Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

[Deus Ex]

I was shocked to log on and see no mention of the repeal of DADT. So here's the forum to discuss it.

[120mm]

I was shocked to log on and see no mention of the repeal of DADT. So here's the forum to discuss it.

It's been discussed before. Personally, I think most forum members do not care, or consider it external to "Small Wars".

[Thalatta]

As an avid reader for several years, but what the internet would probably refer to as a 'lurker' the appearance of a post by 120mm (now amended) spurred me to become what you refer to as a one post wonder.

Moderator adds:There were further comments on ROE and these no longer apply as a Moderator has intervened.

[Rex Brynen]

120mm: I certainly have gay friends currently serving in the US military who do care, not to mention those who may think that there may be social issues whose importance rather trumps military considerations.

Deus Ex: There was no need to express your "shock," with all the implied criticism embedded in that term. You simply had to find one of the many threads in which DADT is discussed, and update it with some thoughtful comments on repeal. It is rather pointless starting a thread without actually saying anything.

[Stan]

...but apparently somebody needs to establish some ROE.

The least you could do was politely explain why this is irrelevant...

Thalatta, Welcome aboard !

I won't apologize for 120's comments as I know him to be a rather direct individual and very professional in whatever he does. Some of us take our Council very seriously which often means letting 120 out of his cage for clean up ops

As an avid reader for several years you would have noticed that we do have ROE where, among other things, first time posters normally provide a courteous introduction so the rest of us know where you're coming from. As Rex pointed out, an avid reader would have noted, there are already several DADT threads where Deus Ex's rather empty comments would have appropriately been posted.

Inevitably a moderator will see this thread and, in addition to cleaning it up will move or delete Deus Ex's post along with mine Moderator action taken - you may notice!

I look forward to your introductions.

Regards, Stan

[davidbfpo]

Stan, 120mm and others,

Point A

I have emerged five threads on this topic into one, with a slightly amended title and you can see there has been a long running discussion on the topic. (I simply searched on DADT, so there maybe other threads).

Point B

Meantime, new members are not required to post an introduction, as the joining instructions make clear; yes, a few words are appreciated and welcomed by many IMHO. Members choose whether to introduce themselves.

[Bob's World]

What I find most interesting about the entire "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" debate is that it focuses entirely on issue of homosexuals right to serve in the military, and the impact of having homosexuals serving openly in the military.

Those of us who have spent long years in the military all have known and worked with dozens of relatively openly homosexual service members throughout our careers. While it makes some uncomfortable and leads to some distasteful commentary, from insults to humor, it really seems like much of a non-issue by in large.

What has not been discussed at all though is the much larger issue of homosexual acts rather than homosexual orientation. Prisons are full of straight men and women, who for lack of any other option, participate willingly in homosexual acts. They rationalize it as just one more hard compromise they have to make based upon their circumstances.

A Marine friend of mine, who is famous for his candor and rough humor (you gotta love the military for this unique aspect of the community, the last refuge where PC is held somewhat at bay), would say "It's not gay if your underway!" As a winter ranger we would huddle spooning and shivering under shared ponchos and poncho liners in desperate attempts to stay warm enough to catch a couple hours of sleep and joke "No queers on a cold night!" Such rough, ironic barracks humor is about to become a barracks reality.

The fact is that we put our service members in situations very similar to the ones we put our convicted felons in. Over the past couple of generations we have stripped away the access to local women, cheap booze, and even pornography in the pursuit of zero defects under the guise of puritanical righteousness.

While certainly homosexual acts between straight service members occurred throughout the history of the military, for the U.S. military the tool employed to contain and mitigate the widespread incidence of such acts was first the ban on homosexuals altogether, followed by "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

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.

We're entering a new era, and no one is talking about the most critical aspect of that era.

[slapout9]

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.

Yep, that will be a really,really big issue IMO unless it is covered up. I said it before the Combatives manual is nothing but a Gay Prison Sex manual There are some very disturbing seens in the movie Restrapo that hint at such behvior. If they legalize Gay stuff then why not provide Prostitution battalions for the rest of the troops.

[tequila]

The fact is that we put our service members in situations very similar to the ones we put our convicted felons in. Over the past couple of generations we have stripped away the access to local women, cheap booze, and even pornography in the pursuit of zero defects under the guise of puritanical righteousness.

I couldn't disagree more.

Being on deployment doesn't compare to being in prison. Strangely enough, men can go eight months or more without having sex. Most of us lower enlisted tend to overcompensate a bit on this score when we get home, but it's not really that unendurable. Unlike prison, we are not trapped in restrictive circumstances for years at a time, and unlike prison we are volunteers who, generally, have a degree of discipline and professionalism that separates us from most of the civilian population.

Oh, and if you really believe that the troops lack for porn on deployment or anywhere else, you really are out of touch.

There are some very disturbing seens in the movie Restrapo that hint at such behvior. If they legalize Gay stuff then why not provide Prostitution battalions for the rest of the troops.

Eh, what?

[slapout9]

Eh, what?

It's discrimination. If DOD is going to facilitate gay sex then they should facilitate regular sex to.

[selil]

Hmm. I doubt most of you have actually been in a state prison, though some may have spent some time in a county or city jail There are good stories waiting much beer about both systems, but instead of some form of caged heat, your are much more likely to find convicted murders playing chess with the CO's.

Y'all got to remember EVERYTHING is monitored inside a modern correctional facility.

So, not to put to fine a point on the topic most state prisons have some mechanism for felons to visit family members "Rocking the trailers" comes to mind.

Rampant social puritanism (no sex anywhere or any form) and cultural constructivism (no beer in Muslim countries) seem to be forms of control that rarely have anything to do with war fighting. We will kill your families, bomb your homes, destroy your country, but heck no we won't offend you by drinking beer in country. From this side of the civilian pond it seems absurd.

[slapout9]

We will kill your families, bomb your homes, destroy your country, but heck no we won't offend you by drinking beer in country. From this side of the civilian pond it seems absurd.

Quote of the week Apocalypse now type stuff!

[Deus Ex]

120mm: I certainly have gay friends currently serving in the US military who do care, not to mention those who may think that there may be social issues whose importance rather trumps military considerations.

Deus Ex: There was no need to express your "shock," with all the implied criticism embedded in that term. You simply had to find one of the many threads in which DADT is discussed, and update it with some thoughtful comments on repeal. It is rather pointless starting a thread without actually saying anything.

120mm*, your initial response (not seen here because you edited it) was quite condescending. You seemed to be accusing me of creating the thread (even though I have been a reader here for years) merely in order to spark controversy, and you also seemed to assume that I held a position against the repeal of DADT. Two equally bold and unfounded claims. This is a landmark decision that could have quite a changing effect upon civilian society in the decades to come.

I didn't initially add commentary because of two reasons: first, I would have liked to see a few of the responses, and second, just when I posted the thread I had real life obligations arise that didn't give me time to expand upon my thoughts. I felt, wrongly, given the moderator decision to merge threads, that prior speculation and the actual inclusion of gays were two quite different things. My mistake.

Now that I have the time, there are only two potential problems I see with openly gay people serving (which I support).

First, the vernacular of soldiers. Having experienced the common vernacular of officers, lower enlisted, and NCOs (drill sergeants especially), nearly every soldier says "gay" and "fag/faggot." I know very well educated people who stupidly employ "gay" and "fag" towards things with no relation to homosexuality. "Gay" is used very differently from its primary meaning, and now generally means "stupid", "weak", or "not cool." You older folks may not have your ears to the ground as much, but go to any high school, any college, any unit, and people regularly call things "gay." Guys and girls jokingly call their buddies "fags", or when arguing, call their opponents "faggots" with some flowery language generally attached. The biggest initial problem will be for officers and senior NCOs to not only completely clear their own lexicons of such words, but to stop their soldiers from doing so as well. I honestly feel that in the first few years there will be a metric sh*t ton of EO violations (reported or unreported). Just like one would not be able to describe something as "that's so Mexican/kikey/spicish", our military will have to wholly stop using "gay" as a pejorative. And now we get to all look forward to yet another briefing, in addition to suicide, racism, sexism, we now will get one for gay people. Super! This could potentially be the catalyst that results in civilian society no longer using "gay" or "fag" in such a wide variety of situations with zero relation to homosexuality. In two decades, I wouldn't be surprised if "gay," the most commonly used (intended) insult in America, was used far more rarely and less publicly.

The following thought will have to be taken with a grain of salt, as I am only an Army ROTC cadet at the moment whose only real military experience was training with an infantry unit, LTC, and my closest friends all being enlisted personnel. With that caveat said, the only other potential problem I could envision with the repeal of DADT is within combat units. From the literature I have read on the subject of infantrymen in prolonged periods of combat, two or more lovers in combat together seems like a recipe for flawed decision making. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, as I would say the same for men and women subjected to such a situation in Armor and Infantry. However, women are not able to be in either of those branches so the point is void.

[carl]

I just spent the last 20 minutes skimming this thread and could find only one brief allusion to the history that prompted restrictions in the first place. That was by Bob's World. The history that prompted the restrictions is something that should be considered. I don't know what it is but the rules came from somewhere and were created for some reason.

I don't think using prisoner culture is useful. There is nothing normal about a prison culture, especially the inmates. If they were normal they wouldn't be in there.

[slapout9]

I don't think using prisoner culture is useful. There is nothing normal about a prison culture, especially the inmates. If they were normal they wouldn't be in there.

I know a lot of prisoners/criminals that would argue that point

[carl]

Slap: I've heard those arguments. Some of them would insist on making them right up until the time I said goodbye after dropping them off at the county jail.

[motorfirebox]

It is worth pointing out that DADT itself can have a negative impact on soldier performance and unit cohesion, by forcing gay and bisexual soldiers to choose between integrity and service. Like it or not, relationships are a large part of peoples' lives--soldiers' lives--and like it or not, the military does recognize and account for this fact in its dealings with soldiers. A straight soldier who is having relationship issues has many avenues within the military to seek assistance or just let off steam. He can bitch about his problems to his buddies, he can talk to his chain of support, he can get legal assistance, he can get advice from the chaplain. A gay or bisexual soldier has access to none of these sources of support if he or she is having problems. Something as simple as making car payments can become a problem--if a gay soldier's boyfriend back stateside forgets to drop a check in the mail, the soldier is going to start getting mail about it, and if it goes on long enough, that soldier is going to face UCMJ action. That soldier has strikingly limited options for dealing with the situation, whereas a straight soldier can get help from many quarters.

[tequila]

It's discrimination. If DOD is going to facilitate gay sex then they should facilitate regular sex to.

How does repealing DADT = facilitating gay sex?

[Entropy]

The fact is that we put our service members in situations very similar to the ones we put our convicted felons in. Over the past couple of generations we have stripped away the access to local women, cheap booze, and even pornography in the pursuit of zero defects under the guise of puritanical righteousness.

Ever done six months on a ship or submarine? For my first cruise in the Navy my berthing had 150 people crammed inside the square footage of a typical family home. There's lots of gay jokes, lots of very frank talk about spanking the monkey, but very, very, very little sex either gay or straight - at least on board ship. Port calls are altogether different.

[slapout9]

How does repealing DADT = facilitating gay sex?

Because they are saying it's legal now.