damn I just missed the sky falling (again).Originally Posted by Bob's World
Perhaps we're just wired differently from yáll but there is no evidence whatsover of this occuring down here (if anything the thing that keeps getting us in the #### is hetro acts couypled with alcohol abuse) and we've allowed gay relationships for years.
Perhaps your question relates more to the education and maturity of your diggers ... prison population = lowest common-denominator in terms of education, experiences etc. If you're equating your soldiers with that group I'm glad I serve in an Army it's bloody hard to get into in the first place.
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?
Really? Really?
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.
Last edited by slapout9; 12-20-2010 at 01:03 AM. Reason: stuff
Don't forget.. No beer either!
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
Somewhat like 120mm, "don't ask, don't care"
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:
has not been repealed - it might be, but that is not a sure thing.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.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.
So, this (about halfway down) may happen:
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.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.
Regards
Mike
Last edited by jmm99; 12-20-2010 at 04:09 AM. Reason: Article 134 is the "general article"
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.
There are three kinds of people in this world:
Those who can count, and those who can't.
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
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Seriously?
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.
Last edited by pjmunson; 12-20-2010 at 06:36 AM. Reason: Slightly toned down.
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.
Last edited by Deus Ex; 12-20-2010 at 07:48 AM. Reason: grammar
I think denial of access to local women and cheap booze is an excellent idea, and in many places necessary. That stuff easily gets way out of hand... does anybody else remember Olongapo City when the fleet was in Subic? Good fun for some, but causes some real complications with the host country government and populace. There have been incidents involving US troops in the Philippines could easily have been avoided if cheap booze and local women were not on the menu.
This study may now be relevant.
PH Cannady
Correlate Systems
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?
Last edited by motorfirebox; 12-20-2010 at 01:11 PM.
This captures some of my thoughts on this subject...
(Mod's Note: text was in red, placed in quote marks and no link. PM to author).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?
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.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 12-20-2010 at 10:31 PM. Reason: Moderator action
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.
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.
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,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?
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.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
We have solutions in place to deal with all of these issues as they related to female soldiers and black soldiers. I don't see why enacting similar solutions with regards to gay soldiers will be an issue.
Well... what about those people? What rights of theirs are being violated by allowing gays to serve? The military doesn't go out of its way to accommodate soldiers who are uncomfortable around black people; why should it go out of its way to accommodate soldiers who are uncomfortable around homosexuals?
Last edited by davidbfpo; 12-20-2010 at 10:32 PM. Reason: Remove red text
If the ascribed marine colonel reads the DADT Survey report, it addresses all the above issues pretty well in detail.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 12-20-2010 at 10:33 PM. Reason: Removed text in red
Some data from a friend:
--"Gays in Foreign Militaries," Armed Forces and Society, Palm Center at UCSB, Feb 2010
--"How Troops Really Feel about Gays Openly Serving," Military Times, Feb 2010
--"Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans Toward Gay and Lesbian Service Members," Armed Forces and Society, Palm Center at UCSB, Oct 2009
Key Points from the "Gays in Foreign Militaries" study:
1. Twenty-five nations now allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay
Put another way, of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 20 permit open lesbians, gays, or bisexuals to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, three (United Kingdom, France, and Russia) do so.
2. Level of homophobia exaggerated in foreign cases. In many of those countries, debate before the policy changes was highly pitched and many people both inside and outside the military predicted major disruptions. In Britain and Canada, roughly two thirds of military respondents in polls said they would refuse to serve with open gays, but when inclusive policies were implemented, no more than three people in each country actually resigned.
3. No negative long-term impact on readiness. Research has uniformly shown that transitions to policies of equal treatment without regard to sexual orientation have been highly successful. Of the twenty-five nations that dropped their bans none have experienced any negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness. No consulted expert anywhere in the world concluded that lifting the ban on openly gay service caused an overall decline in the military. There was still residual resentment, resistance laudable through grumblings in all-male unites about homosexual threats to unit morale.
4. No country has reversed the law. Early assessments by both military and independent analysts hold across time: none of the successes and gains of transitions to full inclusion were reversed by any of the nations studied, or yielded delayed problems over the years in which these militaries allowed openly gay service.
5. Additional societal benefits. In these other countries, evidence suggests that lifting bans on openly gay service contributed to improving the command climate in foreign militaries, including increased focus on behavior and mission rather than identity and difference, greater respect for rules and policies that reflect the modern military, a decrease in harassment, retention of critical personnel, and enhanced respect for privacy.
6. Swift and decisive implementation most effective. All the countries studied completed their implementations of repeal either immediately or within four months of the government’s decision to end discrimination. These experiences confirm research findings which show that a quick, simple implementation process is instrumental in ensuring success. Swift, decisive implementation signals the support of top leadership and confidence that the process will go smoothly, while a “phased-in” implementation can create anxiety, confusion, and obstructionism.
7. Top-cover is critical in transition/implementation. Two main factors contributed to the success of transitions to openly gay service: clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation. Also key are simple training guidelines that communicate the support of leadership, that explain the uniform standards for conduct, and that avoid “sensitivity” training, which can backfire by causing resentment in the ranks.
8. Not separate, but equal. None of the countries studied installed separate facilities for gay troops, nor did they retain rules treating gays differently from heterosexuals. Each country has taken its own approach to resolving questions of benefits, housing, partner recognition, and re-instatement. Generally, the military honors the status afforded to gay or lesbian couples by that country, and the military rarely gets out in front of the government or other institutions in the benefits offered.
9. No mass exodus or increased harassment at any level. Lifting bans on openly gay service in foreign countries did not result in a mass “coming out” at any level. Gay and lesbian troops serve in all levels of the armed forces of Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Israel, in both combat and non-combat positions, at both the enlisted level and as high commanders.
10. Current law contradicts military bedrock values. Honesty and integrity are bedrock values of the military. How can we ask capable service members to be deceitful about their orientation and still uphold those values?
Other random factoids from the study:
- An estimated 66,000 lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals account for approximately 2.2% of military personnel.
- Approximately 13,000 LGB people are serving on active duty (comprising 0.9% of all active duty personnel) while nearly 53,000 are serving in the guard and reserve forces (3.4%).
- While women comprise only about 14% of active duty personnel, they comprise more than 43% of LGB men and women serving on active duty.
- Lifting DADT restrictions could attract an estimated 36,700 men and women to active duty service and 12,000 more individuals to the guard and reserve.
- Since its inception in 1994, the “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy has cost the military between $290 million and more than a half a billion dollars.
- The military spends an estimated $22,000 to $43,000 per person to replace those discharged under DADT.
Link to survey
I didn't get much out of this survey, but it does what most surveys claim to do and the stats are great for those who care.
First, we did not “poll” the military or conduct a referendum on the overall question of whether to repeal the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy. That was not our mission, nor are military policy decisions made by referendum of Service members. Our primary mission was to assess the impact of a repeal, should it occur to military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness.
Second, many of the survey questions were devised in response to concerns raised frequently by Service members in information exchange forums and focus group sessions. For example, the questions about privacy and living arrangements were asked in response to the concerns expressed by a large number of Service members in our discussions.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
It started with the introduction of females and as they expanded across the military so did sexual tension levels, pregnancy rates and very sadly sexual molestation and rape incidence. The military handled the introduction of women badly (remember Tailhook) and the precedent is now set for gays.
In most armies there is much consensual heterosexual sex going on and now there is no way to prevent similar levels of openly gay sex.
It is the sexual tension that will build in these all male environments that threaten moral and operational function and not the mere presence of females or gays in the military.
As I stated earlier in this DADT discussion standby for the first gay version of Tailhook '91. This is not good for the military.
"A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, 
Bookmarks