Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

[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.