Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hubble head · 12-16-2002, 06:05 PM

I'm a former Marine so this subject cracks me up. First of all "gays" are NOT technically banned in the military. A walk onboard any Navy submarine or ship would make even Liza Menelli's gaydar go off. Men and Women.

They are, as people, not banned. The fact that they prefer sex with members of the same sex is banned-banned from ALL other military personnel�s knowledge. Even ALL those they report to. Big difference.

Why? The 17-22 year olds making up our core fighting forces are not very open minded to the idea of serving with others who may "get off" by being around them in some way. It's what they have been taught from their environment growing up. 98% don't even have the maturity or open mindedness to think it all the way through.

The military makes a great catch net for mindless teenage wanderers who are not prepared for college or the real world. Some are just more comfortable always being told what to do and when to do it; others just want to be a "bad ass". IQ's are not in huge supply. But that part is what makes it work so well, so we can't knock it.

Their acceptance of openly gay people will not come soon. There are many more complex risks to consider like members of the same unit engaging in romantic relations, especially in a time of battle, that enter into Washington's decision.

The military has hundreds, even 1000's of years of historical knowledge of what makes armies succeed and fail. Maximum strength for the manpower is any military's #1 goal. We have enough compromises to deal with as it is.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Hubble head ]</p>

beoba · 12-16-2002, 07:03 PM

Colin Powell made the argument that gays should not be open in the military because it would lower morale if they were.

About 50 years earlier, the same argument was made against integrating the military, oddly enough.

Shadowy Man · 12-16-2002, 08:34 PM

Well, I guess our military should be happy then that all those Arabic speaking terrorists are heterosexual. Phew!

ju'iblex · 12-16-2002, 11:28 PM

Quote:

My readings lead me to believe the hardcore stance against homosexuality is a fairly recent phenomenon. If anyone is knowledgeable about that, I'd appreciate some informed commentary.

my personal belief is, as countries inch closer to war, people revert back in to safe traditional values. that is, in order to tough out a war, we revert to what we know has worked before.

when im talking traditional im referring to the 1950's, nuclear families and all that jazz.

this seems to correlate with elections during war-time. people are afraid if we change, then we might not make it through.

this hardcore stance against homosexuality also fits. its part of the regression back to traditional values. it has always been this way with wartime, however the homosexuality controversy has just become more noticable today because of the recent tolerance <to an extent> found in recent times regarding it. therefore, making it more of an obvious jump from tolerance to intolerance.

but, thats simply an opinion. not that im informed, have any authority on the subject, or even am worth listening to.

mshah2k · 12-17-2002, 10:20 AM

In times of war, homosexuals were not exempt from the draft. If they could be drafted into the war, then why should they not be allowed to join by their own free will. In past wars, such as world war II, there are numerous accounts of GI's telling their CO that they were gay, most of the time CO just told them to drink some brandy, dont worry about it, and goto sleep.

It's easy for educated people to say that the rules are wrong and the military should be more open and etc... Yes the officers are educated and usually open people, but the average soldier usually only has a high school diploma, and a lot of them come from strict family values that are against homosexuality in any form. But it is that soldier that is going to be doing the fighting, and if they cannot fully accept a gay soldier fighting alongside them, then it is not yet time for there to be open gays in the military.

Aerion · 12-17-2002, 10:33 AM

Gays are banned from the military because a huge majority of people, especially men are homophobic. The military in general relies greatly on a unit being a very close knit team. A little bit of homophobia might cause some members of the team to not get along as well.

I think the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is intended as a phasing in approach to give military personel time to get used to the idea and get over the worst of their homophobia. Give it another decade or so and being Gay in the military will no longer be an issue.

HaysooChreesto! · 12-17-2002, 11:53 AM

Trust me on this; the military is not ready for openly gay soldiers. When I was in the army there was a guy in my company that attempted to get his groove on with the wrong guy and he was reported.

It was probably one of the saddest things I'd ever seen. Granted the gay soldier brought this on himself due to his own indiscretion... Anyway, this was a soldier who was well liked, but was immediately and harshly ostracized by the rest of the company-no one would even talk to him. He was dishonorably discharged a short time later.

I can tell you personally that the average combat arms soldier is not a tower of intellect. I'm not saying they're all a bunch of redneck bozos, but there are enough so that until all of society becomes more enlightened, the military will not be ready for openly gay soldiers.
Is that wrong? I certainly think so. But the military is a huge machine with long traditions and it's not going to change just because we wish it would.

mencken · 12-18-2002, 12:24 PM

Epaminondas of Thebes
Alexander the Great
Julius Caesar
Trajan
Richard the Lionheart
Frederick the Great
Baron von Steuben

All of 'em would be booted from the U.S. military. What a great idea.

Morat · 12-18-2002, 03:18 PM

My viewpoint has always been, and remains, as follows:

If you're too squicked by the thought that a fellow soldier might be gay, you're too damn squemish for the army.

Integration of blacks was long, slow, painful, and still ongoing. But did we kick blacks out because it offended the delicate sensibilities of a bunch of rednecks?

Loren Pechtel · 12-18-2002, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Morat:
My viewpoint has always been, and remains, as follows:

If you're too squicked by the thought that a fellow soldier might be gay, you're too damn squemish for the army.

Not exactly how I put it but same idea.

How about the following solution: Permit openly gay people in the military. There are units that are straight-only and there are mixed units. Gays obviously can only go to the mixed units. The mixed units get 1% higher pay, though, and are otherwise treated equal. If things don't come out even enough the odd units are made mixed. Obviously in times of serious combat the division may fall apart but what's going to put us in such a situation?

This way nobody is forced to serve with a gay, but there are advantages to doing so. I don't think it would be too long before the straight-only units could be phased out.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-16-2002, 06:05 PM	#11
Hubble head Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Corn rows Posts: 4,570	I'm a former Marine so this subject cracks me up. First of all "gays" are NOT technically banned in the military. A walk onboard any Navy submarine or ship would make even Liza Menelli's gaydar go off. Men and Women. They are, as people, not banned. The fact that they prefer sex with members of the same sex is banned-banned from ALL other military personnel�s knowledge. Even ALL those they report to. Big difference. Why? The 17-22 year olds making up our core fighting forces are not very open minded to the idea of serving with others who may "get off" by being around them in some way. It's what they have been taught from their environment growing up. 98% don't even have the maturity or open mindedness to think it all the way through. The military makes a great catch net for mindless teenage wanderers who are not prepared for college or the real world. Some are just more comfortable always being told what to do and when to do it; others just want to be a "bad ass". IQ's are not in huge supply. But that part is what makes it work so well, so we can't knock it. Their acceptance of openly gay people will not come soon. There are many more complex risks to consider like members of the same unit engaging in romantic relations, especially in a time of battle, that enter into Washington's decision. The military has hundreds, even 1000's of years of historical knowledge of what makes armies succeed and fail. Maximum strength for the manpower is any military's #1 goal. We have enough compromises to deal with as it is. [ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Hubble head ]</p>

12-16-2002, 07:03 PM	#12
beoba Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Boston Posts: 699	Colin Powell made the argument that gays should not be open in the military because it would lower morale if they were. About 50 years earlier, the same argument was made against integrating the military, oddly enough.

12-16-2002, 08:34 PM	#13
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Well, I guess our military should be happy then that all those Arabic speaking terrorists are heterosexual. Phew!

12-17-2002, 10:20 AM	#15
mshah2k Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: City of Brotherly Love Posts: 1,691	In times of war, homosexuals were not exempt from the draft. If they could be drafted into the war, then why should they not be allowed to join by their own free will. In past wars, such as world war II, there are numerous accounts of GI's telling their CO that they were gay, most of the time CO just told them to drink some brandy, dont worry about it, and goto sleep. It's easy for educated people to say that the rules are wrong and the military should be more open and etc... Yes the officers are educated and usually open people, but the average soldier usually only has a high school diploma, and a lot of them come from strict family values that are against homosexuality in any form. But it is that soldier that is going to be doing the fighting, and if they cannot fully accept a gay soldier fighting alongside them, then it is not yet time for there to be open gays in the military.

12-17-2002, 10:33 AM	#16
Aerion Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 476	Gays are banned from the military because a huge majority of people, especially men are homophobic. The military in general relies greatly on a unit being a very close knit team. A little bit of homophobia might cause some members of the team to not get along as well. I think the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is intended as a phasing in approach to give military personel time to get used to the idea and get over the worst of their homophobia. Give it another decade or so and being Gay in the military will no longer be an issue.

12-17-2002, 11:53 AM	#17
HaysooChreesto! Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: SoCal USA Posts: 7,737	Trust me on this; the military is not ready for openly gay soldiers. When I was in the army there was a guy in my company that attempted to get his groove on with the wrong guy and he was reported. It was probably one of the saddest things I'd ever seen. Granted the gay soldier brought this on himself due to his own indiscretion... Anyway, this was a soldier who was well liked, but was immediately and harshly ostracized by the rest of the company-no one would even talk to him. He was dishonorably discharged a short time later. I can tell you personally that the average combat arms soldier is not a tower of intellect. I'm not saying they're all a bunch of redneck bozos, but there are enough so that until all of society becomes more enlightened, the military will not be ready for openly gay soldiers. Is that wrong? I certainly think so. But the military is a huge machine with long traditions and it's not going to change just because we wish it would.

12-18-2002, 12:24 PM	#18
mencken Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Bowling Green, Ky. Posts: 29	Epaminondas of Thebes Alexander the Great Julius Caesar Trajan Richard the Lionheart Frederick the Great Baron von Steuben All of 'em would be booted from the U.S. military. What a great idea.

12-18-2002, 03:18 PM	#19
Morat Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 932	My viewpoint has always been, and remains, as follows: If you're too squicked by the thought that a fellow soldier might be gay, you're too damn squemish for the army. Integration of blacks was long, slow, painful, and still ongoing. But did we kick blacks out because it offended the delicate sensibilities of a bunch of rednecks?

12-18-2002, 04:31 PM	#20
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by Morat: My viewpoint has always been, and remains, as follows: If you're too squicked by the thought that a fellow soldier might be gay, you're too damn squemish for the army. Not exactly how I put it but same idea. How about the following solution: Permit openly gay people in the military. There are units that are straight-only and there are mixed units. Gays obviously can only go to the mixed units. The mixed units get 1% higher pay, though, and are otherwise treated equal. If things don't come out even enough the odd units are made mixed. Obviously in times of serious combat the division may fall apart but what's going to put us in such a situation? This way nobody is forced to serve with a gay, but there are advantages to doing so. I don't think it would be too long before the straight-only units could be phased out.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.