Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

[pjmunson]

Now that constraint will be lifted. Will DoD expand their puritanical controls to greater regulation sexual activity between consenting adults? Or will the U.S. military devolve into a culture where senior leaders have "Chai boys" and every squad has a "squad boy"?

I really don't know, and I'm not judging. I just find it interesting that while everyone was agonizing over the civil rights of homosexuals and the potential impact of openly serving homosexuals on unit morale, no one bothered to talk about what I see as a much larger issues of the "prison sex" syndrome. The greater incidence of such acts is inevitable. There will likely be a rise of same-sex abuse of rank and power for sex in exchange for privileges and favors as well.

I can only hope that you were drunk when you wrote this. This sort of hysteria is - almost - unbelievable coming from a retired O-6 and someone whose intellect and insight is supposedly worthy of advising the defense community.

By no means do I consider myself a gay rights activist, but if you're going to oppose the repeal of DADT, and if you are going to attach your own name and profile to it, then please come up with an argument that is a bit more becoming of someone that has more than a grade school education gained in Appalachia in the 1950s. This logic reflects poorly upon the quality of intellect recruited to the think tank listed in your profile. If I were the director and saw this post, I'd have reservations about the quality of work I could expect. It isn't a question of pro- or anti-gay. But "squad boys"... really? The imagined scenario is an insult not to gays, but to the NCOs and officers still serving in the military that are more than capable of maintaining good order and discipline in difficult times. Your implications disgrace us, and not due to homosexuality, but due to the fact that such an ignorant point of view would be projected onto us.

[Deus Ex]

I can only hope that you were drunk when you wrote this. This sort of hysteria is - almost - unbelievable coming from a retired O-6 and someone whose intellect and insight is supposedly worthy of advising the defense community.

By no means do I consider myself a gay rights activist, but if you're going to oppose the repeal of DADT, and if you are going to attach your own name and profile to it, then please come up with an argument that is a bit more becoming of someone that has more than a grade school education gained in Appalachia in the 1950s. This logic reflects poorly upon the quality of intellect recruited to the think tank listed in your profile. If I were the director and saw this post, I'd have reservations about the quality of work I could expect. It isn't a question of pro- or anti-gay. But "squad boys"... really? The imagined scenario is an insult not to gays, but to the NCOs and officers still serving in the military that are more than capable of maintaining good order and discipline in difficult times. Your implications disgrace us, and not due to homosexuality, but due to the fact that such an ignorant point of view would be projected onto us.

You would be surprised how many otherwise very intelligent people can hold the most patently ridiculous thoughts regarding homosexuality. My best bud is about to make e6 and he's truly one of the most well read, intelligent, and thoughtful guys I know, but homosexual-anything is abhorrent to him. Gay marriage? Hell no. Gays in the military? Just as bad.

To the guy who fear-mongered with "squad boys", all I can say to you is "LOL" and thank god I never have a chance of seeing you in my chain of command. Seriously, thank you for the LOL. If this were any website but small wars journal I would have figured you for a pretty poor troll. I guess you haven't had one of the myriad EO violation classes forced upon you recently. You know, the level of boring on par with reading the Bible for hours. The briefings CLEARLY state that there will be absolutely severe repurcussions for anyone who uses sexual favors to gain power above or under another soldier. And then there's the whole most-people-aren't-gay-and-even-if-they-were-they-probably-wouldn't-be-inclined-to-####-a-pass-around-"boy" thing.

This reminds me of the first offical briefing I received on homosexuality within the military. It was a from a O5. She briefed the class that homosexuals cannot serve in the military, and because it deeply offended her Christian sensibility. I wondered what the hell her religious beliefs had to do with anything.