Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

[motorfirebox]

Because they are saying it's legal now.

Current regulations in Afghanistan effectively ban sex, at least between unmarried soldiers. Why would you think that gay sex would be encouraged in the field, when heterosexual sex is not?

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"?

Really? Really?

[slapout9]

Current regulations in Afghanistan effectively ban sex, at least between unmarried soldiers.

No sex that's crazy, that is anti-American, like selil said we can bomb and kill you but we want have any sex going on around here.

[selil]

No sex that's crazy, that is anti-American, like selil said we can bomb and kill you but we want have any sex going on around here.

Don't forget.. No beer either!

[jmm99]

has been more my sentiments than anything else. My research on DADT has been pretty much limited to Randy Shilts (unfortunately deceased from AIDS), Conduct Unbecoming, Gays & Lesbians in the US Military (1993) - now ancient history, but a decent historical presentation.

While DADT is in the process of repeal (it's not quite immediate), Article 125:

ART. 125. SODOMY
Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

has not been repealed - it might be, but that is not a sure thing. And, Article 134 will continue in effect; no doubt about that.

So, this (about halfway down) may happen:

Commander: Troop, it has been long suspected that you are gay.

Troop: Why yes I am a gay male.

Commander: Very good, as you know you are now allowed to serve openly in the military.

Troop: Thank you sir for bringing it to my attention, I have followed this issue very closely.

Commander: Troop I must discuss with you about sexual activities within the military as a matter of Public Health. As you know the use of condoms prevents the spread of sexual transmitted diseases. You and your partner use condoms when having sex?

Troop: Yes sir, I take the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases very seriously and always use condoms.

Commander: First Sarge[a]nt.

First Sarge[a]nt: Yes sir.

Commander: Would please advise this troop of his rights before we proceed with a Court Martial for violation of Article 125 of the UCMJ.

Troop: But sir I can serve openly in the military. What did I do wrong?

Commander: Troop you have admitted to having sex. Homosexual sex acts are still a violation of the UCMJ. This is a violation of the UCMJ article 125 and 132[134] and you will also be prosecuted for sodomy and conduct unbecoming.

BTW: An otherwise uncorroborated admission of guilt is not sufficient absent other proof of the crime; but the facts could be supplemented rather easily (the condom salvaged from the garbage plus forensics on the residues) to come up with an Article 125 charge that would hold up.

Regards

Mike

[Wargames Mark]

I agree with some of what Bob's World wrote.

The main thing that gets me is the assertion by those in favor of the repeal that homosexuals have some "right" to serve in the military.

I don't see any such right.

I also see no benefit to the military.

[motorfirebox]

I agree with some of what Bob's World wrote.

The main thing that gets me is the assertion by those in favor of the repeal that homosexuals have some "right" to serve in the military.

I don't see any such right.

So the right to pursuit of happiness doesn't apply to gay people then? Military effectiveness certainly trumps the individual right to pursuit of happiness, but it hasn't been reliably shown that allowing homosexuals to serve will, at this point in history, negatively affect military readiness. There are people like Bob's World running around shouting ridiculous things, but there are more people--according to a poll of military members by the DOD--who don't seem to care. The only possible impediment to military effectiveness in this instance is if a large portion of the military were strongly opposed. That isn't the case.

I also see no benefit to the military.

You don't see the benefit in retaining trained professionals?

[Boot]

A Marine colonel with substantial command time addressed some BIG problems that will arise.

What,he asked, does “serving openly as a homosexual” mean?
Is all homosexual conduct permitted, e.g. cross dressing when going to the PX? What conduct is not permitted?
Will “hate speech” policies apply to the armed forces after the repeal of the law? If a service member uses a term offensive to homosexuals, can he be charged with hate speech? Will commanders be required to take judicial action? If no judicial action is taken, will commanders be subject to civil or criminal suit by various homosexual political groups and their elected sponsors?
Will the personal opinion on homosexuality of a service member become an impediment to promotion or assignment to key billets? Are there any assignments to which homosexuals must be or may not be assigned?
Will the Senate and the House Armed Services committees demand sexuality statistics to make certain that homosexuals are being promoted at the same rate as non-homosexuals? Will homosexuals be promoted at a faster rate to “compensate” for previous years of discrimination?
What benefits will same-sex “partners” receive? How long must one have a relationship to qualify as a partner? Will partners of homosexuals be assigned to on-base housing? Do former partners of active duty homosexuals retain dependent benefits (like a divorced spouse) when divorce is not a legal option?
Will homosexual service members be permitted to date each other? Live with each other as partners in bachelor officer quarters (BOQ) or bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ)? How does this affect fraternization regulations?
Will homosexuals be deployed to countries where homosexuality is a crime? If not, who picks up the slack?

(Mod's Note: text was in red, placed in quote marks and no link. PM to author).

Some thoughts:
What about those who ARE offended by homosexual behavior or homosexuals in general? are their rights not taken into consideration? How about the male who is serving and now walks into a bathroom and there is an openly serving male? or the reverse? Since the openly gay male is orientated female, should he be in the male bathroom? Shouldn't he be in the female bathroom? What about those females who don't want physical male using this facility? How about basic training? Are you now going to force those who see homosexuality as sin to shower, train etc...in close quarters?

As you can see, there are some larger issues beyond "I don't like homosexuals" that need to be addressed.
There was nothing wrong with the policy. Our military has long been used as a social experiment. THAT beyond this policy repel is what is and will continue to erode unit effectiveness.

Me personally. I am sure I have served with homosexuals, I don't want to know, nor do I care. I do see it as a sin, as my faith compels me to do so. I am sure that will step on toes, but I don't care; however I also refuse to discriminate against anyone because of what they believe or look like etc...
I do think that at this point in time, this is the absolute wrong time to address this.

[Boot]

So the right to pursuit of happiness doesn't apply to gay people then? Military effectiveness certainly trumps the individual right to pursuit of happiness, but it hasn't been reliably shown that allowing homosexuals to serve will, at this point in history, negatively affect military readiness. There are people like Bob's World running around shouting ridiculous things, but there are more people--according to a poll of military members by the DOD--who don't seem to care. The only possible impediment to military effectiveness in this instance is if a large portion of the military were strongly opposed. That isn't the case.



You don't see the benefit in retaining trained professionals?

Citizens of this country have the right to do whatever any other citizen can legally do. The military is different, however civil rights as outlined by the constitution cannot be violated, remember that sword is two edged and cuts both ways.

[Entropy]

You don't see the benefit in retaining trained professionals?

Well, this change in policy will result in some trained professionals leaving the service because of it. I know a couple of them, but it remains to be seen if they will actually get out or not. It will allow the retention of others, so to me it's going to be a wash in that regard.

FWIW, I supported the repeal of DADT for reasons other than military utility.

What,he asked, does “serving openly as a homosexual” mean?
Is all homosexual conduct permitted, e.g. cross dressing when going to the PX? What conduct is not permitted?

The services and DoD are going to write regulations covering this very topic. I strongly suspect that any activity that which reflects poorly on the uniform will be prohibited, just as it is now for our supposedly all-hetero force.

What will be interesting to see is how some of the legal aspects play out. I suspect that soon after implementation there will be a push to grant gay partners spousal rights for military benefits. IOW, the battle over gays in the military isn't completely over yet.

[Andy FMF]

So the right to pursuit of happiness doesn't apply to gay people then? Military effectiveness certainly trumps the individual right to pursuit of happiness, but it hasn't been reliably shown that allowing homosexuals to serve will, at this point in history, negatively affect military readiness. There are people like Bob's World running around shouting ridiculous things, but there are more people--according to a poll of military members by the DOD--who don't seem to care. The only possible impediment to military effectiveness in this instance is if a large portion of the military were strongly opposed. That isn't the case.

You don't see the benefit in retaining trained professionals?

I see several points being made and I'll try to address them, but this might become a shoot 'n scoot mission.

Your points:
1. There is no reliable evidence that allowing homosexuals to serve will negatively affect military readiness.
2. There is a poll of military members "who don't seem to care"
3. Trained professionals are not being retained

Response:
1. This is precisely why DADT is in place. Homosexuals and heterosexuals both currently serve in the military without a negative effect upon military readiness. What negatively affects military readiness is the person who possesses dual loyalties. It is a person’s inability to separate, in this case, their sexuality from their duty to follow orders that is the reason for their denial of admission/dismissal from service. Furthermore, those individuals who enlisted/were commissioned with full knowledge of the rules governing homosexual acts and then violated the orders are most certainly not the sort of people that should serve in the Armed Forces. They should not serve because their loyalties are obviously split between following orders and indulging in sexual activities in violation of DADT. Additionally, they have violated their oath to obey the orders of those appointed over them and are only partially dedicating themselves to the service of their country. They are in essence saying, “I will obey these orders, but not those. Oh, by the way, you have to keep me in your Armed Forces, never knowing which other orders I might fail to follow.”

2. Polls have no place in the military. The fact that the military leadership has commissioned a poll regarding this issue is a detriment to military readiness. Orders are to be obeyed, not polled for popularity. Therefore the poll is at best irrelevant and at worst an undermining of the authority of the military heirarchy/chain of command. If the excuse for this poll is that Congress needed "evidence", then the poll should not have included spouses and should have been administered to every member of the Armed Forces.

3. They might be trained, but they are far from professional. People are not being dismissed from the military because they are gay, they are being dismissed because they failed to follow orders and that behavior (failure to follow an order) is not in keeping with the level of honor, courage, and commitment that is demanded of service members by their countrymen. It is for this reason that they are not capable of serving and are not professionals.

This applies equally to those who fail to pay bills, commit adultery, assault another person, are disrespectful to a superior, etc….

[Stan]

Mike,
Hyvää huomenta !

You never cease to amaze me... but condom salvaging

I agree with Spud, it's a matter of education and professionalism. We (those that joined in the early 70's) saw rampant racial discrimination and drug abuse. For some reason no one bothered with sexual orientation then - just wasn't high on the list.

Regards, Stan

BTW: An otherwise uncorroborated admission of guilt is not sufficient absent other proof of the crime; but the facts could be supplemented rather easily (the condom salvaged from the garbage plus forensics on the residues) to come up with an Article 125 charge that would hold up.

Regards

Mike