Don't ask, Don't tell [Archive]

SlightlyCatholic

11-19-2008, 10:08 AM

How would you be able to tell the benefits or disadvantages of working with someone who is homosexual if someone who is homosexual is unable to display any traits of being so or else they're discharged?

Wouldn't it be just like everyone being straight? No basis for comparison, right? Without people being able to be openly homosexual in the military, you will never know what the real impact is on the esprit de corps or working relationships.

What I'm talking about is the "BTDT" experience to discern IF knowing someone's orientation would be a problem. For example, I have no infantry experience but many on the forum do. What I'm wondering is for those that DO have the experience is if it would be a legitimate problem to know that your "battle buddy" might have a crush on you. I would tend to say yes because any fraternity loses its solidarity the minute that internal sexual attraction is injected into the group. However, again, I haven't BTDT.

Also, someone not announcing their homosexuality doesn't diminish the identification of said homosexuality by astute members who work with the individual on a daily basis. Not all gay people are world class actors, and many times when people come out the response isn't shocked surprise but rather, "Yeah, we kinda figured that." " I don't ask, you don't tell" doesn't always mean "I don't know".

CAPSmith

11-19-2008, 10:24 AM

" I don't ask, you don't tell" doesn't always mean "I don't know".

"Not telling" doesn't just mean the person saying, "I am gay." It also includes behaviors like bringing a boyfriend to the unit's Christmas party or publicly displaying affection to members of the same sex, being married (where legal) to a member of the same sex, discussing romantic encounters, etc.

You also neglect to consider that your "battle buddy" or co-worker might be a member of the opposite sex, in which sexual attraction is more likely. Does this not diminish the solidarity of a group?

I would still argue that the knowledge of how a homosexual in a military group affects the group really isn't well known because those members are removed upon discovery. Military members in general have always been "shielded" from diversity and very resistant to change. Think of the fight to include black soldiers, women, etc. One of the arguments to women joining the military was the "distraction" that they would cause. I think General Dunwoody would disagree with that.

03_SHOOTER

11-19-2008, 10:29 AM

Spoken by someone who hasn't served and hasn't had to live close quarters with 50-100 people.

A-MEN!!

The military has the right to determine who they will and will not take, regardless if the reasons are physical or emotional, and forcing them to take openly homosexual people is as utterly insane as saying that they have to take soomeone who (if you want to make the argument that homosexuality is "natural") has any other natural disability, or who (if you want to make the argument that it's a matter of "choice") engages in any other activity as a matter of choice that it inconsistant with "Good Order and Discipline".

03_SHOOTER

11-19-2008, 10:31 AM

CAPSmith

11-19-2008, 10:36 AM

A-MEN!!

The military has the right to determine who they will and will not take

The citizens of the United States "We the People" have the right to determine who is or isn't eligible for military service. If "We the People" demand that homosexuals be eligible to join the military and serve openly, then the military will "just have to deal."

Of note...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/92/Gay_military.png/800px-Gay_military.png
Blue=Countries that allow open homosexuals
Red = Countries who ban homosexuals outright
Orange = Countries that have abiquitous policies regarding homosexuals.

SlightlyCatholic

11-19-2008, 10:49 AM

I think General Dunwoody would disagree with that.

She's one end of the spectrum, the other end being an Air Force Staff Sergeant by the name of Michelle Manhart who posed for Playboy and was a very large distraction. Each group has its goods, bads, and uglies.

You also neglect to consider that your "battle buddy" or co-worker might be a member of the opposite sex, in which sexual attraction is more likely. Does this not diminish the solidarity of a group?

...And that's exactly why most combat arms MOS's are closed to women.

Lastly, I'd trust an appointed Flag Officer with 30+ years of military experience to determine the military's stance on gays. Why would the average citizen who hasn't BTDT know better than a General Officer?

Billyd

11-19-2008, 10:49 AM

The one thing missing from this discussion is the complete policy. That being: Don't ask, which means those in positions of authority can not ask about a persons sexual orientation. When I enlisted, and I am sure Top and 03_SHOOTER as well, I was asked about my sexual orientation. Don't tell, means that if you are homosexual, you may not state that your are nor may you openly participate in a homosexual relationship. The final part of the policy is Don't Persue. Commanders are prohibitted from taking action against someone he/she suspects of being homosexual until the don't tell portion of the policy is violated, including any type of investigation.

The point is that gays may serve, but are held to a different standard. Young men (and some young women as well) are prone to brag about their sexual conquests, however, gays can not as that would violate the "Don't Tell" portion of the policy.

CAPSmith

11-19-2008, 10:50 AM

Have you ever served in a unit when someone "came out"? Try THAT and tell me what happens to YOUR units morale! I can tell you what it did to mine, and it wasn't anything good, that's for certain.

I have worked / do work with several homosexuals. Their contributions to our organization are greatly appreciated. "They" work hard and are responsible for many of the advancements that the company makes.

Guess what, none of them have every "hit on me," asked me out, flaunted their "gayness," or tried to molest anyone. They have no negative effect on morale whatsoever.

I'm curious about what damaged your units morale. Was it that the unit lost a valuable member?

CAPSmith

11-19-2008, 10:56 AM

The point is that gays may serve, but are held to a different standard. Young men (and some young women as well) are prone to brag about their sexual conquests, however, gays can not as that would violate the "Don't Tell" portion of the policy.

Which, by your own admission, is a double-standard. So a serving gay member can not ever really become a cohesive member of a unit because they always have to hide something.

"How was your weekend?" "Horrible, the wife and I got into a huge fight, she went to live with her mother." Instantly, you have an insight into something that may affect your unit. You may be able to offer advice because you have actually met his wife and family, etc.

"How was your weekend?" "Horrible, my boyfirend and I got into a huge fight."
Congratulations, we'll be dismissing you from service next week. I can see why homosexuals might be damaging to a unit's morale, because they are forced to hide practically everything in their lives. Hiding things creates distrust in a unit.

CAPSmith

11-19-2008, 11:07 AM

...And that's exactly why most combat arms MOS's are closed to women.

Or it could be because the Nation isn't prepared to see dead women. Women are still viewed as being motherly and in need of protection. There are women who have seen combat.

take openly homosexual people is as utterly insane as saying that they have to take soomeone who (if you want to make the argument that homosexuality is "natural") has any other natural disability

I would suppose if you saw homosexuality as a disability...

or who (if you want to make the argument that it's a matter of "choice") engages in any other activity as a matter of choice that it inconsistant with "Good Order and Discipline"

How does having a relationship with someone become disorderly or undisciplined?

03, I would really be interested if you did tell us what the effect on your unit was, and why it was so.

SlightlyCatholic

11-19-2008, 11:13 AM

I can see why homosexuals might be damaging to a unit's morale, because they are forced to hide practically everything in their lives.

Not to be callous, but every person who enlists is able to read the UCMJ and other pertinent regulations before ever signing on the dotted line. If they don't like the policies therein, they don't have to join. I think the problem here is that a democracy wants to tell an authoritarian hierarchy what to do and how to do it. Our military (and most in military history) works best when it is a) not interfered with by political agendas and b) is able to be selective about who it takes. Nobody has a RIGHT to be in the military, and selectivity means that some people aren't as desirable as other people for military service.

Maybe it's just me, but I would expect someone who doesn't like the rules of the system to find another "system" to join instead of joining the system just to fight against it. That seems extremely disruptive to the mission and nature of the military.

ang1sgt

11-19-2008, 11:23 AM

As you can see Cadets, this is a powder keg of a Question. There are folks on both sides of this one and it is a difficult one to be sure. As a RETIRED Military Member and one that had to enforce and maintain Good Order and Discipline in his Unit as a First Sergeant, this Policy came into being late into my career.

My deliverable/job for the USAF was to deliver Trained and Ready Airmen to service the Jets and equipment that was deployed. My Commander and I had to see to it that ALL were ready to deploy and that all were trained. To lose ONE AIRMAN would affect the mission no matter what the reason.

There are policies that are in place that once you start rolling through the motions, things go on autopilot. This Policy is one of those.

It is tough to lose someone for any reason, whether it be Drugs, Alcohol, sickness or death, it is still a loss to your program.

Woody

11-19-2008, 11:25 AM

** Well having served on operations with openly gay soldiers of both genders cant say it really a problem.Known a couple of female soldiers who were annoyed as they were mistaken for lesbians by other lesbians .* Answering that statement with "what you're straight!" May have raised a laugh* ,but I paid for it .Ever had a medic who is annoyed with you practisce cannulation on you ?Not reccomended.** Gays have served in the military of many countries some with distinguised careers If they cant adjust they will be got rid of .

CAPSmith

11-19-2008, 11:37 AM

Not to be callous, but every person who enlists is able to read the UCMJ and other pertinent regulations before ever signing on the dotted line. If they don't like the policies therein, they don't have to join. I think the problem here is that a democracy wants to tell an authoritarian hierarchy what to do and how to do it. Our military (and most in military history) works best when it is a) not interfered with by political agendas and b) is able to be selective about who it takes. Nobody has a RIGHT to be in the military, and selectivity means that some people aren't as desirable as other people for military service.

The military, while internally is an authoritarian structure, is still responsible to that democracy. It is responsible to "We the People" whether they like it or not. "We the People" allow for that military to exist. To succeed in it's mission, the military needs to be structured - and so far it has been proven that the organizational structure of the military works.

However, note that even that authoritarian structure isn't rigid. It is important to re-evaluate policies and procedures and determine whether or not the policies are having a negative effect on your abilities to carry out your mission.

I am curious about your comment about militaries that are not interfered with are the most successful. Is there anything to suggest that that you could point me to?

Maybe it's just me, but I would expect someone who doesn't like the rules of the system to find another "system" to join instead of joining the system just to fight against it. That seems extremely disruptive to the mission and nature of the military.

It is important for our military to be progressive. You forget that this country has never been satisfied with the status quo. Remember at one point the status quo was that blacks weren't considered citizens, weren't allow to vote, own land, etc. Women weren't allowed to vote. They knew the "rules" and refused to be bound by them. Today we have universal sufferage. Is that bad?

At one time blacks weren't allowed to join the military. At one time women weren't allowed to join the military - would you contend that those actions were detremental to "good order and discipline?"

03 mentioned that allowing open homosexuals into the military would be like admitting those with other disabilities. They do everyday. Color blind individuals can join the military. People with missing limbs can continue their service.

Being homosexual is not a disability - it doesn't hinder your ability to accomplish your mission.

Being homosexual is not a mental illness - it has been removed from the DSM.

SlightlyCatholic

11-19-2008, 11:57 AM

The military, while internally is an authoritarian structure, is still responsible to that democracy. It is responsible to "We the People" whether they like it or not. "We the People" allow for that military to exist. To succeed in it's mission, the military needs to be structured - and so far it has been proven that the organizational structure of the military works.

Just because the military answers to us doesn't mean we know better than it does.

I am curious about your comment about militaries that are not interfered with are the most successful. Is there anything to suggest that that you could point me to?

Sparta and Rome are two examples. The Spartan military worked well because the people let the generals "do their thing". Rome fell because the generals got too political and, conversely, because certain politicans tried to twist the Roman Army to suit their own needs. In both cases, political aims never should have had a place in the military of both nations.

It is important for our military to be progressive. You forget that this country has never been satisfied with the status quo. Remember at one point the status quo was that blacks weren't considered citizens, weren't allow to vote, own land, etc. Women weren't allowed to vote. They knew the "rules" and refused to be bound by them. Today we have universal sufferage. Is that bad?

I'm all for human rights, but I'm also for the policy of not defecating where I eat. If there's going to be a struggle for homosexual rights, it shouldn't happen in the military. You don't go into someone's house and start rearranging the furniture. If the generals at the top decide that's the route to take, then fine, but enlisting means following certain directives and they need to be followed regardless of how the enlistee may feel about them at the time. Your suffrage argument is flawed because it took place in a democratic atmosphere. If you want to stage a peaceful protest against the government as a United States citizen, you have that right. If you want to stage a peaceful protest as a military member because your unit just got mobilized and you refuse to go, the UCMJ can and probably will come down on you hard. People who join the military follow the rules of the military because that's what they signed up for and it's not a democracy.

Being homosexual is not a disability - it doesn't hinder your ability to accomplish your mission.

Being homosexual is not a mental illness - it has been removed from the DSM.

Why does something need to be classified as a disability or mental illness to lower morale and combat effectiveness?

What if I played really loud music every night in the barracks for a week? That would disrupt sleep (causing a loss of combat effectiveness) and everyone would be irritable (causing a lowering of morale). Homosexuality makes a man question the man next to him, which psychologically destroys any unit cohesion and fraternal trust. That's the problem.

Billyd

11-19-2008, 12:17 PM

It is important for our military to be progressive.

No, our military shouldn’t be progressive in the manner you are advocating. I have seen this progressive military and let me tell you what has happened. At the time I enlisted, if an airman made what I considered an “airman’s mistake,” I, as the supervisor, could take steps to “retrain” said airman in the ways of the Air Force. Today, that airman is just as likely to get away with his mistake and not learn anything from it, and if I try to provide corrective training, I would find myself standing to in front of the commander’s desk signing my LOR or worse.

You forget that this country has never been satisfied with the status quo. Remember at one point the status quo was that blacks weren't considered citizens, weren't allow to vote, own land, etc. Women weren't allowed to vote. They knew the "rules" and refused to be bound by them. Today we have universal sufferage. Is that bad?

For the most part no, but when you have people voting for a person and stating that he/she voted for or against a person because of race, is that a good thing?

At one time blacks weren't allowed to join the military. At one time women weren't allowed to join the military - would you contend that those actions were detremental to "good order and discipline?"

As far as women are concerned, yes I would. I had an airman that worked for me who received orders to a remote assignment. She got pregnant just before she was to depart. Now, someone else had to fill a short-notice assignment and she couldn’t perform her assigned duties. When she miscarried, unfortunate and lamentable, she became eligible for an assignment again. When the orders for a remote assignment came down, she again became pregnant, and once again, someone else had to endure a short-notice assignment.

Ask anyone who has deployed how many times a woman was sent home because she became pregnant in a war zone. Don’t get me wrong, it takes two to tango, but until her replacement arrives, the others have to pull up the slack because the mission will not fail. Those aircraft will launch and they will launch on time and with their full complement of weapons and fuel.

03_SHOOTER

11-19-2008, 12:45 PM

The citizens of the United States "We the People" have the right to determine who is or isn't eligible for military service. If "We the People" demand that homosexuals be eligible to join the military and serve openly, then the military will "just have to deal."

When you finally decide to actually enlist in the military instead of playing part-time junior birdman, THEN come back and tell me about it, but until you've lived with a group of guys, 24/7/365, in the barracks, for years, until one day one of 'em decides to try to "take advantage" of his room-mate who was passed asleep out after going for 72 hours straight, you don't have the first clue in the world what you're prattling on about.

03_SHOOTER

11-19-2008, 12:48 PM

I have worked / do work with several homosexuals. Their contributions to our organization are greatly appreciated. "They" work hard and are responsible for many of the advancements that the company makes.

"Working with" and SERVING with are two entirely different animals.

I'm curious about what damaged your units morale. Was it that the unit lost a valuable member?

No, it was the fact that the TRUST that each of us had in each other was badly shaken, but again being as how you've never served, you wouldn't have any concept at all about that.

03_SHOOTER

11-19-2008, 12:54 PM

As far as women are concerned, yes I would. I had an airman that worked for me who received orders to a remote assignment. She got pregnant just before she was to depart. Now, someone else had to fill a short-notice assignment and she couldn’t perform her assigned duties. When she miscarried, unfortunate and lamentable, she became eligible for an assignment again. When the orders for a remote assignment came down, she again became pregnant, and once again, someone else had to endure a short-notice assignment.

Ask anyone who has deployed how many times a woman was sent home because she became pregnant in a war zone. Don’t get me wrong, it takes two to tango, but until her replacement arrives, the others have to pull up the slack because the mission will not fail. Those aircraft will launch and they will launch on time and with their full complement of weapons and fuel.

I remember reading a report over a year ago that the VAST majority of females being sent home from OIF/OEF were transferred because they allowed themselves to become pregnant so that they could be sent home. The fact that every one of them wasn't charged under a half a dozen Articles of the UCMJ and either given BCD's, or preferably sent to Leavenworth just goes to show exactly how slack the military is today.

Billyd

11-19-2008, 01:09 PM

I remember reading a report over a year ago that the VAST majority of females being sent home from OIF/OEF were transferred because they allowed themselves to become pregnant so that they could be sent home. The fact that every one of them wasn't charged under a half a dozen Articles of the UCMJ and either given BCD's, or preferably sent to Leavenworth just goes to show exactly how slack the military is today.

If, and this is just my opinion, they were to prosecute the females, they would need to prosecute the males as well. The old saying "Don't dip your pen in the company ink well" comes to mind. Like I said, it takes two to tango and the appropriate materials for prevention were available to us. And each service member engaged should have seen to his/her own Personal Protective Equipment, if you get my meaning.

Des

11-19-2008, 01:13 PM

I understand that this is a difficult issue for many.

Personally, as far as the way I was raised, and my personal beliefs, I don't agree with homosexuality. But I have friends who are. I've served with members who are. Never seen any problems.

I am in full agreement that biblically speaking sodomy is a sin....So is fornication. I'm not looking at this as a religious issue, though I am aware that it has a huge background in the debate, and respect that. Most of our values are religiously derived.

I would have to respectfully disagree with the argument that having homosexuals would go against discipline in the military. There are homosexuals serving in the military, yours and ours. We all know it. They're there. Some it's kind of obvious. Some you would have absolutely no clue. Do these cause disciplinary problems? Some would I'm sure, but not so much more than any other identifiable group. But I can guarantee that some are also damned fine soldiers.

Now the UCMJ clearly states that sodomy is a crime. But in the changing social values, is this not open to change? Why is it a crime? Is it because sodomy is immoral, a sin? Like I stated, so's fornication. Why isn't that a punishable offence? To be perfectly honest, I'm surprised Article 125 wasn't changed after the 2003 Lawrence vs. Texas and the reversal of the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick ruling.

What are the things soldiers ALWAYS talk about when they have downtime, or are up late in the field? We all know it's true. Personally, I don't care if you're gay, a muslim, praise free spirits or Gaia or whatever. If you're wiling to serve, put your life on the line for you country, do your job effectively, then, in my books, you're good to go.

Whenever this issue come up, I think of one of our former Prime Ministers (a Liberal, but he had his moments", Pierre Trudeau, when he said:

"the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation"

CAPSmith

11-19-2008, 02:19 PM

When you finally decide to actually enlist in the military instead of playing part-time junior birdman,

Well, at least we're keeping this discussion civil and respectful. :sleepy: I never claimed that my volunteer work had any relation to my "experience" in this matter and find it rather insulting that you would be so condescending towards it. You’re right that I can't tell you what the effects are during combat or in a military unit - that's why I asked.

Oh, and just so we're clear, I not necessarily advocating the policy be changed - but these discussions wouldn't get very far if people didn't challenge the position. "I agree" from everyone would be rather short discussion.

Of course this subject is going to be a touchy one because it challenges an institutions long held beliefs and policies. However, it isn't something that can be ignored or swept under the carpet.

I do find it odd though that the example you gave about your teammate being "taken advantage of" really has nothing to do with homosexuality, but sexual deviancy and criminal activity. Being a homosexual does not predispose you to that kind of behavior.

That action is just like a straight person raping a woman or a pedophile molesting a child, which I would argue happens just as much if not more in the military than the situation you brought up.

I remember living in Biloxi, MS while my wife was stationed at Keesler AFB for tech school. The base police blotter had a TSgt that was arrested and charged with several cases of rape, aggravated sexual assault on children under 12, child pornography, sodomy, etc. Isn't that just as detrimental to unit morale?

Or, while at Langley AFB there were numerous females that were raped, including an officer by an enlisted man. I suppose the females should be the ones removed, since they were a distraction and damaged unit morale?
In reading this study (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/mr323.ch1.pdf) , it wasn't codified that homosexuals were banned from military service until WWI.

During WWII, the military even went so far as to stop men from serving if they "appeared" gay - to the inclusion of having little body hair, sloped shoulders or feminine body features.

Apparently, it wasn't until 1941 that the military actually tried to rationalize the ban on homosexuals. Most were rejected from military service only because they were in violation of the military's sodomy laws.

That same study also says,
"None of the militaries studied for this report believe their effectiveness as an organization has been impaired or reduced as a result of the inclusion of homosexuals."

In the study of the NYPD,
Not a single case of an acknowledged homosexual male sexually harassing a heterosexual male was reported. Occasional hearsay reports, usually by commanding officers, were offered of homosexual women harassing heterosexual women, but these, too, were recognized as being rare, far less frequent than incidents of heterosexual men harassing women.

Tim said that he would trust the viewpoint of someone who put in several years in leadership positions. Here's a former JCS Chairman: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/03/national/main2326372.shtml

Buffa1oso1di3r

11-19-2008, 02:31 PM

Didn't at one point in time being Black was considered a "disability" and a "detriment to unit morale?"

Back in WWII, many thought that African-Americans lacked the knowledge or the skill to take part in any combat specialty. (Which was proven wrong time and time again).

Now, back to homosexuals in the military --

I agree with Des on this... there are already homosexuals in the military, and from what I've seen, most soldiers don't mind that they are...

03_SHOOTER

11-19-2008, 02:38 PM

If, and this is just my opinion, they were to prosecute the females, they would need to prosecute the males as well. The old saying "Don't dip your pen in the company ink well" comes to mind. Like I said, it takes two to tango and the appropriate materials for prevention were available to us. And each service member engaged should have seen to his/her own Personal Protective Equipment, if you get my meaning.

Back in "our day", and under normal conditions (CONUS assignment for instance) I would have agreed with you 100% Billy, but today these girls will intentionally lie and tell the guy "I'm on the pill" knowing full well that they aren't with the express purpose of being rendered "inop".

Besides that, to my knowledge there's nothing in the UCMJ to prevent young people from doing what young people do (if there was we'd BOTH have been in a world of hurt ;) ), but when these females intentionally get themselves knocked up, in a combat zone, with the express intent of avoiding service that they volunteered for, then we're dealing with Articles 77, 80, 81, 82, 92, 99, 104, 115, (possibly) 125, and 134 (-29, -37, -46, and -50).

As for the guys, well, you can't "dip your pen" unless the "lid on the ink well is wide open", so if we're going to prang they guys too, fine, throw 92 at 'em in an LOR, and 6 weeks of extra duty.

SlightlyCatholic

11-19-2008, 03:03 PM

Tim said that he would trust the viewpoint of someone who put in several years in leadership positions. Here's a former JCS Chairman: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/03/national/main2326372.shtml

Just so we're clear, this is what I said:

Lastly, I'd trust an appointed Flag Officer with 30+ years of military experience to determine the military's stance on gays. Why would the average citizen who hasn't BTDT know better than a General Officer?

What I meant by my statement is that "We the People" don't know what's best for our military all the time. That's the job of the guys with the stars on their epaulettes.

This is interesting:

John Shalikashvili, who retired in 1997 after four years as the nation's top military officer, had argued that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would hurt troop morale and recruitment and undermine the cohesion of combat units. He said he has changed his mind after meeting with gay servicemen.

"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers," Shalikashvili wrote in an opinion piece in Tuesday's New York Times.

Was he really in a position to question military policy after he'd been out of the military for ten years? This sounds like a sympathy move more than a commentary on what's good for the Army. I'm not questioning the General's service or credentials, but ten years out of anything is enough to put one out of touch with what's actually going on. If, for example, General Petraeus or Admiral Mullen said that the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy should be repealed, I think that would be more significant.

Billyd

11-19-2008, 03:12 PM

SlightlyCatholic

11-19-2008, 03:18 PM

Tim, one thing you have to remember about General Oficers, is they don't "retire" in the regular sense of the word. They simply quit wearing the uniform. When he was in uniform, he had no choice but to enforce the UCMJ. Now that he is a "civilian," he is free to express himself as he sees fit.

That's a good point and I'm not questioning the General's service, career, or right to free commentary. All I was trying to say is that I think a more relevant reference ( current MCPON, SMA, CMSAF, CJCS, etc.) would have been more applicable to today's discussion of homosexuality and the military in 2008. The article only tells us that at some point between 1997 and 2007, the General met with servicemen and changed his position on homosexuals in the military. It's just a little too vague for me. I'd like to know what the servicemen actually said, how many he met with, and at what point in that ten year period he decided to change his views.

Anyway:

Here is the relevant policy from the 1994 legislation:

`(b) POLICY- A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

`(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that--

`(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior;

`(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;

`(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;

`(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and

`(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

`(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

`(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

`(f) DEFINITIONS- In this section:

`(1) The term `homosexual' means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms `gay' and `lesbian'.

`(2) The term `bisexual' means a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual and heterosexual acts.

`(3) The term `homosexual act' means--

`(A) any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and

`(B) any bodily contact which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph (A).'.

SlightlyCatholic

11-19-2008, 03:56 PM

Just for comparison:

Establishing the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity In the Armed Forces.
WHEREAS it is essential that there be maintained in the armed services of the United States the highest standards of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense:

NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, by the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, and as Commander in Chief of the armed services, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.

2. There shall be created in the National Military Establishment an advisory committee to be known as the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, which shall be composed of seven members to be designated by the President.

3. The Committee is authorized on behalf of the President to examine into the rules, procedures and practices of the Armed Services in order to determine in what respect such rules, procedures and practices may be altered or improved with a view to carrying out the policy of this order. The Committee shall confer and advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force, and shall make such recommendations to the President and to said Secretaries as in the judgment of the Committee will effectuate the policy hereof.

4. All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Committee in its work, and to furnish the Committee such information or the services of such persons as the Committee may require in the performance of its duties.

5. When requested by the Committee to do so, persons in the armed services or in any of the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall testify before the Committee and shall make available for use of the Committee such documents and other information as the Committee may require.

6. The Committee shall continue to exist until such time as the President shall terminate its existence by Executive order.

Harry Truman

The White House
July 26, 1948

It's interesting that neither "gender" nor "sexual preference" are mentioned...should they have been?

ang1sgt

11-19-2008, 05:07 PM

I agree with Des on this... there are already homosexuals in the military, and from what I've seen, most soldiers don't mind that they are...

Let's see here, Again, You are a CADET, You have NO Active Duty Experience and you make the broad sweeping notion that most soldiers Don't Mind. I think you need to think about your statements and generalizations before you hit the "Submit Reply" button in the Forum.

Drill for life

11-19-2008, 05:59 PM

Well, at least we're keeping this discussion civil and respectful. :sleepy: I never claimed that my volunteer work had any relation to my "experience" in this matter and find it rather insulting that you would be so condescending towards it. You’re right that I can't tell you what the effects are during combat or in a military unit - that's why I asked.

Oh, and just so we're clear, I not necessarily advocating the policy be changed - but these discussions wouldn't get very far if people didn't challenge the position. "I agree" from everyone would be rather short discussion.

Of course this subject is going to be a touchy one because it challenges an institutions long held beliefs and policies. However, it isn't something that can be ignored or swept under the carpet.

I do find it odd though that the example you gave about your teammate being "taken advantage of" really has nothing to do with homosexuality, but sexual deviancy and criminal activity. Being a homosexual does not predispose you to that kind of behavior.

That action is just like a straight person raping a woman or a pedophile molesting a child, which I would argue happens just as much if not more in the military than the situation you brought up.

I remember living in Biloxi, MS while my wife was stationed at Keesler AFB for tech school. The base police blotter had a TSgt that was arrested and charged with several cases of rape, aggravated sexual assault on children under 12, child pornography, sodomy, etc. Isn't that just as detrimental to unit morale?

Or, while at Langley AFB there were numerous females that were raped, including an officer by an enlisted man. I suppose the females should be the ones removed, since they were a distraction and damaged unit morale?
In reading this study (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/mr323.ch1.pdf) , it wasn't codified that homosexuals were banned from military service until WWI.

During WWII, the military even went so far as to stop men from serving if they "appeared" gay - to the inclusion of having little body hair, sloped shoulders or feminine body features.

Apparently, it wasn't until 1941 that the military actually tried to rationalize the ban on homosexuals. Most were rejected from military service only because they were in violation of the military's sodomy laws.

That same study also says,

In the study of the NYPD,

Tim said that he would trust the viewpoint of someone who put in several years in leadership positions. Here's a former JCS Chairman: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/03/national/main2326372.shtml

I wouldn't have been able to join the Marines during World War 2 either becaseu I have to shave my Armpits. My doctor makes me, I get a rash basause the hairs rub the skin and irratate it. The bible says homosexuality is a abomination and it is but that doen't mean we have to treat them any different. Love the sinner not the sin. Maybe homosexuals should't be able to serve in a combat MOS or something along that nature not just not being able to serve. We used to do women that way and then we let women n the military and it has proved to be succesful(Cludia Kennedy,Ann E. Dunwoody, etc.). That's just my two cents. I have had to come out(I'm not gay but I was raised likeing a girl of another race ws wrong) so I have only liked African-American girls my whole life and my family are Ku-Klux Klan members,ARyan Brotherhood,pecherwoods and skinheads and I was taught to hate everybody except white people so I came out with my sexuality and got harrassed for it. My whole life has been avoiding my family, Just because I like African-American girls should not be a reason to kick me out of my house. Same as in any other situation.
Sincerely
C/1stLt DRill for life

Buffa1oso1di3r

11-19-2008, 06:24 PM

Des

11-19-2008, 06:29 PM

Let's see here, Again, You are a CADET, You have NO Active Duty Experience and you make the broad sweeping notion that most soldiers Don't Mind. I think you need to think about your statements and generalizations before you hit the "Submit Reply" button in the Forum.

He does not, but I do, and he was agreeing with my statement, so it should be the one to reproach.

To back up my statement, I am using my personal experience, and those of my comrades I have trained, served, and deployed with between 3 Brigade Groups, 1 National Headquarters, and a couple of overseas deployments, one of them a combat tour.

I have NEVER had any problems, or heard first-hand of problems with homosexuals, or women for that matter, in our combat arms (we allow both in those trades). We've joked with them, but never had any issues. I've heard rumours about "how one time, this happened..." but never saw it.

SlightlyCatholic

11-19-2008, 07:20 PM

Drill for life

11-19-2008, 08:13 PM

Here's an interesting angle to add to the discussion:

Are homosexuals a civil rights group? If yes, why should they be recognized as one? If not, why not?

I'll give my opinion, which is no. My belief is that homosexuals aren't like African Americans or women in that their differences aren't so much biological or physiological as they are ideological. They aren't being supressed because they have dark skin or distinguishing anatomical differences but because they love a different way. Gay people and straight people simply love in different ways. I won't go into what my Catholic faith teaches me about which love is more pure and ordered, but I will say that I think the discussion about homosexuality in 2008 is primarily about what we want as a culture rather than a fundamental deprivation of human rights/respect.

I agree with you 100%. If someones decides to be Homosexual then it is there choice we need to stay out of it. I just don't think they should have the right to get married. If a person is gay they need to keep it to themselves and not tell anyone except for other gay people. That is my two cents.
P.S. It should be carefully watched in schools because it is a huge distraction in my school. The homosexual males in my school have sexual relations anywher they can it is unexcusable in school.

SlightlyCatholic

11-19-2008, 08:18 PM

If someones decides to be Homosexual then it is there choice we need to stay out of it.

Is it really their choice or are they born that way? I don't think we as a culture have come to a consensus about that yet, and I think that's a big question mark in the whole debate. After all, if I choose to be a certain way, you could just tell me not to like men anymore. However, if it's the way I was "internally wired", I don't know any better. That's just how I love, if I am an "intrinsic homosexual".

Drill for life

11-19-2008, 08:24 PM

Is it really their choice or are they born that way? I don't think we as a culture have come to a consensus about that yet, and I think that's a big question mark in the whole debate. After all, if I choose to be a certain way, you could just tell me not to like men anymore. However, if it's the way I was "internally wired", I don't know any better. That's just how I love, if I am an "intrinsic homosexual".

If someone was born Homosexual then god would not have mad Adam and Eve(he would have made Adam and Steve). It really is there choice. I do not want to go all religious on the forum so if you want to hear how Homosexuality is so common now a days P.M. me.

SlightlyCatholic

11-19-2008, 08:31 PM

If someone was born Homosexual then god would not have mad Adam and Eve(he would have made Adam and Steve). It really is there choice. I do not want to go all religious on the forum so if you want to hear how Homosexuality is so common now a days P.M. me.

There are a lot of things that are theologically wrong with what you're saying, but like you said, it's best not to go into that.

Perhaps we could get back to the text of the 1994 Public Law which serves as the basis for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? I wouldn't want a great discussion going south because of tangental conversations.

Drill for life

11-19-2008, 08:33 PM

Thats a great Idea, of course your going to say there is something wrong with my Thelogical comment. Your going to be a Chaplain.

SlightlyCatholic

11-19-2008, 08:35 PM

Thats a great Idea, of course your going to say there is something wrong with my Thelogical comment. Your going to be a Chaplain.

Well...I don't quite know how to answer you except for saying that I don't want to get into a theological argument and I think it would be best to get back on topic. I don't know why my aspirations to the military chaplaincy have to do with your comment about Adam and Eve, but could you please elaborate any comments you may have in a PM? Again, let's try to preserve the integrity of the discussion.

Drill for life

11-19-2008, 08:40 PM

Agreed, if you have seen Sgt. Bilko you ahve probaly seen the part of the movie wher his company"D" has an inspection so they move to Company "C" barracks where one of his NCo's is in the room and they are going thru his stuff and find girly underwear and things of that nature and the Base Commander is giving him a strange loook and the NCO replys" You can't ask me any questions and I don't have to tell you anything". I have always found that funny.

PaulR

11-20-2008, 06:53 AM

PaulR

11-20-2008, 06:59 AM

I have worked / do work with several homosexuals. Their contributions to our organization are greatly appreciated. "They" work hard and are responsible for many of the advancements that the company makes.

Guess what, none of them have every "hit on me," asked me out, flaunted their "gayness," or tried to molest anyone. They have no negative effect on morale whatsoever.

I'm curious about what damaged your units morale. Was it that the unit lost a valuable member?

But you do not live with them in a close proximity for months/years at a time either. That element changes things a bit for both homo and heterosexuals.

PaulR

11-20-2008, 07:02 AM

When you finally decide to actually enlist in the military instead of playing part-time junior birdman, THEN come back and tell me about it, but until you've lived with a group of guys, 24/7/365, in the barracks, for years, until one day one of 'em decides to try to "take advantage" of his room-mate who was passed asleep out after going for 72 hours straight, you don't have the first clue in the world what you're prattling on about.

That guy would not survive the event....:sick:

PaulR

11-20-2008, 07:05 AM

That action is just like a straight person raping a woman or a pedophile molesting a child, which I would argue happens just as much if not more in the military than the situation you brought up.

I see your point, but the situation is totally different.

The biggest difference is that a male would never be billeted in the same area as a female. Males and females do not share showers:(, toilets, or living areas.

MP_Girl

11-22-2008, 11:38 PM

...and to add to the discussion....

How would you feel if you lived in close quarters with men that were participating in sexual actions in an inappropriate manner?

The same goes for females. I have heard stories, and don't need to get into details, but IMHO, people should not and I repeat should not display such actions when in uniform or deployed.

To me, to each his own, but if you are going to participate in such actions, then do it outside of uniform, and not while on duty.

03_SHOOTER

11-23-2008, 12:04 AM

That guy would not survive the event....:sick:

He nearly didn't. Being thrown bodily through a window on the 3rd floor of the barracks generally isn't conducive to one's well being. The good side is that the poofer was discharged (OTH if I recall) after others came forward and offered statements that he had made "inappropriate advances" toward them as well (they were too embarrassed to say anything about it beforehand). The down side is that the victim was given a Squadron level Article 15 (off his record in 6 months), 10 days of extra duty, and forced to pay for the window!! Today he'd have been before a Courts Martial and sent to Leavenworth and the silly little poofer probably would have sued him, and WON! :devil:

Drill for life

11-23-2008, 05:00 PM

He nearly didn't. Being thrown bodily through a window on the 3rd floor of the barracks generally isn't conducive to one's well being. The good side is that the poofer was discharged (OTH if I recall) after others came forward and offered statements that he had made "inappropriate advances" toward them as well (they were too embarrassed to say anything about it beforehand). The down side is that the victim was given a Squadron level Article 15 (off his record in 6 months), 10 days of extra duty, and forced to pay for the window!! Today he'd have been before a Courts Martial and sent to Leavenworth and the silly little poofer probably would have sued him, and WON! :devil:

The way things work out are strange aren't they?

OrienteeringOH

11-23-2008, 09:09 PM

soccermark23

11-23-2008, 09:27 PM

Man I didn't even see this thread until now. For me I look at it this way, and consider I went to a college with an abundance of guys who swung the opposite way. I have no problem with someone being a homosexual, in fact I have a couple friends who are, however; my gripe is when they try to force their own personal preferences down your throat. It is something I don't want to hear about, keep it to yourself and don't try to lecture me about being tolerant.

I will say that with current living situations while deployed I would not want to be assigned to a room with a homosexual. I believe it would make me uncomfortable which would in turn affect my ability to sleep and ultimately could affect my job performance.

03_SHOOTER

11-23-2008, 10:17 PM

With all due respect there 03_Shooter, is it appropriate of you to call anyone a poofer?.. this is a forum for those of us under the age of 18, and even though I have definately heard worse "Do unto others as other do unto you".

Well, I could call them "flaming butt monkeys", but that wouldn't be very PC now would it.

Frankly, I don't give a tinkers damn about being PC, because in my book PC stands for "Personal Cowardice". It's LONG past time that you young people got used to the big bad world that's waiting for you, and that world includes people like me who don't really care about "diversity", or any of that other garbage. Since you've obviously not been told this, we're all members of the human race, and if they're so completely humorless that they can't stand being poked fun at like the rest of us, then they NEED to be poked fun at even more until they get used to the idea that they're NOT any more "special" than anyone else.

fjer

11-23-2008, 10:29 PM

I find it interesting, and telling, that the only people who seem to be arguing for queers in the military are people who aren't (in the military that is). For those of you who support letting homosexuals into the military let me ask you, would you feel comfortable taking a shower with someone you know is sexually attracted to you standing two feet away? I sure wouldn't.

C/SSGT Seifer

11-24-2008, 08:43 PM

Spoken by someone who hasn't served and hasn't had to live close quarters with 50-100 people.

No disrespect, but just because the people serving with you don't seam homosexual doesn't mean they aren't. Honestly what will be the difference between knowing someone's sexual preference or not. They are the same person regardless. The only difference is that they can openly look at guys at a bar rather then pretending to look at a women so they don't get discharged. I think that the removal of the policy would be a good thing. If they want to serve then let them. Saying that homosexuals can't join is like saying black people can't join, it is biased.

I find it interesting, and telling, that the only people who seem to be arguing for queers in the military are people who aren't (in the military that is). For those of you who support letting homosexuals into the military let me ask you, would you feel comfortable taking a shower with someone you know is sexually attracted to you standing two feet away? I sure wouldn't.
Like I said before. A homosexual is a homosexual regardless of the fact that they aren't open about it. On top of that using the term, "queer," is very politically incorrect. Here is the definition of queer. strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different

C/SSGT Seifer

11-24-2008, 08:58 PM

The point is that gays may serve, but are held to a different standard. Young men (and some young women as well) are prone to brag about their sexual conquests, however, gays can not as that would violate the "Don't Tell" portion of the policy.

You see that is another reason that this policy should be removed. Lets say you and a couple of your buddies in your squad go to a bar and start talking about your, "experiences," when it finally comes to the gay guy's turn what is he going to do? His options are limited, either he says he has never done anything, he makes up some horrible story that makes no sense, or he says he is gay. I am not gay but I know others who are and I just don't think that this policy is very just.

fjer

11-24-2008, 09:30 PM

No disrespect, but just because the people serving with you don't seam homosexual doesn't mean they aren't. Honestly what will be the difference between knowing someone's sexual preference or not. They are the same person regardless. The only difference is that they can openly look at guys at a bar rather then pretending to look at a women so they don't get discharged. I think that the removal of the policy would be a good thing. If they want to serve then let them. Saying that homosexuals can't join is like saying black people can't join, it is biased.

Like I said before. A homosexual is a homosexual regardless of the fact that they aren't open about it. On top of that using the term, "queer," is very politically incorrect. Here is the definition of queer. strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different

The difference is that when you know someone is gay (or whatever term you prefer; really, who cares about political correctness?), you know that there is a good chance that person showering or sleeping a few feet from you may very well be checking you out, and holding sexual feelings for you. There are reasons men and women don't share showers and living quarters; many of these reasons would apply to homos being allowed into the military. Are we going to give them all their own private rooms and showers?

I once again point to the fact that those of us (though myself obviously to a lesser degree) who have lived in a military environment and had members of the same sex in very close quarters all seem to agree that allowing gays in is a bad idea.

flyBoy2010

11-24-2008, 09:44 PM

fjer

11-24-2008, 09:52 PM

I'm sure that all of these arguments were made when women were first allowed into the services. Eventually they will get in and be allowed to be open. They may even get their own barracks and showers. I understand why AD members would not like to have openly gay soldiers in their barracks, but who is to say that they can't server their country and be openly gay?

Yeah, I'm sure people argued that men and women using the same showers would be a problem... oh wait, that wouldn't make any sense. Another problem with your argument, who is to say even giving them their own barracks would work? consider this hypothetical situation:

Bob the gay soldier has a thing for Steve the gay soldier, but Steve doesn't feel the same way about Bob. Because he likes Steve, Bob likes to stare at Steve in the shower... See the problem?

Putting people who have open sexual preferences for each other in same living quarters or using the same shower creates problems and breaks down unit cohesion. This whole question is just a giant Pandora's Box.

Billyd

11-24-2008, 09:56 PM

You all seem to have forgotten that the reason for the current policy was purely political and to appease a segment of the population. Nobody is denying that gays are/have served honorably. The ONLY thing that changed was that recruiters and MEPS personnel were no longer permitted to ask about sexual orientation. That's it. The Chain of Command is precluded from investigation unless/until the member makes a statement or commits an act.

flyBoy2010

11-24-2008, 09:56 PM

Yeah, I'm sure people argued that men and women using the same showers would be a problem... oh wait, that wouldn't make any sense. Another problem with your argument, who is to say even giving them their own barracks would work? consider this hypothetical situation:

Bob the gay soldier has a thing for Steve the gay soldier, but Steve doesn't feel the same way about Bob. Because he likes Steve, Bob likes to stare at Steve in the shower... See the problem?

Putting people who have open sexual preferences for each other in same living quarters or using the same shower creates problems and breaks down unit cohesion. This whole question is just a giant Pandora's Box.

I see your point, but why should we ban homosexuals from serving their country proudly just like every other service member, past or present.
There would be some problems, of course, but just like with any other problem, they can be fixed.

fjer

11-24-2008, 10:05 PM

I see your point, but why should we ban homosexuals from serving their country proudly just like every other service member, past or present.
There would be some problems, of course, but just like with any other problem, they can be fixed.

Because, like other groups not allowed to serve (disabled, old) the costs outweigh the benefits. (And of course there are the moral objections, but taking away someone's ability to say, "well that's just what you believe" or "you need to be more tolerant" is nice.)

PaulR

11-24-2008, 10:33 PM

We just discharged a guy because he placed something up on his Myspace page. Now how the command came to find his Myspace page is beyond me... I think that someone was digging, which was kind of shady to begin with. Evidently, it was enough to get him a discharge.

03_SHOOTER

11-24-2008, 10:42 PM

The thing that a lot of you fail to understand is that the military is all about UNIFORMITY, which is why they dress you all alike, and you all have to march alike, and you all have the same haircuts, you're all issued the same weapons, etc., etc., etc.

Homosexuality is NOT "uniform" with the rest of a military society, and no amount of social experimentation is going to change that. Now, if they can comport themselves like everyone else and keep their perversions in the closet while they're there, no problem, but it's been my experience that once a homo comes out, they come out flaming, and that IS a problem, because it's detrimental to "Good Order and Discipline", which destroys unit cohesion, and can get your butt thrown out of a 3rd floor barracks window!