Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

[Schmedlap]

Schemlep, are men allowed to visit women's barracks just to drop by and say hi casually?

As far as I know, yes.

The article in the LA times about lesbians getting discharged made it sound like men were sexually harrassing iwomen who refused their advances, then the harrasing men got angry saying the women were lesbians so they got discharged for DADT. That article put all the blame on the guys.

I suppose that anything is possible, but that sounds made up. If it really happened, then it has got to be extremely rare. It just sounds absurd.

Most lesbians/gay students I've encountered in academia seem the opposite of the type described guarding the barracks. They are like any other student group, but tend to be "politically" progressive by liberal academia's definition. Maybe the military setting just brings out that aggressive side

Or maybe the aggressive ones join the military.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

it was bad manners! Plain and simple. So I learned to tell roommates that if they ever want the room during some alone time with the boy/girlfriend, I will stay out and respectfully give privacy.

Bad manners seems to be the norm these days, to me it shows a complete lack of respect for others who must share the same space.

The article in the LA times about lesbians getting discharged made it sound like men were sexually harrassing iwomen who refused their advances, then the harrasing men got angry saying the women were lesbians so they got discharged for DADT. That article put all the blame on the guys.

I agree with Schmedlap that this sounds contrived. The way DADT and the UCMJ works is that even if the men made the accusation it would still have to be proven. As noted in previous posts the higher ratio of women being discharged for being lesbians perhaps is due to it being easier to get the discharge that way then through pregnancy or other reasons. By claiming to be a lesbian the woman can receive her discharge, not have a child on the way, and in many areas there is no stigma attached to being a lesbian (there are males who are disgusted by gay men but see no issue with lesbians).

The Times article says “some women who served in the military said the gap could also be a result of "lesbian-baiting" rumors and investigations that arise when women rebuff sexual overtures from male colleagues.” If the men were sexually harassing the women for refusing advances it could be the men who are more in jeopardy of disciplinary action in the form of EO complaints.

While there may certainly be some incidents of 'lesbian baiting' I still feel that the disparity in discharges results more from self-admittance in order to get the discharge (vice pregnancy). I wouldn't be surprised if some of the 'lesbian baiting' and 'sexual harassment' aspects were actually cover stories. Since the discharge may be “other than honorable” the women would have to explain to employers why they were discharged in that manner. Rather than admit to being a lesbian (they may in fact not be gay) a woman could just as easily attribute their discharge to males harassing them and accusing them of being gay, so they were unfairly persecuted and discharged. Most employers, not being familiar with military jurisprudence, probably would take the woman's word for it. Sort of a win – win for the woman.

[gute]

What to do with DADT. I know what views on this are and I know how people would have responded to lifting DADT in the late 80's - mid 90's Marine Corps, but how about now?

I asked a guy at work who served in the Marine Corps in the last few years how he and the other guys viewed DADT. He said that they believed their was a guy in their weapons company who they all thought was gay - so if he would come out, it would be no big suprise. What about those who will come out that WILL be a suprise - could that not harm morale or it will be so few it will not make a difference?

Also, IMO, lifting DADT will allow those passed over for promotion, etc to use being gay as an excuse, but I guess it would be no different then using race or religion as an excuse.

I say let all service members vote on this. Easy vote. Yes for DADT, No for DADT. What the sevice members decide is the way it will be.

Is DADT all about nothing or should we keep this in place?

All I know is it upsets my universe - kind of like girls playing organized football or wrestling. Some things are just not right. But, I guess if it does not harm me then why should I care - right? I just think this will turn into a cluster.

[tequila]

I say let all service members vote on this. Easy vote. Yes for DADT, No for DADT. What the sevice members decide is the way it will be.

Like it or not, the Constitution says that Congress sets policies for the military, not democratic votes by military members. Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power ... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"

[USMC-03]

The problem though is that to this point Congress has made no law changing DADT. This recent termination of DADT is by order of a federal judge who is in effect legislating from the bench. The last time I checked the judicial branch had no power to pass laws or make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. It's really a breach of the separation of powers as set up by the Constitution.

[gute]

Like it or not, the Constitution says that Congress sets policies for the military, not democratic votes by military members. Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power ... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"

I know what the Constitution says - I was trying to be practical.

[DragonsBane]

The resistance against Gay service men and women comes from an abhorrence of their sexual practices or from a banning under the authority of religious texts. Gay personnel serve their country and lay down their lives for the survival of their country, they therefore deserve maximum consideration.

The Religious objection:
For those who serve, whose religion is one of their main drives and whose religion bans homosexuality, not much can be done about making concessions to their colleagues who may be homosexual. It could be pointed out from the scholar's perspective, that scriptures were written in ancient times under ancient standards which make no allowance for modern life or modern medicine. Nowadays, in general, the Churches are trying to be considerate and loving to one another, not like the old days when they were the driving force to slaughter each other, including children and including tortures that are banned today by all civil governments and peoples. Under this modern ethical principle, an allowance can be made for homosexuals to be tolerated or befriended as they would be as practitioners of another religion. All civil religions disagree on many points of belief, but agree on the one overriding principle of being friendly to neighbors who are different from you.

The Sexual Objection:
Sexual practices vary widely, not only between different cultures, but also within them. The overriding principles are that sex must be between consenting adults (not children), and that no real harm must be done to a partner. So an accepted spank might be OK, but not a bashing with physical damage.

Also hygiene is very important as the health of a partner (indeed the whole community) depends on this. HIV and hepatitis for instance are rampant and must be completely contained. HIV being transmitted of course not only by some male homosexual (or heterosexual) practices, such as unsafe sex with anal intercourse. I understand that HIV first spread by eating infected monkeys or apes (who had at least partial immunity). So there are many medical safety procedures to be followed: No eating infected flesh (there is also mad cows' disease); no sharing of drug needles; checking donated blood; no unprotected anal intercourse (also no aspirin to those foolish enough to practice that unprotected practice); no unsafe sex (especially amongst naive minors) for adults unless cleared by medical checkup and fidelity; and no administering of First Aid without gloves (if possible). Condoms, like gloves, are not perfect, but can save many lives, lives shortened or lives diseased and miserable. In regard to Personal Defensive Tactics, for law enforcement, security officers, military combatants and self defense: Beware of the infection dangers of biting (both giving and receiving); same dangers in striking the teeth with fist or a headbutt (avoid).

Sexual Approaches:
Sex is (normally) a deepest form of intimacy, of touching body and soul. If abused it is criminal and the damage can be to the body -- which may be temporary; or to the mind -- which may be permanent. So long as homosexuals do not abuse each other, have consent and hygiene, there should be not much to be concerned about. However, the abhorrence that quite a few heterosexuals feel about homosexual practices may be irritated by their Fear that a homosexual will approach them with an offer to engage in a homosexual act. Thus results a confrontation of personal intimate choices.

Homosexual personal controls extend from not damaging each other, to also not imposing themselves on heterosexual persons, as that can result in conflict and aggression. For that to work in practice, I would say that it would be helpful if homosexual military personal (for instance) had some means of identifying others of like kind that was definite and without misinterpretation, possibly visual. I don't mean wear a pink armband, but perhaps homosexuals could themselves consider the matter and come up with some suitable, maybe subtle, agreed sign, especially when the peaceful cohesiveness of a combat group may be at stake. Basically, what needs to be got around, is the aversion of heterosexuals to being approached by homosexuals in a homosexual way: as they take it as a challenge to the 'normality' of their own sexuality (which maybe it is). Some (maybe many) persons are bi-sexual or are uncertain of their sexuality and cannot handle it being put to the test. Some persons are afraid of sex (of any kind) as they are, when in the act, vulnerable and afraid of being abused, hurt or dominated by another stronger personality. It is not unheard of; and sexual abuse is a vital part of many of the tragedies of human relationships. Sex can be pleasant of course, but it is also a touchy vulnerability communication issue and practical processes need to be put in place to protect the varying and volatile sensitivities of people. Where there is not even physical but there is mentally perceived violating, violent reactions ensue.

[120mm]

I think your view of religion is just a little whacked, by the pop-culture tendency to demonify historic religion. There is also a "chicken and egg" scenario as to whether religion caused historic abuses, or people who would've abused power anyway use religion as an excuse, or religion is applied as an excuse by whack-job modern historians, such as the recent "Hitler was a Christian" spew.

As for the rest of your post? Here's one: The military is not a freaking pick up bar. If your sexuality, sexual orientation or partner choice becomes an issue during uniformed service, you get the opportunity to go earn a living somewhere else. With a Bad Conduct Discharge accompanied by confinement, if necessary.

That's all I got. Tired of "activists" who see the military as an "opportunity" for social activism.

Also tired of the knuckle-dragging haters of whatever breed.

[LegalBud]

I take issue with your contention that there are those in the military who can righteously object to homosexuality. All to often, the homophobes are nominally religious and their religious objections are based in ignorance and hypocrisy. Having been raised in a fundamentalist, evangelical home, I can state with complete certainty that the Bible (and the Torah and Koran) forbid Adultery, Fornication, Alcholism, Gambling, Cursing, and even Prostitution there are also a fair number who would like to say that smoking is also a sin. You will find a plethora of the above listed vices in the military services. Indeed, with male homophobes, you will often find acceptance of lesbianism (so long as they are young and hot and on video tape), but not male homosexuality. This is all to say, these homophobes are using religion as a crutch for their own petty small mindedness; that we are willing to enshrine it in public policy is a tremendous disgrace. The number of servicemembers who are truly virtuous and follow the Bible strictly is likely less than 1%.

As for your argument about sexual objection, like I said there seems to be no problem with Fornication, Adultery, or Prostitution. "Wrap it up" is sage advice for both gay and straight. The service isn't a pick-up joint, but it seems that many heterosexuals treat it as such, and if you like, I recommend you review the numbers of female servicemembers who are married to a fellow servicemember. The numbers are something like 40-50%.

Finally, as a straight man who was required to conduct two DADT investigations while stationed aboard USS Last Ship, I have to say my greatest problem with DADT after the hypocrisy and fairness issues, is that DADT essentially confers special rights upon gays and lesbians in the service. I investigated a minor sexual assault, something that could have gone to Captain's Mast and resulted in a bust, restriction, etc. But, since it was a potential DADT and the result could be Admin Sep, I had to ensure the servicemember understood the entire DoD DADT policy, and then ask questions.

DADT is stupid, and it's continued maintenance by old white men is an absolute tragedy.

[CloseDanger]

Why is this so imperative to swing around while we are in 3 wars?

What is so hard about keeping your bedroom in your bedroom?
If there is no issue, do not make it one. The Military is NOT a social experiment. Most men do not care who is gay. I do not see who would want to openly advertise that.

As with all things, keep everything in your pants in your unit, and invite them not to your bedroom. And there is enough legal issues to tend with in these wars already.

Could we kill this dead horse already and let our Soldiers go about their business without more idiot briefings?
People are trying to kill US.

Keep your sex where it belongs - that means it is no ones business but yours.

May we attend to war now?

[subrosa]

i loooove men...but its too tempting to be together. so if i was a gay person and in the same unit it would be too much.

[Tukhachevskii]

i loooove men...but its too tempting to be together. so if i was a gay person and in the same unit it would be too much.

You could always re-create "Sacred Bands"

[subrosa]

The Sacred Band of Thebes was made up of one hundred and fifty male couples, the rationale being that lovers could fight more fiercely and cohesively than strangers with no ardent bonds.

how sexy! this may actually work out for the best!

[120mm]

Why is this so imperative to swing around while we are in 3 wars?

What is so hard about keeping your bedroom in your bedroom?
If there is no issue, do not make it one. The Military is NOT a social experiment. Most men do not care who is gay. I do not see who would want to openly advertise that.

As with all things, keep everything in your pants in your unit, and invite them not to your bedroom. And there is enough legal issues to tend with in these wars already.

Could we kill this dead horse already and let our Soldiers go about their business without more idiot briefings?
People are trying to kill US.

Keep your sex where it belongs - that means it is no ones business but yours.

May we attend to war now?

The answer to that is easy. A certain portion of the counter-culture is there in order to revel in the attention they get through their freakazoid behavior. It's not about sexuality, it's about being an attention-wh*re.

And while there is a war going on, they feel the need to meddle and draw attention. Some, but not all of the gay community participate in homosexuality because the behavior is "extreme." And if gay behavior was mainstream, they'd be diddling little kids. And if diddling little kids was mainstream, they'd be boinking farm animals. And if farm animals was mainstream, they'd be doing dead bodies. Etc., etc...

So, again, it goes back to my main point. Anyone who allows their behavior, straight or gay, or even non-sexual, to interfere with good order and discipline, needs to find other work.

[Rifleman]

how sexy! this may actually work out for the best!

Go back to reading about war and peace, dancing, and fooling around in the kitchen.

I'm sure it's what you do best.

[Uboat509]

DADT is stupid, and it's continued maintenance by old white men is an absolute tragedy.

And with that, anything that you said that might have been worthwhile will be ignored. Old white men? Really? Are they the only ones that are in favor of DADT?

[J Wolfsberger]

Tired of "activists" who see the military as an "opportunity" for social activism.

Also tired of the knuckle-dragging haters of whatever breed.

Amen.

1. I don't care about the melanin content of someones skin.
2. I don't care about where they worship, what day they worship, or even if they worship.
3. I don't care if their biological plumbing is internal or external.
4. I don't care about what their milk language was, or what language their parents spoke, or their grandparents, as long as they pass the security check.
5. I don't care, and don't particularly want to know, what they do in the bedroom, or whom they're doing it with, as long as everyone is consenting and of age.

I do care about getting the mission accomplished or getting the job done. The controversy over DADT is a needless distraction from that, promoted for purposes having nothing to do with military readiness (see point 5).

[G Martin]

Banning gays from the military doesn't only have to be about religious reasons or an aversion to their sexual conduct. As the military requires a measure of conformity and thus the recognition of "norms"- openly serving homosexuals in many instances would elevate an individual above the organization and force the organization to tolerate, accept, or ignore behavior and/or lifestyles that are still outside of what is considered normal- both within U.S. society, world opinion, and within military culture.

Whether or not a military institution should be that insular and uniform is another subject, but suffice it to say that most professional armies today- and in known history- took on a certain culture of their own which helped to overcome the natural tendency of the individual to run and hide or attack (fight or flight response). This allowed a level of discipline that could be very lethal under the right conditions (usually mainly leadership). Upsetting this culture could be detrimental in many instances. Since combat is all about dealing death- most people in positions of leadership have been wary to force changes that could lead to casualties and/or loss of capability.

So, in short- the thought is that a small group of humans given a mission that chances death, requires a high degree of trust in a short amount of time in order to have the greatest chance of success. The easiest way to build trust is through shared experiences and hardship. If this group starts out with a shared understanding of priorities and purpose- then they can "gell" even faster. Shared norms and culture are a part of this understanding. The more differences these groups have to overcome to arrive at a shared level of understanding, the harder and longer it takes to build trust. Sure, one combat action may overcome all of that- but who wants to take the chance it doesn't, or that many die trying to get there- possibly due to the lack of a common shared beginning?

Talking to our allies' officers, I have found a few curious comments that seem to be pretty uniform:

1) Most gays don't come out even when the policies are changed due to the stigma in the society that still exists regardless of the military's policy and because in combat units at the small-unit level- conformity is the strongest influence on all members.

2) They have a huge problem with "predatory lesbians", although you'd never hear that due to it being politically-incorrect to do so. Suffice it to say that many young females who fall under higher-ranking, usually NCO, lesbians, are coerced to have relationships with other women. Even though this is against the policy of these armies no matter the sexual persuasion of the offender- because it has to do with women and homosexuals, it is a more difficult issue, especially when men in authority have to deal with it. The one solution I have heard a lot is that they bring in outside women officers to break the behavior up/do investigations.

So, in conclusion, I think any issue which could potentially affect the military's raison d'être- to defend the nation's interests- no matter how unfair it may seem to some- should be looked at very carefully and those in positions of influence should favor the side of caution, since lives are on the line.

[Tukhachevskii]

Banning gays from the military doesn't only have to be about religious reasons or an aversion to their sexual conduct. As the military requires a measure of conformity and thus the recognition of "norms"- openly serving homosexuals in many instances would elevate an individual above the organization and force the organization to tolerate, accept, or ignore behavior and/or lifestyles that are still outside of what is considered normal- both within U.S. society, world opinion, and within military culture.

Whether or not a military institution should be that insular and uniform is another subject, but suffice it to say that most professional armies today- and in known history- took on a certain culture of their own which helped to overcome the natural tendency of the individual to run and hide or attack (fight or flight response). This allowed a level of discipline that could be very lethal under the right conditions (usually mainly leadership). Upsetting this culture could be detrimental in many instances. Since combat is all about dealing death- most people in positions of leadership have been wary to force changes that could lead to casualties and/or loss of capability.

So, in short- the thought is that a small group of humans given a mission that chances death, requires a high degree of trust in a short amount of time in order to have the greatest chance of success. The easiest way to build trust is through shared experiences and hardship. If this group starts out with a shared understanding of priorities and purpose- then they can "gell" even faster. Shared norms and culture are a part of this understanding. The more differences these groups have to overcome to arrive at a shared level of understanding, the harder and longer it takes to build trust. Sure, one combat action may overcome all of that- but who wants to take the chance it doesn't, or that many die trying to get there- possibly due to the lack of a common shared beginning?

Talking to our allies' officers, I have found a few curious comments that seem to be pretty uniform:

1) Most gays don't come out even when the policies are changed due to the stigma in the society that still exists regardless of the military's policy and because in combat units at the small-unit level- conformity is the strongest influence on all members.

2) They have a huge problem with "predatory lesbians", although you'd never hear that due to it being politically-incorrect to do so. Suffice it to say that many young females who fall under higher-ranking, usually NCO, lesbians, are coerced to have relationships with other women. Even though this is against the policy of these armies no matter the sexual persuasion of the offender- because it has to do with women and homosexuals, it is a more difficult issue, especially when men in authority have to deal with it. The one solution I have heard a lot is that they bring in outside women officers to break the behavior up/do investigations.

So, in conclusion, I think any issue which could potentially affect the military's raison d'être- to defend the nation's interests- no matter how unfair it may seem to some- should be looked at very carefully and those in positions of influence should favor the side of caution, since lives are on the line.

Excellent comments. I think the same could be said for allowing "religious/ ethnic " groups their own ceremonies, rites, customs and culture as a subset of the Military Profession.

[stanleywinthrop]

but I've got to say it anyway: who thinks that the day the law changes Mike Mullen will be out of the closet?