Admirals, generals: Let gays serve openly

[Mr. President]

I actually slept thru the whole event. 4 or 5 guys did the deed. If I had woke up in time I would have helped. The guy was a menace to the unit.

To the UNIT or to the homophobes?

 

[Sunni Man]

To the UNIT or to the homophobes?

There were No homophobes in the unit. Just soilders who don't want to be around faggots.

 

[sealybobo]

There were No homophobes in the unit. Just soilders who don't want to be around faggots.

And you think it's ok for young men to not want to be around gays? I guess the guy was right back in the 60's when he said he didn't want his kids going to school with blacks too, huh?

The army is spread kind of thin there bucko. I say these men who don't want to be around "faggots" would be happy to have them replace them rather than serve a 5th tour.

Anyways, maybe young American men need to be better than that. Maybe if their ignorant daddies didn't teach them to be this way, they wouldn't be this way. Ever think of that?

And we shouldn't have women in the service either, because clearly they get abused by the men who don't want "faggots" around.

And then these "soldiers" come back home with this attitude? Dude, it'll land you in jail. That's a hate crime to even call someone a faggot.

 

[Sunni Man]

That's a hate crime to even call someone a faggot.

Where

 

[eots]

don't ask ..don't tell..keep it in the closet ..where it belongs they are not a race of people ..they are individuals that practice their preferred form of deviant sex...
should all solders be allowed to proudly display any sexual perversions or deviance's that possess...no.. I think not

 

[Gunny]

How about don't ask don't tell and being gay isn't a punishable offense?

That is a misconception. Being gay is NOT a punishable act. Engaging in homosexual behavior is. Unless someone's running or their mouth ot otherwise being indiscreet, nobody knows. Right?

I never ONCE talked shit about anything I did with my wife because besides being none of anyone's fucking business, it's disrespectful to HER. Nor can I think of even once that anything I did while in the Corps ever gave cause to discuss it anyway.

 

[Gunny]

Possible solution that is worth consideration, methinks. However, just like heterosexuals, subject to the same disciplinary measures when found guilty of acts listed in UCMJ. That being said, understand that because this is such a contentious subject in this day and age, certain things ARE put at risk. Things like good order and discipline, unit cohesion and teamwork, even the safety of individual soldiers. While segregation was supposedly ended in the military there was a long period of adjustment before it was really in effect.

Yes folks, heterosexuals get charged, tried and convicted of things like adultery, child abuse, rape and even conduct unbecoming. Contrary to popular belief, male soldiers do bring women into the barracks and screw like rabbits...somtimes they get caught and are disciplined. They are not disciplined because they are heterosexual, they are disciplined because they violated military (and sometimes civilian) law.

 

[Gunny]

PLEASE explain to me the "logic" in losing excellent Marines, especially in this two-war time, simply because of sexual preference. To me, it's as patently ridiculous as letting good Marines not reenlist by refusing to allow more tats. We're losing too many damn good Marines for stupid reasons.

Many of us on this thread understand that extremism is detrimental to ANY group, and the Corps doesn't need drama - they have a job to do, and they do it better than anyone else...and have for 233 years. I can see how somebody screaming for (any) special treatment can disrupt cohesion and mission effectiveness, Gunny. But that's not the question. The question is, why should a valuable warrior be kicked out simply because a CO finds out that warrior is gay?

I already did explain it, but since you want to play semantics with the questions:

Why should a valuable warrior die because of a breakdown in unit cohesion and discipline?

Once a unit knows your "valuable warrior" is gay, his value is nil. He is more detriment than anything else. That negates whatever sense of "value" you are trying to place on him.

A Warrior's value is based on being a cohesive part of the team. When that cohesion breaks down, the team breaks down. When the team breaks down, people get killed needlessly.

It is MY business as a staff noncommissioned officer to ensure that to the best of my ability, anything disruptive to that team and its cohesion is removed and replaced and when someone gets killed because I fail in that mission, that death is MY responsibility and no one else's.

IOW, I'm not walking around the rest of MY life with that guilt just so a bunch of bleeding hearts can, in some warped way, feel they made the most efficient killing machine on Earth politically correct.

When it comes to that, I will discriminate against the crippled, the stupid, the weak, and gays too -- anything that detracts from that machine operating on ALL cylinders.

 

[Article 15]

That is a misconception. Being gay is NOT a punishable act. Engaging in homosexual behavior is. Unless someone's running or their mouth ot otherwise being indiscreet, nobody knows. Right?

I never ONCE talked shit about anything I did with my wife because besides being none of anyone's fucking business, it's disrespectful to HER. Nor can I think of even once that anything I did while in the Corps ever gave cause to discuss it anyway.

I dunno, Gunny. That sounds like parsing words to me. If my buddy tells me about some random girl he sleeps with nothing bad is going to happen to him but if that girl were a guy it becomes a punishable offense. That's not right.

 

[Gunny]

I dunno, Gunny. That sounds like parsing words to me. If my buddy tells me about some random girl he sleeps with nothing bad is going to happen to him but if that girl were a guy it becomes a punishable offense. That's not right.

Sure it is. Sexually deviant behavior of ANY kind is a punishable offense. Doesn't matter what you are willing to accept ... it matters what the law says.

But just to square you away, your telling you about sleeping with a random girl CAN BE a punishable offense. It is conduct unbecomming, and behavior prejudicial to the good order and discipline of. IOW, it's an inappropriate topic in the military workplace.

 

[Article 15]

Sure it is. Sexually deviant behavior of ANY kind is a punishable offense. Doesn't matter what you are willing to accept ... it matters what the law says.

Well the point would be to change the law. To change Article 125.

But just to square you away, your telling you about sleeping with a random girl CAN BE a punishable offense. It is conduct unbecomming, and behavior prejudicial to the good order and discipline of. IOW, it's an inappropriate topic in the military workplace.

And of course that kind of a conversation is inappropriate in the military workplace. What we are talking about though, isn't limited to the workplace.

 

[CSM]

And you think it's ok for young men to not want to be around gays? I guess the guy was right back in the 60's when he said he didn't want his kids going to school with blacks too, huh?

The army is spread kind of thin there bucko. I say these men who don't want to be around "faggots" would be happy to have them replace them rather than serve a 5th tour.

Anyways, maybe young American men need to be better than that. Maybe if their ignorant daddies didn't teach them to be this way, they wouldn't be this way. Ever think of that?

And we shouldn't have women in the service either, because clearly they get abused by the men who don't want "faggots" around.

And then these "soldiers" come back home with this attitude? Dude, it'll land you in jail. That's a hate crime to even call someone a faggot.

You do realize that Sunni has described an incident that occured a couple of decades ago, do you not?

 

[CSM]

First, thank you to the mods for fixing things so this thread continues in a reasonable manner....

Second, surely all participants must realize that the anecdotal evidence that Sunni provided occured over 3 decades ago. The attitudes prevalent at that time may (or may not) be as widespread as they are today among the same age group as those that participated in the aforementioned incident.

Third, the original post was about several retired flag/general grade officers expressing their views on gays serving openly in the US military.

Now that we are back on track ...

I have had this same discussion before with various and sundry senior NCOs and officers all of whom are still on active duty. Those men were either Air Force or Army. I have little contact with Marines and none I had discussions with were Marines. I found it interesting that none of those men were too concerned with the fact that an individual was gay; they were more concerned with (as Gunny has already mentioned) public displays of affection, the logistics tail and complexity of trying to accomodate homosexual personnel (female/male/male homosexual/female homosexual bathroom and shower facilities, etc) and the impact of trying to reconcile conflicting strong moral feelings among the troops.

There are indeed valid arguments for and against gays openly serving in the military and many of them have been posted in this thread. Disruption or even destruction of unit cohesion is a very valid concern that most civilian organizations do not have to deal with. The necessary close living quarters and work environment found within the military is unlike the environment found in most civilian organizations. Good order and discipline of a unit has a more severe impact on the military than it does (in most cases) in the civilian sector. Gunny's concern for the welfare of soldiers in a combat environment is valid and far more likely to be an issue than it is in the civilian sector.

All of these issues MUST be addressed and resolved prior to abitrarily declaring that gays may now serve openly in the US military. Such a move would not be fair to either the gays or the "not gays" and would surely place an overwhelming burden on those required to not only enforce such a policy but those required to live and work under such a policy.

 

[CSM]

Well the point would be to change the law. To change Article 125.





And of course that kind of a conversation is inappropriate in the military workplace. What we are talking about though, isn't limited to the workplace.

Simply changing the law won't do it....there has to be a fundamental change in attitude. I suspect the younger folks in the military are beginning to change their thinking, but some of them as well as the older folks have not and there are some that simply will not.

It is an issues that evokes very strong personal emotions on either side and forces military members into what can be a very serious moral and ethical dilema. Soldiers in the throes of ethical and moral dilemas do not perform well. Degradation of performance has life threatening repurcussions that is not generally found in the civilian environment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No No, You have it all wrong. The military is just abig Social program the Government funds for no real reason. It can easily just do what ever the hell it is told to do.

I mean how dare they not have individual rooms for all members already? How come they expect troops to share tight quarters in the field or aboard ships and Submarines? Do they have no compassion?

Some civilian with absolutely NO knowledge of or experience with the military is surely more informed on how well the military can accomadate gays after all.

These generals and Admirals that NO LONGER SERVE and have no worry on how such a change would be implemented, either logistacally or command and lifestyle wise, surely they know better then the active Officers that currently have to figure out how to run housing aboard Rear Area facilities and billeting while in a field environment or shipboard.

How simply heartless of our Government to deny someone from serving that wants to. I mean think of the disenfranchised like those that are too heavy, too small, too tall, to light. But hey we can fix it for gays.

We just need to double the budget for housing for enlisted unmarried military members, build twice to 3 times the number of barracks as are currently in use in the limited space aboard current bases, how hard can that be?

We need to create man portable lightweight SMALL, easily carried single unit tents for every member of the military and buy about 4 times the General purpose tents we have now.

As for that pesky morale issue, who do the military think they are? They can just do what ever they are told and learn to like it. Problems with in units, aboard ships and submarines? No problem arrest all the malcontents and kick THEM out.

Can I help design the new monster submarines we will need to accomadate gays aboard the subs? I mean they haven't even allowed women aboard yet, that is just disgraceful.

And think of the fun aboard a destroyer if Gays are allowed to serve openly. I guess we can have crewmembers using hammocks out on deck and in passage ways to accomadate living arrangements.

 

[CSM]

No No, You have it all wrong. The military is just abig Social program the Government funds for no real reason. It can easily just do what ever the hell it is told to do.

I mean how dare they not have individual rooms for all members already? How come they expect troops to share tight quarters in the field or aboard ships and Submarines? Do they have no compassion?

Some civilian with absolutely NO knowledge of or experience with the military is surely more informed on how well the military can accomadate gays after all.

These generals and Admirals that NO LONGER SERVE and have no worry on how such a change would be implemented, either logistacally or command and lifestyle wise, surely they know better then the active Officers that currently have to figure out how to run housing aboard Rear Area facilities and billeting while in a field environment or shipboard.

How simply heartless of our Government to deny someone from serving that wants to. I mean think of the disenfranchised like those that are too heavy, too small, too tall, to light. But hey we can fix it for gays.

We just need to double the budget for housing for enlisted unmarried military members, build twice to 3 times the number of barracks as are currently in use in the limited space aboard current bases, how hard can that be?

We need to create man portable lightweight SMALL, easily carried single unit tents for every member of the military and buy about 4 times the General purpose tents we have now.

As for that pesky morale issue, who do the military think they are? They can just do what ever they are told and learn to like it. Problems with in units, aboard ships and submarines? No problem arrest all the malcontents and kick THEM out.

Can I help design the new monster submarines we will need to accomadate gays aboard the subs? I mean they haven't even allowed women aboard yet, that is just disgraceful.

And think of the fun aboard a destroyer if Gays are allowed to serve openly. I guess we can have crewmembers using hammocks out on deck and in passage ways to accomadate living arrangements.

Sarcasm noted.

 

[Ravi]

First, thank you to the mods for fixing things so this thread continues in a reasonable manner....

Second, surely all participants must realize that the anecdotal evidence that Sunni provided occured over 3 decades ago. The attitudes prevalent at that time may (or may not) be as widespread as they are today among the same age group as those that participated in the aforementioned incident.

Third, the original post was about several retired flag/general grade officers expressing their views on gays serving openly in the US military.

Now that we are back on track ...

I have had this same discussion before with various and sundry senior NCOs and officers all of whom are still on active duty. Those men were either Air Force or Army. I have little contact with Marines and none I had discussions with were Marines. I found it interesting that none of those men were too concerned with the fact that an individual was gay; they were more concerned with (as Gunny has already mentioned) public displays of affection, the logistics tail and complexity of trying to accomodate homosexual personnel (female/male/male homosexual/female homosexual bathroom and shower facilities, etc) and the impact of trying to reconcile conflicting strong moral feelings among the troops.

There are indeed valid arguments for and against gays openly serving in the military and many of them have been posted in this thread. Disruption or even destruction of unit cohesion is a very valid concern that most civilian organizations do not have to deal with. The necessary close living quarters and work environment found within the military is unlike the environment found in most civilian organizations. Good order and discipline of a unit has a more severe impact on the military than it does (in most cases) in the civilian sector. Gunny's concern for the welfare of soldiers in a combat environment is valid and far more likely to be an issue than it is in the civilian sector.

All of these issues MUST be addressed and resolved prior to abitrarily declaring that gays may now serve openly in the US military. Such a move would not be fair to either the gays or the "not gays" and would surely place an overwhelming burden on those required to not only enforce such a policy but those required to live and work under such a policy.

You makes some good points, CSM, but honestly...wouldn't you rather know who actually was gay so you could avoid showering with him or her than not knowing? And do you honestly think it's possible for most people to live in these circumstances without noticing who is gay or not? In a way you are asking for special protection for straight men and that just makes me laugh. It's hard for me to feel any sympathy for men that might get oogled by other men considering this is something women have been dealing with since the beginning of time.

 

[editec]

You promise me that, do you.

Yes.

IF they don't tell, how the heck do YOU know?

Because most gays aren't afraid of heterosexual men who aren't homophobic nitwits, I expect.

Besides, if only 10% of the military are gay (as you say) then there is a 90% chance that a soldier is NOT sleeping in the same rooom as a homosexual.

Excellent math skills, dude.

I am merely pointing out that your assertions are a bit overstated.

Are they?

 

[Ravi]

Major whine fest

Jeesh, I have a brother that is a firefighter. He has to share quarters with *gasp* both gay men and women and somehow his unit manages to do their jobs without trouble.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Jeesh, I have a brother that is a firefighter. He has to share quarters with *gasp* both gay men and women and somehow his unit manages to do their jobs without trouble.

You are a fucking retard. Prime example of MORONS that haven't a clue trying to dictate to the military what is best.