Results 1 to 20 of 324

Thread: Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member CR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    181

    Default I understand and respect your points...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.
    "Law cannot limit what physics makes possible." Humanitarian Apsects of Airpower (papers of Frederick L. Anderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University)

  2. #2
    Council Member Tacitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bristol, Tennessee
    Posts
    146

    Default

    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.
    No signature required, my handshake is good enough.

  3. #3
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default The talk has been fairly consistent over the years.

    Quote Originally Posted by CR6 View Post
    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...
    Last edited by Ken White; 12-01-2007 at 02:20 AM.

  4. #4
    Council Member kehenry1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    89

    Default Organization leadership

    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?
    Kat-Missouri

  5. #5
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Kat,

    Quote Originally Posted by kehenry1 View Post
    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
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  6. #6
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Frankly, I was more fascinated by the use of Colonel (ret) Kerr's question, providing that he was a political "plant".

    I'm sorry, I can't refer a CSMR "Brigadier" as anything but a b.s. "pretender" He's a retired Colonel, period.

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default Dadt

    President-elect Obama's press secretary at a news conference today:

    Thaddeus: Is the new administration going to get rid of the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy?

    Gibbs: Thaddeus, you don’t hear a politician give a one-word answer much, but it’s yes.
    Jump ahead to about 4:15 in the video to hear it.

    Last edited by Entropy; 01-11-2009 at 12:39 AM. Reason: embed

  8. #8
    Council Member Xenophon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    MCB Quantico
    Posts
    119

    Default

    I've seen a lot of the, "the military isn't ready for openly gay servicemembers" argument against those opposed to allowing it. And they have a point. Combat arms types of all ranks in the Marine Corps are vehemently against it, and I'm sure the feeling still exists in other parts of the military. When DADT is eventually ended, there will be violence and hazing at first, and probably for a while. That's very sad, but unfortunately true. I have trouble convincing some Marines that the President-elect is not a Muslim. Open-mindedness towards homosexuals is a little far into the future.

    That being said, "readiness" is a non-issue. The military wasn't ready for integration of females nor was it ready for racial desegregation. The pressure to change needs to come from outside events/politicians. The President that decides he wants to take the burden of making that change should take a stand and do so, despite the military's protestations.

  9. #9
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Ken,

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.....
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •