Today it is simply a political hot potato. Unfortunately. In years past, the rationale was that if you were gay, and the enemy found out, they could use it to blackmail you (as if we all dont have enough of that even if we never saw the same gender person we liked). But that was the feeling.

Later, after the "gay" revolution, it turned to "did the guy in the fox hole need to watch out for you AND the enemy?". That one I cant speak to. As I have never been in the military.

But I have had gay friends, and do have a brother who is gay. I think once they understand you are not, and are not interested, there is no problem. But then I have never been the object of anyone's dreams.

In time, I dont think it will be a problem. At least for the mainstream gays. Flaming ones is another story - but then there are a lot of straights that are not welcome in the military either, so I dont see that as a real issue.

The don't ask, don't tell policy is basically saying...Don't discuss your sex life at work.  It's unprofessional.  And we won't ask you about it.

Simple.

The only people complaining in my mind are the ones who feel the need to let everyone know what they like in bed.

Who cares?

I wouldn't be against Gay people serving in just about any job I can think of... except the military.

It's simple, there is no difference between putting a gay man in a barracks with other men than there would be to put a heterosexual man in a barracks with a bunch of women.  Until women are willing to shower, change clothes and other activities where some privacy is afforded them, then why should we allow a man who is attracted to men do the same in our barracks?

To everyone who says, "I honestly don't see the problem" I ask, if you learned that your wife, daughter or sister would be ordered to shower with men, would you support them joining the military?  If the answer is no, then you do see the problem.

 

Having been in situations where I've changed clothes with the help of male peers, slept in the same rooms... I didn't see the problem. We had a job to do. We weren't leering at each other. It was work, plain and simple.

I've also roomed with gay women. Same room and everything. We changed in front of each other, and ran around in nothing but our towels from the shower. (Get your heads out of the gutter) They never made me feel uncomfortable.

I would have a problem showering with anyone, though... so I leave that one out.

So, basically, it is, in part, operating under the assumption that gay men and women would be unable to control their urges? That they would "get off" on watching their mates shower and sleep?

I'm asking this because I really want to know. I want the facts, I want opinions.

Technically its called "Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't harass" in the military. Adopted by the DOD in 1993.

Here's a great link ...

WWW Link

Some of the info from it....

There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

The powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—

(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

( the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

No, I don't think gay people have any easier or harder time controlling their urges as straight people.  However, it isn't a question of whether they "make each other feel comfortable" or not.  I didn't ask if you would be ok with your daugher, son or husband being ordered to changing around or walking around in a towel in front of your friend, I'm talking about being ordered to shower, change and otherwise live with little privacy around just anyone.

Just as an example.  When I was in the Artillery the only shower we hoped to get while in the field was a "bucket shower" hung from the end of the barrel.  No privacy, just 9 guys, a bucket shower and nature.  Now, I'll ask again, would you have a problem with your daughter living like that... for weeks at a time.

People also seem to think that gay people are somehow supposed to be stronger than straight people.  I ask you, if you were the one woman in the above situation, how long would you be able to "be strong", keeping your interests to yourself for weeks at a time, so you wouldn't make the others in the section "uncomfortable".

If you were in the Artillery, would you ask the guys in your section to go weeks without a shower, so you wouldn't have to see them shower?  Would you mind if one of the guys took a peek while you took your shower?  Well, what is the difference between a guy taking a peek at you and a gay man taking a peek at a fellow soldier who has what he likes?

Actually, Tova said it better.. Good topic btw!;~)

My solution - Spartan regiments. Every man or woman in it is gay. No one has to worry about communal showering then, and relationships within the regiment will make them better fighters.

As I said on that other thread you can staff them with straight officers if you think the gays aren't capable of leading themselves (god only knows the blacks need white officers...) and, if necessary, keep them away from the straights who might be terrified of them.

But at least give them a chance to prove themselves as capable soldiers.

My solution - Spartan regiments. Every man or woman in it is gay. No one has to worry about communal showering then, and relationships within the regiment will make them better fighters.

I applaud the idea actually but I think that current gay culture int he Us would actually tend to blow the second part of it out of the water. Even units with large percentage of single men and women serving together are crippled by relationships and fights.. not strengthened by them. the Spartans regarded the bodn between a man and his Shield as sacred and inviolate. Infidelity resulting in unti discipline problems would have been punished by expulsion from Spartan society or death in many cases. this isn't the set of rules we operate under.

Having been in situations where I've changed clothes with the help of male peers, slept in the same rooms... I didn't see the problem. We had a job to do. We weren't leering at each other. It was work, plain and simple.

This changes dramatically after 6 months in the desert or so... actually it tends to change in as little as 2-3 weeks when young men and women are under stress. Apples and oranges on this one honestly. It just doesn't compare. Young men + Young women + stress + mortal danger = a totally different sexual atmosphere then anything you have ever seen even if the mortal danger is removed.

Oh I posted a longer response here.

Cacto:
It has nothing to do with capabilities or not. I'm a capable instructor, but because of my medical condition I'm not allowed to serve anymore.



Quit trying to make me out to be a bigot simply because I disagree with you.



Thanks for the condescending crap... (Pats Cacto on the head and says he's a good boy anyway). ;~D

What you get is what we had in Desert Storm...

An average of 20 females redeployed to home station every week due to pregnancy. ;~D

Also tends to result in an unfortunate increase in sexual assaults as well. It sucks but it is true...

Sorry, I couldn't resist, but it wasn't aimed at you per se, more the stereotype of the "We can't have fags in the army because they'll be a distraction!" argument. People have pushed the same line for blacks and women over the years, but in the end soldiers just learnt how to play nice.

I mean let's face it - we don't want psychopaths in the mainstream army. Considering the amount of police actions involved in modern warfare tolerance of difference is practically one of the most important attitudes a soldier can have.

Bigotry and ignorance of how to manipulate others (the two are closely linked) are horrible weaknesses in police officers and really cripple their effectiveness. Having gays in the military won't really save this, sure, but getting the military to deal with difference quickly and easily is an absolute necessity unless you plan on fighting genocidal wars.

Of course if gays really are disruptive they should be kicked out altogether. Strip all recruits and force them to watch half an hour of gay porn. If they get aroused during that time, refuse them entry. That's probably the easiest way of ensuring straights-only. Otherwise there'll always be the suspicion, and surely that's almost as bad for morale?



You've got a point. The sexual slavery aspect of Sparta is certainly not what anyone wants. But there must be ways of controlling this without executions or exile. How does the army normally deal with mixed units?