamwork. This guy was no over sensitive wuss. He had been in combat and performed outstandingly. But having to pretend he was straight was a travesty he could no longer put up with so he resigned and the military lost a good officer.
On another board I post on there is a poster who is a former marine who resigned from the Corps after a long service for the same reason. He said he couldn't lie anymore. del will probably remember him. He was a very eloquent writer and after reading his posts I could understand better how it can wrench a person inside to pretend to be something you aren't for no good reason other than to coodle a minority of homophobes.

I truly believe that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is mixed bagged. It protects gays in certain ways, but leaves the door open to out them if someone has a personal beef with a gay. del brought a great Goldwater quote on the subject.

I'm curious about how it would protect gays.

 

[Luissa]

I don't agree with your premise that removing don't ask, don't tell equals permission to or the desire to flaunt homosexuality. I don't think that what gays are asking for. I think they just want to be able to fell safe, if asked, in responding truthfully that they are gay.
Imagine if it was the reverse. Would any straight person feel good about having to pretend to be gay in order to keep your job? I saw part of a TV documentary, (wish I could remember the title), where a highly decorated and clearly upstanding career officer decided he had to resign from the military because the obligation to go to great lengths to hide the fact that he was in a homosexual relationship was tearing him apart. It made him feel isolated from his his fellow soldiers and undermined teamwork. This guy was no over sensitive wuss. He had been in combat and performed outstandingly. But having to pretend he was straight was a travesty he could no longer put up with so he resigned and the military lost a good officer.
On another board I post on there is a poster who is a former marine who resigned from the Corps after a long service for the same reason. He said he couldn't lie anymore. del will probably remember him. He was a very eloquent writer and after reading his posts I could understand better how it can wrench a person inside to pretend to be something you aren't for no good reason other than to coodle a minority of homophobes.



I'm curious about how it would protect gays.

I agree with you and I feel bad for the guy! And all I have to say even if they are gay most men going into the military are not their for a tea party and not usually wusses. I have a gay friend who acts more hetero and gay at the same time then anyone I know. He loves Hockey and sports more then most but while he is watching hockey he is wearing his coach glasses with his Bruins jersey on.

If the are qualified for the job there is no reason why they should not hold that job!

 

[Sunni Man]

I don't agree with your premise that removing don't ask, don't tell equals permission to or the desire to flaunt homosexuality. I don't think that what gays are asking for. I think they just want to be able to fell safe, if asked, in responding truthfully that they are gay.
Imagine if it was the reverse. Would any straight person feel good about having to pretend to be gay in order to keep your job? I saw part of a TV documentary, (wish I could remember the title), where a highly decorated and clearly upstanding career officer decided he had to resign from the military because the obligation to go to great lengths to hide the fact that he was in a homosexual relationship was tearing him apart. It made him feel isolated from his his fellow soldiers and undermined teamwork. This guy was no over sensitive wuss. He had been in combat and performed outstandingly. But having to pretend he was straight was a travesty he could no longer put up with so he resigned and the military lost a good officer.
On another board I post on there is a poster who is a former marine who resigned from the Corps after a long service for the same reason. He said he couldn't lie anymore. del will probably remember him. He was a very eloquent writer and after reading his posts I could understand better how it can wrench a person inside to pretend to be something you aren't for no good reason other than to coodle a minority of homophobes.

So why did these guys have to resign?

Was it because that were not allowed to display their limp wrists or swish as they walk while in uniform

 

[Anguille]

The military forces people to live together, 2 to 4 to a room in the lower ranks. Women live with women and men with men. Exactly how does one put gays into that situation?

ummm. Aren't gays and straights already living in that situation?

Most men that are not gay are still going to have problems living with a woman even if she is gay. It would cause sexual tension and problems. Not being a woman I do not know if women would mind being forced to live with gay men or not.

On Submarines people hot rack and sleep in VERY close proximity to one another. There is a reason women do not serve on Submarines. And why they do not serve on most ships either.

As long as a gay is not being open, no problem. If a gay insists on being open they cause problems for everyone. They are not serving to be in the military, they are serving to be a problem.

Okay, then to be fair how about we extend that don't ask, don't tell policy to everyone. Straights included. All military personal will be expected to behave as asexual beings and any evidence that they are not will result in a dishonorable discharge.

 

[CSM]

So why did these guys have to resign?

Was it because that were not allowed to display their limp wrists or swish as they walk while in uniform

No, they resigned because they were Muslim and one cannot serve while being openly Muslim....

Think about it.

 

[Shogun]

No, there are certain things that go against the good order and discipline of the army and the thought of two men in uniform serving the country engaging in gay sex acts go against the good order and discipline of the military. Nobody is allowed to witch hunt gays so let them keep it to themselves.

kinda like how those ******* who wanted to serve their country should have been content to do so in the confines of their own shifty, watermelon loving all black regiments, eh? You truly are the ironic gem of any discussion about gays. Homos wont destroy discipline any more than letting ******* fight with whites that HATED ******* did. Let you keep your blackness to yourself, right buddy?

 

[Anguille]

So you're saying you want to get under the blanket with gay men and do some "packing" eh?

Interesting.................

Everytime Sunni Man opens his mouth, he gives himself away. Lucky for him USMB has no don't ask, don't tell policy.

 

[Sunni Man]

No, they resigned because they were Muslim and one cannot serve while being openly Muslim....

The military provides a building on most bases for a mosque. So that soilders of the muslim faith can pray. As they do for all faiths.

Should we now also provide bath houses and gay bars on base for the homosexual soilders?