Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

[Global Scout]

The extreme right wing Christians in this country are using their leverage to socially engineer the military along with the extreme left. We're going to end up being a cross between Crusaders and Nancy Boys. Probably not the best type of Army to engage in the business of closing with and destroying our enemies.

[kehenry1]

Well, if there is ever two subjects that are likely to bring out the stereo types, homosexuality and pornography are they.

The extreme right wing Christians in this country are using their leverage to socially engineer the military along with the extreme left. We're going to end up being a cross between Crusaders and Nancy Boys. Probably not the best type of Army to engage in the business of closing with and destroying our enemies.

You assume its some "right wing Christians" who had the porno pulled? LOL

That's when I know you haven't hung out with very many "liberated" women who view pornography as "objectifying women" and tantamount to the first step a man or boy can make towards disrespect and possibly sexual assault. LOL

Not that I hold those opinions. Only trying to bring a little perspective into it. Though, you may be right to assume that the "ultra-liberal" and "ultra-conservative" "social engineers" have found a subject they can both agree on. LOL

[Uboat509]

Hell, it gets ridiculously frustrating sometimes. Almost a decade ago I had one of my SSGs receive a Field Grade Art 15 for having a drink with a source in the Balkans. All of our pleading about local culture, source rapport etc. was dismissed by the Bn Cdr in his "zero tolerance" approach. (Just to be clear - the guy wasn't drinking. He nursed a drink while the source was drinking. Anybody who's worked that AO knows there are many people who won't trust you if you don't have a drink with'em. Just like sitting down to drink tea with a source in the ME.)

Ridiculous. Slightly off-topic here but this is another brazen example of a leader enforcing a regulation without bothering to apply any form of critical thought. One of the reasons that I left the big Army and crossed over into the dark side was the number of "leaders" who I had worked for and around who believed that leadership meant ensuring blind to the letter of the regs. Personally, I have always that thought that it was either laziness or stupidity or a combination of both. Thinking is much harder than simply doing whatever the book says. God forbid someone try to consider the intent of a reg rather than just what it says in black and white. Of course we can't have Joe going down town and tying one on with the locals. No good can come from that but is that what was going on with that SSG? Obviously not but why should a leader think when he can just read from a book and do what it says?

[/cynicism]

SFC W

[Global Scout]

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/11/gns_porn_071105/

Dozens of religious and anti-pornography groups have complained to Congress and Defense Secretary Robert Gates that a Pentagon board set up to review magazines and films is allowing sales of material that Congress intended to ban.

"They're saying 'we're not selling stuff that's sexually explicit' … and we say it's pornography," says Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, a Christian anti-pornography group.

And the left comes to the rescue, hell I might start donating to ACLU.

Nadine Strossen, a New York Law School professor who heads the American Civil Liberties Union, says the law effectively censors what troops get to read in remote areas or combat zones. "We're asking these people to risk their lives to defend our Constitution's principles … and they're being denied their own First Amendment rights to choose what they read," she said.

[Ken White]

Ridiculous... Personally, I have always that thought that it was either laziness or stupidity or a combination of both... SFC W

"Regulations were meant to be intelligently disregarded."

Took me about two years to figure out that what you say is too often the case and I gleefully proceeded to ignore a great many for another 40 plus years -- on both sides (even the dark side has a few party line hewers) -- and had a lot of fun doing it...

[selil]

When I was a rookie cop.....

Citizen says to me... "You're here to enforce the law!" (barking dog complaint).
Me... "Nope, I'm here to listen to your complaint". (fifth time we'd been called).
Citizen says to me... "Damn it I pay your sallary you must enforce every law!!! Now!!". (By the way there wasn't any dog next door)
Me... "I realize that sir. Did you realize that your car is parked more than 18 inches from the curb? Sign here. Press hard 3 copies".

Moral of the story? When y'all start complaining about somebody else and wigging out don't be surprised if it comes back to haunt you. Making and abusing the law to harrass somebody else can have dire consequences. Let the soldiers have their porn and nudie magazines. Unless the complainers are serving they should keep their nose out of relaxation and recreation.

[Tacitus]

Duncan Hunter's response at 01:30

..most Americans, most kids, who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives, and they have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values, and to force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual, who goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them...

Back to Hunter’s statement, specifically, he claimed.

1. Most of the “kids” in the military are conservatives.
2. Conservatives, who have Judeo-Christian values, would be forced to go against their values if they served with homosexuals, and would be a “disservice” to them.
3. Therefore, conservatives in the military have veto power over this question of gays or lesbians in the armed forces.

I’m just curious how many people around here back Hunter’s statement, in particular, on why they should be excluded.

Are these in fact the armed forces of the United States of America? Which presumably would generally coincide with the characteristics of the population at large.

Or should this be renamed the armed forces of Conservatives of America, Republicans of America, or Evangelical Protestants of America?

I am not persuaded by the argument that "we conservatives in the military would consider it a disservice to serve with <insert whichever group, race, class, color, creed, religion here that you don't want to be around>, so they can't." Any others besides gay and lesbians that, like the Irish, Blacks, Jews back in the day, need not apply?

[Stu-6]

Duncan Hunter's response at 01:30

..most Americans, most kids, who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives, and they have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values, and to force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual, who goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them...

Isn’t this a little like saying most of the people at the country club are white so it is unfair to force them to accept anyone different?

If you would be a little nicer to the gays maybe the conservatives would have to do all of the work. Or maybe we would find out that there are plenty of people who are willing and able to serve who just don’t care about stuff like that.

Besides there is no longer a draft no one is forced to work with anyone. . . you don't like it Burger King is hiring.

[tequila]

Hunter's claim seems to run a bit contrary to my own recent experience at the School of Infantry at Camp Lejeune, N.C., where some enterprising soul took the trouble to wallpaper the interior of all three bathroom stalls for my platoon with some quite interesting hardcore pornography, to the general approval of the squadbay. Perhaps the Rangers were more pious in the 1960s?

[Ken White]

you can't pay much attention to anything those squirrels say.

The Armed forces are a reflection of the society from which they come; same percentage of crooks, liars, con-men, eagle scouts, gay, straight, totally irreligious, evangelicals, jews, catholics etc. etc.

There are a few such as Hunter describes, the vast majority are not. There are a few who are offended by gays, the vast majority could care less as long as it doesn't become an issue.

Tequila's got it right.

[CR6]

The only question is whether or not gays/lesbians in the military should not have to hide their sexuality, or alternatively framed, be free to declare their sexuality.

IMO this issue is rapidly growing moot and will not be a genuine issue in 15 years. Not worth spending time on - the direction of the national culture will determine this in the end.

Maybe I'm out of it since I spend my life at echelons above reality now, but as little as eight years ago hostility towards anything or anyone perceived as homosexual was prevasive. Case in point, the murder of PFC Barry Winchell at Campbell back in 1999.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...l,%20Barry%20L.

[J Wolfsberger]

you can't pay much attention to anything those squirrels say.

The Armed forces are a reflection of the society from which they come; same percentage of crooks, liars, con-men, eagle scouts, gay, straight, totally irreligious, evangelicals, jews, catholics etc. etc.

There are a few such as Hunter describes, the vast majority are not. There are a few who are offended by gays, the vast majority could care less as long as it doesn't become an issue.

Tequila's got it right.

I'm with Ken on this. Some years ago a new 2Lt (out of OCS) was asked by his CO to look into whether an enlisted man was gay. He asked the platoon sergeant. The answer was that everyone thought so, but the guy was damn good at his job, didn't ghost, took showers after everyone else and after one or two social beers, took off on his own (private) activities after duty hours.

The 2Lt then asked, So we don't have a problem?

The platoon sergeant answered, Not unless you create one.

The 2Lt decided he had more important concerns than a witch hunt.

That has pretty much summed the entire situation up for me.

[Ken White]

Maybe I'm out of it since I spend my life at echelons above reality now, but as little as eight years ago hostility towards anything or anyone perceived as homosexual was prevasive. Case in point, the murder of PFC Barry Winchell at Campbell back in 1999.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...l,%20Barry%20L.

As long ago as the 1950s through the late 70s in a number of infantry units, both Marine and Airborne, there were always Gay guys around and they were never a problem. Best Mess Sergeant I ever knew was as as gay as the proverbial three dollar bill and was campy as well -- Everyone in the 504 knew he was gay, Colonel on down. He spent his weekends in Raleigh and his weeks feeding great chow.

I have known literally dozens of them, ranging from (probably) an Army three star through (certainly) an SF LTC, a couple of Army Majors a Marine Captain and a whole bunch of lower ranks.

Not one ever had or was a problem.

Winchell was an aberration in a Division not noted for the greatest discipline in the world (and in which I served twice when it was still on jump status).

There have been others elsewhere and such things will always occur; they aren't the norm.

[Rob Thornton]

Winchell was an aberration in a Division not noted for the greatest discipline in the world .

When I was a PL in D/1/187th we (my section leaders, PSG and I) covered down on that platoon as an OC team during that BDE's DIV sponsored EXEVAL about a month or two before PFC Winchell was killed. Our observation was that there were significant command climate problems throughout that company, and there was a lack of mistrust and unit/individual discipline. When leaders cannot or will not work together only bad things will come of it.

Best, Rob

[CR6]

As long ago as the 1950s through the late 70s in a number of infantry units, both Marine and Airborne, there were always Gay guys around and they were never a problem. Best Mess Sergeant I ever knew was as as gay as the proverbial three dollar bill and was campy as well -- Everyone in the 504 knew he was gay, Colonel on down. He spent his weekends in Raleigh and his weeks feeding great chow.

I have known literally dozens of them, ranging from (probably) an Army three star through (certainly) an SF LTC, a couple of Army Majors a Marine Captain and a whole bunch of lower ranks.

Not one ever had or was a problem.

Winchell was an aberration in a Division not noted for the greatest discipline in the world (and in which I served twice when it was still on jump status).

There have been others elsewhere and such things will always occur; they aren't the norm.

My point, using the extreme and disturbing case of PFC Winchell as an example, is that my short 15 years in the military I have witnessed or heard of more hostility towards the idea of openly gay personnel than acceptance of it. I'm not so naive as to think they are not serving. A guy in my platoon at airborne school went on to become the first openly gay member of the AZ state legislature a few years later.

That being said, when DADT was a big issue in the early 90s, the hostility towards the idea of openly gay guys serving brought out a lot of ugliness whenever I heard the topic discussed among soldiers at Bragg. 15 years and two wars later, maybe it's not such a big deal anymore.

[Tacitus]

CR6: Your recollections of the attitudes towards the prospect of gay and lesbian soldiers pretty much mirrors mine. I've never been to Ft. Bragg, but I was in from '90 - '94, and spent most of my time with the Big Red One.

I never heard anyone express any racial prejudice. Most of the male soldiers did not have any problems with female soldiers. Among those that didn't have much respect for women in uniform, it wasn't unheard of to hear them say that they were probably lesbians. But I routinely heard some pretty hostile talk, even threats against any hypotethetical homosexual soldiers. Even from NCOs.

I never had a problem with someone else's sexual orientation. I never perceived it as a threat to myself. But I had met gay and lesbian students in school before, so it was not such an alien thing to me. I honestly think that some fellas have led lives so sheltered that they never knew any gay or lesbian people, and had all kinds of notions about them.

Anyway, I knew enough to shut up when the gay bashing was going on in the platoon, lest I be accused of wrongly being one. Self preservation can sometimes trump personal opinions, you know.

[Ken White]

My point, using the extreme and disturbing case of PFC Winchell as an example, is that my short 15 years in the military I have witnessed or heard of more hostility towards the idea of openly gay personnel than acceptance of it. I'm not so naive as to think they are not serving. A guy in my platoon at airborne school went on to become the first openly gay member of the AZ state legislature a few years later.

That being said, when DADT was a big issue in the early 90s, the hostility towards the idea of openly gay guys serving brought out a lot of ugliness whenever I heard the topic discussed among soldiers at Bragg. 15 years and two wars later, maybe it's not such a big deal anymore.

So has the action -- virtually nil other than a very, very occasional eruption like the Winchell incident. That one, like many in the civilian world, as likely as not brought about by our incompetent media concentrating on a non-event on slow news days.

Troops talk, bitch and moan. Like civilians, they'll harp on the topic du jour. Like the civilian world, some will act on their ranting. They will also smokestack and talk a lot of trash -- most of it needs to be noted but it rarely leads to much action. What they do, as opposed to what they say, matters. In the Army, decent, sensible leadership contains it, that simple.

I've got a serving son and another who was a Falcon (his brother and I have never held that against him ) and I live in a military town and talk to the kids occasionally so I stay reasonably abreast of the current attitudes. Todays kids are at least one notch above the 90s variant and about three or four notches above those around when I retired 30 years ago. You don't even wanta contemplate the 1950 version on the couth and acceptance scale...

Your last paragraph is very appropriate and correct, I think, attitudes are softening on the topic in the civilian realm, so too will they in the Green Machine. Reflection of the society from which they come...

The most significant problem with unfettered Gay acceptance, I suspect, will be on the subject and in the area of married enlisted quarters. Some of the more forceful wives can decide a bad example for their children is being set then the FSG and community honchos will really have fun...

[kehenry1]

My point, using the extreme and disturbing case of PFC Winchell as an example, is that my short 15 years in the military I have witnessed or heard of more hostility towards the idea of openly gay personnel than acceptance of it. I'm not so naive as to think they are not serving. A guy in my platoon at airborne school went on to become the first openly gay member of the AZ state legislature a few years later.

To mirror a comment above, it's been my experience that people in an organization mirror the leadership. If, up and down the chain, there is no tolerance for ill discipline or harassment, the troops are unlikely to do so. But, it has to be up and down the chain. It can't skip. The officers nor NCOs can make any public pronouncements "on the clock" or in private to members of the unit that state otherwise.

Frankly, it's been the same issue with integrating women in certain units. Even the hint that the LT or the SFC is unhappy and unaccepting usually leads to one or two in the unit making remarks or acting on that.

Although, I expect, in the case of women in the units, that will be less likely as the deployments with women continue and they are seen in more active roles than just "fobbits". Raven 42, combat medics, a captain I know is leading patrols in Afghanistan, the Civ Affairs that are actively "outside the wire", etc, etc, etc there are thousands that are operating in the "new terrain".

Which reminds me, do we have a thread about using women in Small Wars to effect the best culturally sound COIN?

[marct]

Hi Ken,

The most significant problem with unfettered Gay acceptance, I suspect, will be on the subject and in the area of married enlisted quarters. Some of the more forceful wives can decide a bad example for their children is being set then the FSG and community honchos will really have fun...

I suspect you're right about that . It might be interesting to see how they handle gay officers who bring their spouses down on exchange visits.

Marc

ps. I;m now getting ads for rainbowschristians.....

[marct]

Hi Kat,

Which reminds me, do we have a thread about using women in Small Wars to effect the best culturally sound COIN?

The topic is spread around pretty much, although there is this thread. Why don't you start one?

Marc