Gays in the Military?

[Coburn In 2012]

A terrible policy that under mines the confidence and security of American soldiers and sailors.  They should be worried about the enemy not about who will cop a feel in the shower or try to blow them in their bunk. 

If gays want to serve their country perhaps there could be some defense, service or public works jobs they could do as a group like rehabbing houses or driving trucks with supplies to our bases.  That might work.  But our troops need to be focussed on job one which is killing the enemy and staying alive and they should not have to worry about some queen staring at them or touching them improperly.

[Mechaman]

A terrible policy that under mines the confidence and security of American soldiers and sailors.  They should be worried about the enemy not about who will cop a feel in the shower or try to blow them in their bunk. 

If gays want to serve their country perhaps there could be some defense, service or public works jobs they could do as a group like rehabbing houses or driving trucks with supplies to our bases.  That might work.  But our troops need to be focussed on job one which is killing the enemy and staying alive and they should not have to worry about some queen staring at them or touching them improperly.

Right, because gays shouldn't have the right to fight for a country that has people in it constantly trying to take away their rights yet despite that, gays still love it enough to want to have the right to risk their lives on the field of battle for it. That's quite damn heroic to have that kind of attitude, anybody who loves their country anywhere as much as some of the secret gay servicemen do damn well deserves to be in the army. The army isn't about orientation or purity, it's about people who love their nation to the point of risking their lives for it, as long as the members of our armed forces have that, they shouldn't be prohibited from active duty in our armed forces.

[MK]

A terrible policy that under mines the confidence and security of American soldiers and sailors.  They should be worried about the enemy not about who will cop a feel in the shower or try to blow them in their bunk. 

If gays want to serve their country perhaps there could be some defense, service or public works jobs they could do as a group like rehabbing houses or driving trucks with supplies to our bases.  That might work.  But our troops need to be focussed on job one which is killing the enemy and staying alive and they should not have to worry about some queen staring at them or touching them improperly.

LOL "queens"   OMG we going to have troops dressed in drag running around the battle field !!
 Coburn I like ya dude but you can't say things like this ... makes you look  cartoonish.

Well, my OP is changing on this because it would be me cutting off my nose in spite of my face.

I just don't like the term "serve openly gay in the military" it  can mean many different things.  

[Holmes]

Maybe the phrase "openly gay" can mean too many things? Like for me, I just think of it as a soldier being able to say "yeah I have a husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever" and the officials being all "whatever". I guess some people can think of it as meaning "the soldiers will start having sex with each other!", but that's ridiculous cause I'm sure that if two soldiers, straight or gay, wanna have sex with each other, they'd probably find some way of doing it regardless.

[JSojourner]

What percentage of the population is gay?

What percentage of each squad, platoon, company, etc. will be gay?

Would gays ever realistically be in the majority in our military?

Are soldiers and sailors trained to defend themselves from assault and attacks?  Are they often armed?

So if I am to understand the Coburnesque argument (and the poster or the Senator would likely make the same claim), two or maybe three gay men in a platoon would be in a position to force themselves on all the others?  They would never be prevented from doing so by...

*simple respect for their fellows
*military rules and regulations about assault
*fear of military discipline
*fear of being ostracized
*fear of barracks justice

In other words, no one is going to grope or fondle or even ogle a fellow Marine unless he wants to have seven or eight Marines to beat the living sh**t out of him.

A complete non-issue.  Gays should serve openly, freely and proudly in our armed forces.

[??????????]

A complete non-issue.  Gays should serve openly, freely and proudly in our armed forces.

Should women in the military be forced to share the same shower house as male soldiers? Obviously it would be doubtful that flamers would be serving in the military anyway. I have no problem with them fighting on the front lines, though I do understand the discomfort that straight males would have in having to shower and live in very close conditions with homosexual men. Women however, should not be on the front line and should only be allowed in support positions.

[JSojourner]

A complete non-issue.  Gays should serve openly, freely and proudly in our armed forces.

Should women in the military be forced to share the same shower house as male soldiers? Obviously it would be doubtful that flamers would be serving in the military anyway. I have no problem with them fighting on the front lines, though I do understand the discomfort that straight males would have in having to shower and live in very close conditions with homosexual men. Women however, should not be on the front line and should only be allowed in support positions.

Well, here's the thing.  The women would be in the minority.  And if they were in the shower with men, they would likely be the ones needing protection. 

The anti-gay argument is that somehow, gay soldiers or sailors will try to "queer" their straight comrades or fondle them.  At least, that's where crazy Coburn was going.  My point was, if you have 30 guys in a platoon and 25 are straight...the five are not going to bother anyone.  And if they do, it will be taken care of swiftly and harshly.  Hell, I suspect if a gay marine even so much as leered at a straight marine, it would dealt with in-house.

I am not sure where people get the idea that gays want to rape or otherwise sexually assault straights.  Or why straights feel threatened by this.  If someone touches you, you sock 'em in the mouth.  Maybe I'm missing something though...I dunno.

[Edu]

I don't really see why people who risk their lives on the battlefield more often than not, who are trained to kill, avoid bullets, withstand torture, etc would be so uncomfortable by sharing the barracks with a couple of gay men, especially since there would be like 50? 100? straight men for every gay one.

[Fritz]

A complete non-issue.  Gays should serve openly, freely and proudly in our armed forces.

Should women in the military be forced to share the same shower house as male soldiers? Obviously it would be doubtful that flamers would be serving in the military anyway. I have no problem with them fighting on the front lines, though I do understand the discomfort that straight males would have in having to shower and live in very close conditions with homosexual men. Women however, should not be on the front line and should only be allowed in support positions.

While we're at it, let's establish seperate public restrooms for gays all across America.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

How can this still be an issue year 2009? That this thread even exists is plain stupid.

- Since DADT was created, about 13 000 good soldiers have been kicked out of the American army simply because of who they are. You're in the middle of two wars! You cannot afford to kick 13 000 good men out of the army for no good reason.

I'm still waiting to hear a single good argument be made for DADT.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The poor straight guys have to worry about being ogled in the showerroom? Oh no! *gasp* Maybe those nasty homosexuals will touch them in an inapropriate way.

Do you guys think we gays are some sort of freakin animals that can't control ourselves? Gay people shower with you in High School after P.E. and team practice. Maybe we should be banned from P.E. and the Hockey team as well, or should we change with the girls so that we don't ogle anyone.

Last semester the whole year two of my school stayed at a camp for a week. Funny enough all the male seventeen and eighteen year olds were mature enough to sleep in the same dorm as us four openly gay guys. And me and the other three gay guys were equally able to keep ourselves from touching or raping or friends while they were sleeping.
     
 - Every Western nation except the US allows gay men to serve in the military. Canada, UK, Germany, Denmark, Mexico, Spain, you name it. All member countries of the NATO, has open gay men and women serving in their armed forces except you, and their armies are yet to selfdestruct because of it. But then maybe American soldiers are not as professional as soldiers from other parts of the world.

In Israel every young man and woman has a duty to protect their country and serve in the military, and gays and lesbians are no exception. It's working absolutely fine for them and I don't think anyone is even pondering this issue. But then their homes are being blown up on a monthly bases, and hostile neighbour nations constanly threatens them, so I guess they do not have the luxurity to pick and choose among the brave and qualified young men and women who are ready to die to defend them.

- America, land of the free and home of the brave? Really?

Thank God almost all of the posters on this forum have enough common sense to realise the stupidity of the DADT. 

 

   

     

[Magic 8-Ball]

A complete non-issue.  Gays should serve openly, freely and proudly in our armed forces.

Absolutely.  The military has lost too many good soldiers/translators/what have you because of this B.S.

I'm still waiting to hear a single good argument be made for DADT.

Cowardice.  It's why it was enacted to begin with.

[Frodo]

What does everyone think of the idea of creating an elite unit in the U.S. military, composed entirely of gay male couples, modeled on the Sacred Band of Thebes?

[Magic 8-Ball]

What does everyone think of the idea of creating an elite unit in the U.S. military, composed entirely of gay male couples, modeled on the Sacred Band of Thebes?

No.  I'm not a fan of segregation. 

This isn't 400 BC.

[??????????]

- America, land of the free and home of the brave? Really?

Yep. The greatest nation to ever grace the face of this planet. Don't be jealous.

[War on Want]

- America, land of the free and home of the brave? Really?

Yep. The greatest nation to ever grace the face of this planet. Don't be jealous.

Of course if the Confederacy still existed they would be the best am I right?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I never understand why this is a problem

[angus]

I recently thought about this.  I had always been against it, but it remained one those list of issues I had never thought about in great detail.  I have changed mind and now support gays in the military.  I think, however, there should be strong penalties if they are found guilty of making sexual advances while on active duty to members of the same sex.  Opinions?

penetrating analysis.

Well, I think you're right.  There's no reason homosexuals should be denied enlistment.  As for fraternization, those rules already exist.  If you're on a ship giving some enlisted bimbette the high, hard one while you're supposed to be on duty, then you're subject to serious jeopardy (although I suspect that the degree of your troubles depends very much on your commanding officer.  some will be more lenient than others.)  I imagine that the same rules could, and should, apply to all fraternization, whether of the homosexual or heterosexual variety.

When you're on shore leave, whoring it up, or on liberty weekend in one of the more festive neighborhoods in Mosul, then fly your rainbow flag up your stiff flagpole as much as you want.  So long as you can sober up, wipe the cum off your face, and seriously follow the oath to protect and defend the Motherland that you recited when you joined, then I don't think your sexual orientation should be any of anyone's concern.

I think if it were all made clear in recruit training, then the myth of "demoralization" would probably go away.  Remember, folks were the same way when women were allowed combat positions.  But the military took a position, explained it, and, except for a few highly-publicized cases which were dealt with effectively and efficiently, there really was no deep and lasting demoralization due to allowing women in combat missions, according to a number of U.S. government reports.  My guess is that a formal policy shift away from Clinton's assinine don't-ask-don't-tell policy--which made conditions worse for gays than they had been before, despite his empty campaign promises back in 1992--could also be implemented without grief or strike, and to the benefit of all.

"In the Navy, you can sail seven seas.
In the Navy, you can put your mind at ease.
In the Navy, common and join your fellow man.
In the Navy, can't you see we need a hand?"

And we do need a hand.  Rejection of otherwise qualified recruits doesn't make moral or logical sense.