Gay military service?

[Skandi]

US president reiterates promise to revoke 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in address to gay rights group ahead of Washington march

Barrack Obama reaffirmed an "unwavering" commitment to end discrimination against gay people, including the ban on openly serving in the military, on the eve of a protest march through Washington today to demand the president fulfil election commitments to equal rights.

An emphatic speech to the US's largest gay advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign, yesterday, that also included a commitment to pass hate crimes legislation, was greeted with a standing ovation. But there was scepticism from some activists frustrated at the lack of a timetable on reform of the military and Obama's failure to take up any major gay rights issues in his first months in office.

"I appreciate that many of you don't believe progress has come fast enough ... Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach," said Obama.

"My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians, whether in the office or on the battlefield. You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognise relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."

The president's speech came the evening before today's National Equalities march past the White House to Capitol Hill to press demands for immediate reforms, particularly of military policy and the scrapping of the Defence of Marriage Act, which was passed to block official recognition of gay marriages.

Obama said the policy of "don't ask, don't tell", which allows gay people to serve in the armed forces provided they didn't tell anyone of their sexual orientation, was unjust.

"We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country," he said. "We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage."

The current policy was compromise introduced in 1993 when President Bill Clinton was unable to get the military to accept openly gay service men and women. Obama will face some resistance from Republicans and some members of the military but there is much wider acceptance of gays openly serving in the US forces than 16 years ago.

However, there is likely to be greater resistance to repealing the Defence of Marriage Act.

A Democratic party senator, Robert Casey, who is co-sponsor of legislation against hate crimes and who supports scrapping discrimination in the military, said he could not support abolishment of the act.

source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/11/obama-gay-rights-in-military?CMP=AFCYAH)

What is your opinion on gays in the military?

[Tabiti]

gays in the military?
Sorry, but I can't use the both words in one sentence. Gays can only perform as cabaret singers and entertainers during war time...

[Atlas]

I don't see them as good fighters and warriors, like Tabiti said.

[Electronic God-Man]

Sorry, but I can't use the both words in one sentence. Gays can only perform as cabaret singers and entertainers during war time...


I don't see them as good fighters and warriors, like Tabiti said.

Many homosexuals are not as effeminate as the ones that immediately spring to mind when someone mentions "gays".

[Tabiti]

Many homosexuals are not as effeminate as the ones that immediately spring to mind when someone mentions "gays".
Yes, there are "male" ones but who heterosexual wants to deal with them when he's not sure about his back?

[Loki]

I don't see the connection between military and sexuality, hence voted "Should always be allowed".

[Electronic God-Man]

Yes, there are "male" ones but who heterosexual wants to deal with them when he's not sure about his back?

Are talking about in combat or about homosexual sex here? haha

[Tabiti]

Are talking about in combat or about homosexual sex here? haha
Is there a difference?

[Skandi]

I think they should be allowed, but there should not be any special treatment either way.

[Atlas]

I don't see the connection between military and sexuality, hence voted "Should always be allowed".

The point is... gays in the military are very often discriminated, and it's and euphemism. Most of them keep their sexual preference for themselves.

[Tabiti]

I think they should be allowed, but there should not be any special treatment either way.
Well, in some special units, like spying and other single duties it's OK I guess, but not as ordinary soldiers.

[Svarog]

Military service still mandatory here and I don't see why I should be sleeping in a mud for a week eating rats and whatnot (from experience) and someone should be spared of that just because he is gay. Equal rights, equal responsibilities.

[Damião de Góis]

I don't understand why they want to be in the military if it isn't mandatory.

[Hussar]

The point is... gays in the military are very often discriminated, and it's and euphemism. Most of them keep their sexual preference for themselves.



Indeed the sexual preferences shouldn't be subject of exhibition in the armed forces.

The sexual orientation shouldn't be asked.

[Óttar]

Alexander the Great anyone?

The Sacred Band was a whole division of gay soldiers who fought hard for love of their comrades. Who says someone cannot be gay and manly at the same time? Indeed, some would say love between men is super-manly.

The ancient Greeks understood this.

What someone does in the bedroom is nobody's business. It is whether one is meritorious as a soldier and on the battlefied that matters in this instance.

[Loddfafner]

Sorry, but I can't use the both words in one sentence. Gays can only perform as cabaret singers and entertainers during war time...

That might be true of your average department store clerk, but you would change your mind fast if you met some gay Marines I've known, also some veterans from the Vietnam and Gulf wars.

[RoyBatty]

Sorry, but I can't use the both words in one sentence. Gays can only perform as cabaret singers and entertainers during war time...

You're very mistaken. I know a girl who has served on Royal Navy aircraft carriers. She told me, with some sadness, that it wasn't uncommon for the marines (fighting soldiers) to be homosexual. It possibly has something to do with the high pressure / high violence environment they are in, intense male bonding, being around male company most of the time (like prison) etc.

Gays in the military are a fact of life. Frankly I don't see why it should matter provided they do their work and their behaviour remains in line with what's expected.

[Tabiti]

Yes, I know all the stories about homosexual scandals in the army and that's the reason why gays should not be allowed, at least as ordinary soldiers. This would harm both sides - heterosexual homophobes and homosexuals.

[Absinthe]

Military service still mandatory here and I don't see why I should be sleeping in a mud for a week eating rats and whatnot (from experience) and someone should be spared of that just because he is gay. Equal rights, equal responsibilities.
Yes :thumbs

I was about to write something similar but you beat me to it.

[Troll's Puzzle]

Sorry, but I can't use the both words in one sentence. Gays can only perform as cabaret singers and entertainers during war time...

yeah, those Spartans couldn't fight for toffee :D

if it were up to me, I'd make a crack regiment of all-gay troops. If they love each other, they'll fight harder than regular men would for each other. Such a unit bonded by love would lick even the stiffest of opposition. :lightbul:

[Loddfafner]

A common tendency is for a guy to have a lot of trouble coming to terms with his attraction to other guys after growing up in an environment where he is constantly taught that homosexuality would disqualify him as a human being, as a citizen, and as even as kin. He will do all he can to shake it off: praying to Jesus, getting lots of tattoos, proving himself in fights, and joining the military. Of course, none of that works. Either he comes to terms with his reality, or he descends into suicidal addiction.

[007]

What does the army need fags for? :mad:

[anonymaus]

What does the army need fags for? :mad:

You tell me, mate.

http://osmoothie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Soldier-smoking-cigarette.jpg

[007]

Marlboro should pay that bloke.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Putting them in seperate units and not in with the regular people seems like the best option.

[Loddfafner]

Putting them in seperate units and not in with the regular people seems like the best option.

This is wildly impractical as gays in the military tend to be deeply closeted even to themselves. And where, exactly, would one draw the line given the range of ambiguity in defining sexuality? There are guys who identify as gay but never get laid while others get off with guys while fiercely identifying as straight. What about celibate priests, or hustlers who only do it for cash, or straight men who dress in their wives' clothing? What about emo kids or metrosexuals?

[SwordoftheVistula]

This is wildly impractical as gays in the military tend to be deeply closeted even to themselves. And where, exactly, would one draw the line given the range of ambiguity in defining sexuality? There are guys who identify as gay but never get laid while others get off with guys while fiercely identifying as straight. What about celibate priests, or hustlers who only do it for cash, or straight men who dress in their wives' clothing? What about emo kids or metrosexuals?

How is it impractical? It would just work the way it does now, or did before "don't ask-don't tell", with the exception of 'gay units' for those who identify or are identified as 'homosexual'

[Sol Invictus]

Be gay if you want, who cares. Just don't come grabbing my shit. I'm not the one going to Hell.

[Guapo]

Alexander the Great anyone?

The Sacred Band was a whole division of gay soldiers who fought hard for love of their comrades. Who says someone cannot be gay and manly at the same time? Indeed, some would say love between men is super-manly.

The ancient Greeks understood this.

What someone does in the bedroom is nobody's business. It is whether one is meritorious as a soldier and on the battlefied that matters in this instance.


Not as well known as Alex but also Ernst Röhm. Not only did he prefer a brown shirt but browneye as well, despite having been crucial to Hitler's rise to power.

[Psychonaut]

The biggest problem with gays in the military is the logistics of housing them...

As it stands, single soldiers under the rank of Sergeant (which is the vast majority) generally live in two person barracks rooms. Men cannot live in the same room (and usually not the same building) as women for obvious reasons. So, this being the case, what to do with gays?
You can't put two gays together, because that's just as inappropriate as putting a man and woman together. Two people who are likely to fuck cannot live together in Army barracks.
You can't put a gay with a straight, because that's, from the straight one's perspective, it's horribly uncomfortable. You can't expect a man to live in the same room with a guy who may want to fuck him.
You can't give gays their own rooms. That's preferential treatment and is unfair to all straights. It would also encourage people to lie.
You can't give everyone their own rooms. There's not nearly enough money in the DOD budget for that.
There are enough problems in the military with women being allowed to serve. I see no need to further complicate what is already a difficult occupation by allowing openly homosexual people to muck up he military machine. The Army is not anything other than a tool. It is a tool that must function as well as it can. If excluding certain types from service is necessary for the Army to function at its maximum capacity, so be it. We need not allow the machine to be hampered by non-essential problems that could be eliminated by categorically excluding the tiny percentage of people who are the problem.

[Puddle of Mudd]

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/5442/motivator446744f57f6fe5.jpg

Whose going to stop them, exactly?

[Svarog]

Oh come on


The biggest problem with gays in the military is the logistics of housing them...

As it stands, single soldiers under the rank of Sergeant (which is the vast majority) generally live in two person barracks rooms. Men cannot live in the same room (and usually not the same building) as women for obvious reasons. So, this being the case, what to do with gays?

Yes, but army is not a vacation where you go looking to get laid, that's what a weekend is for if you get one, most time you sleep outside if you get to sleep at all, and when you do, the last thing on your mind is an another activity, especially the sexual one, I would have absolutely no problem to sleep beside a gay person, and barracks here are 20 men in a room, not that they could have some action themselves others not to notice.


You can't put two gays together, because that's just as inappropriate as putting a man and woman together. Two people who are likely to fuck cannot live together in Army barracks.

Then you put a homosexual and a heterosexual person together, problem solved.


You can't put a gay with a straight, because that's, from the straight one's perspective, it's horribly uncomfortable. You can't expect a man to live in the same room with a guy who may want to fuck him.

Okay, this is the most stubborn heterosexual people view that EVERY gay person wants to fuck him or any other man that walks, I would not have a problem with this, even if he does wants to fuck me that's not my problem really because i am not 'down' with that, nor his presence would make me feel uncomfortable, same as the presence of the girl that have a sexual attraction for me which I don't share. And beside - you got a faggot in a room, suck it up (not suck his up), there's a difference between a barrack and Hyatt.


You can't give gays their own rooms. That's preferential treatment and is unfair to all straights. It would also encourage people to lie.

As I said, equal rights - equal treatment.


You can't give everyone their own rooms. There's not nearly enough money in the DOD budget for that.

I agree :)


There are enough problems in the military with women being allowed to serve. I see no need to further complicate what is already a difficult occupation by allowing openly homosexual people to muck up he military machine. The Army is not anything other than a tool. It is a tool that must function as well as it can. If excluding certain types from service is necessary for the Army to function at its maximum capacity, so be it. We need not allow the machine to be hampered by non-essential problems that could be eliminated by categorically excluding the tiny percentage of people who are the problem.

Strangely enough I don't see any problems with girls serving the army, it's not like that they're hookers that just want to fuck any random soldier they come across nor we're gonna sexually harass any random soldier chick just cause they have breasts, I mean, even when I'd go random night out I'd more likely go to the pub, get few beers and a solid lunch before forced to come to the damn dog house then go around jumping fences to the female barracks, and beside, punishments and penalties for that are severe enough that it is just not worth of it.

Army should be about the discipline and self-control is a huge part of it, I have much bigger problem with allowing stupid and mentally-retarded people in the army who is gonna run with a gun around me than some homosexual or a girl that can, btw, be much more efficient than some straight guy

[Treffie]

Of course, events like this may happen

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8224476.stm

[Svarog]

Of course, events like this may happen

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8224476.stm

Yes, but lusty male sergeant may bully straight girl to sleep with him or sexually harass any other girl, not like that all of the girls want to sleep with a sergeant anyway, that's what army court and a firing squad are for.

[Psychonaut]

Yes, but army is not a vacation where you go looking to get laid, that's what a weekend is for if you get one, most time you sleep outside if you get to sleep at all, and when you do, the last thing on your mind is an another activity, especially the sexual one

Methinks the Serbian Army is quite different from the American Army. All of the lower ranking soldiers I'm in charge of currently live in the barracks with another person and will do so for the next two years. Sexual harassment and assault is a huge problem at my post and would only be exacerbated by putting a gay soldier with a straight one. Of course the gay soldier might not be attracted to the straight one, but the same could be said of a male and female. Regardless of whether or not that specific pair has sexual tension between them, the potential is there and that makes it inappropriate for a living arrangement.

[Svarog]

Methinks the Serbian Army is quite different from the American Army.

Well, you got the point here.

First huge difference is that in USA you decide who are you gonna let in the army, while in Serbia you decide who is gonna get away of it.

Still. I keep the opinion than a homosexual man can be just as good soldier as any other and army is not a homeless shelter nor a 5 stars hotel and that they should be allowed in just as anyone else, also, that they should not be released of their citizens duty and an army training just because they're gays - they're not all that special.

[Eldritch]

This (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/10/10/obamas-speech-at-the-hrc-dinner) may be of interest.


My reaction: a friend has been sending me ecstatic emails about the speech. I just watched it—the speech is every bit as good as the ones candidate Obama gave, as the performance candidate Obama delivered at the HRC/Logo Democratic Primary Debate, as the open letter to the LGBT community that candidate Obama released before last November's election. Imagine all the wonderful things this guy is going to accomplish if he ever actually gets elected president. In other words: sorry, folks, nothing new to see here. Pledges, promises, excuses. Lip service.

[Taciturn]

There are enough problems in the military with women being allowed to serve.

IIRC, about 25% of the women in the US military get sexually assaulted, during their military service, by men who are in the military.

[Loddfafner]

Be gay if you want, who cares. Just don't come grabbing my shit. I'm not the one going to Hell.

That is far less likely to happen if you can refrain from waving it around and showing it off.

[Octothorpe]

Other than Psych, who else here has served in the U.S. military?

To be honest, it really doesn't bother me. No one ever hit on me in the barracks (should I be thankful, or a tad insulted? ;)), and what soldiers do on their own time is their own business.

Kinsey aside, about 3% of all men are homosexual (continuum of sexuality is a discussion for another day), so it approaches inevitability that some of the men I served with were gay. It did not seem to impact their ability to carry out the mission (hey, not THAT mission, ya pervs! :D).

[Rasvalg]

I was in one of the first basic training classes at Ft Jackson to be integrated with women. As far as I could tell it was going to be nothing but headaches as the men are only worried about the women and continually help them as about half of the women couldn't road march and carry a pack so the men would carry them for them. We also ended up doing things alot lighter so that the women could keep up.
Now I am not saying women shouldn't be allowed to serve just that everyone needs to understand the differences in capabilities so that training can be different.
Then I went to Aberdeen Proving Grounds for AIT and was there when the two gals supposedly got raped by Drill SGT. Simpson. Did they? I don't know but I do know that the two sure liked the attention. My Sgt and I had to take them to the main base one day and it sure seemded to be more crap than anything else.
I also had gays that I ran into and let me explain that although no one knew everyone did and all it did was make for uncomfortable feelings and different treatment of them. At the very minimum they should not be integrated into the regular army. At the maximum as maditory service doesn't happen here in the states they should just not be allowed to serve.
So you understand I get along well with everyone but in an environment where I am concerned about who has my back I don't need them being entertained by looking at my backside or lusting after me so that is why they are watching my back. The same goes for the guys and gals in combat. The men are more worried about the women in these type of situtations.
These have been my experiences while in the U.S. Army so they may differ from others but in the end I voted against them serving as their ideology here in the states differs from the rest of us. At least those that I have been around whether it be in the Army, in prison or in civilian life.

[Loki]

I wonder who will be the first to start a "Gay Apricians" social group. :coffee:

[Óttar]

I'm not the one going to Hell.

:rolleyes:

Don't be so sure.

Interview with God shortly after death:

God: So why exactly did you join up with Lutheranism again?

You: I liked the tradition; the sense of community.

God: Yeah, I don't know if that's going to cut it. After all, I can be a rather angry and vindictive fellow. Didn't you read my book!?

You: [A trap door opens] "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!" {snap, crackle, burn}

:D

[Beorn]

I wonder who will be the first to start a "Gay Apricians" social group. :coffee:

Don't know, but whoever it is is declaring themselves a boofty boy....or girl. :D

[Rudy]

I wonder who will be the first to start a "Gay Apricians" social group.
Don't know, but whoever it is is declaring themselves a boofty boy....or girl.
They would have to start a bi-sexual social group, as "Gaypricians" are not able to European preserve.;)

[RoyBatty]

I was in one of the first basic training classes at Ft Jackson to be integrated with women. As far as I could tell it was going to be nothing but headaches as the men are only worried about the women and continually help them as about half of the women couldn't road march and carry a pack so the men would carry them for them. We also ended up doing things alot lighter so that the women could keep up.
Now I am not saying women shouldn't be allowed to serve just that everyone needs to understand the differences in capabilities so that training can be different.

I've seen similar reports from UK service personnel who pointed out that due to equality and integration madness they were saddled with females who often didn't have the physical strength to perform even basic tasks like pulling back the slide of a pistol. Of course there are females who can do this and who can keep up with basic requirements but political correctness is placing many women in positions which they are not physically suited for.

They straggle behind, become a distraction and lower the overall combat readiness and effectiveness of their units. The military (and equality social engineers) should apply common sense. They should only allow women who are able to cope with the workload into physically demanding units. The ones who can't are passengers who endanger everybody else's lives.

As for gays, they're as capable as anybody of doing their jobs. Provided people focus on soldiering instead of dating during missions what goes on during R & R is nobody's business but their own.