I agree on both points. I have a friend who is a lesbian and served in the army, and from the stories I heard from her, a lot of her army friends were also GLBT and they may not have talked about it, but her superiors were aware of it. It's insane that a. two different branches of the military could react in such different ways to this and b. that the navy can get away with doing something like that when sexual orientation shouldn't even be a factor. When you're applying for a job they don't discriminate against sexual orientation, but heaven forbid you should want to fight for your country! Ridiculous... And I also think it was selfish of your boyfriend. It seems bad enough that he was manipulating the system to get out of something he didn't want to do anymore, but to do it fully knowing that it would hurt someone he cared about? That's just mean.
I've been in combat. Done all the things that "happen" in war. The men around me were were mentally and physically tough, not whining crybabies who spent hours lamenting their sexuality, the unfairness of life or the terrible injustice of military service. By the way, did I mention one of my "men" admitted to me that he was gay? This was in 1969! Tough son of a bitch, too. I didn't turn him in. His sexual choice did not prevent him from engaging in the most violent missions, complete with the use of a piano wire garrote on an NVA soldier . . . dumb sniper never heard my corporal slip in behind him. That man did not need to proclaim his sexuality to feel good about himself. He was just a member of our team. Nothing more, nothing less. My "problem" with "gays" in the military is that I don't want to serve along side people who are so insecure that they make a big deal out of public acclamation of their sexuality. It's a private matter, just as my own sexual behavior was nobody's business. I consider "overtly-gay" behavior to be a red flag of emotional weakness, and while I don't give a rat's butt about those whiners serving food in chow halls or typing forms in an admin job, I ONLY want tough men with me behind enemy lines on combat missions. Therein, lies the military's problem. ALL service members are considered potential combat soldiers . . . even Remington-riders and soup pushers. In spring 1968, the VC and NVA attacked US forces all over Vietnam. It was a surprise attack on the Tet New Year and they overran the perimeter defenses at most bases. Every soldier grabbed a weapon to defend themselves. Cooks and mechanics fought alongside military police and front-line combat teams to repel the attack. It happens in war so ALL troops must be capable of such engaging in combat even if it is not their primary MOS. For that reason, many military leaders feel women should not be in combat roles. To a certain degree, I agree. I don't want to serve with women who moan and groan about monthly issues and are not physically strong enough to carry a 200 pound man a couple miles to a dust off. On the other hand, the friend of one of my daughters is a very "butch" gay who is as strong as most men. She's also tough as nails and I would rather have her on a mission with me than any 145 pound male weakling, regardless of his "orientation". So, it really comes down to getting the job done. It's not about sex OR sexuality. Banzai, aren't you being a bit self-righteous about the US being "disgusting" and "archaic"? You Brits only got your act together a mere ten years ago? What about GB's prior centuries of discrimination? Hell, you folks still worship a monarchy and I find that ridiculous but I'm not going to apply the labels of disgusting and archaic against GB. In our country, we got rid of the notion a long time ago that people are born into privilege conveyed solely by birthright. You might soften your contempt before throwing stones inside a glass house.
Oh, my goodness. I’m amazed this thread has lasted this long. Anyway.... I am X-Air Force. I was removed from service for being gay. This happened in ‘92. Don’t ask, don’t tell was still a fresh wound on Uncle Sam’s cheek and was just a lie, because nothing had changed at all. Not a thing. If you were found out, out on your ass. It was a strange feeling to say the least. It was long enough ago that my wounds are healed, but at the time it was more bizarre than anything else. It was like a movie. A bad movie. It was like it was happening to someone else. Here’s the worst part of all: Friends of mine who were as str8 as laser beams, but who had been cool to me and to the other gay and lesbians, got in trouble for not having turned me in. Can you believe that? People were cool to me and got in trouble for it. Read that last line again and please understand the impact. If you want to judge me, or look at me in a particular way for who or what I am, that’s one thing, but to damage people for having been good, kindly, friendly, people... this is unforgivable. This, for me, crumbles the very core of what humanity means. I can only use one word to describe that kind of behavior. Sinful. It is truly sinful. It is a smack in the face of one of the core tenants of nearly every religion: Be kind to each other. If you don’t like me.... Whatever. But to punish people for being kind. That wound will never heal.
I don't think Banzai meant that the United States is disgusting OR archaic-he was just saying that the practice of dadt in the military, especially the way they reacted to it in this instance, is disgusting and archaic, which, let's face it, kinda is. I think you made a good point when you said "I don't want to serve along side people who are so insecure that they make a big deal out of public acclamation of their sexuality. It's a private matter, just as my own sexual behavior was nobody's business." It shouldn't matter what a person's sexual orientation is, and I don't think that members of the military should be punished because someone happens to read their instant messaging or because another soldier comes out and points a finger at him. However, I also think that homosexual or not, sexual orientation is probably not something that should be discussed for the most part. It's not professional.
What's wrong with multiple view-points? I don't want to bring up the Hitler argument, but let the people have their arguments and focus more on debate skills and information presentation than silencing the people.
No it was just that shortly after his post is when people started to have differing view points. Prior to that it was mostly just getting the full story sorted out. No one was at fault or out of line.
Regarding Cogito's warning, debate and disagreement are the cornerstones of democracy. Exchange of ideas, even in the context of emotionally charged topics, is the FIRST step to mutual understanding. It is a healthy activity and should be encouraged. It decays into destructive dialog when people begin to insert value judgements like "disgusting" into the dialog. And, that's when moderators should draw the line in the sand. In this discussion about the sexual orientation policy of the military, the primary issues are the impact on peoples' lives and on the mission of the military. Those issues can be in conflict with each other. That said, there are people who are very uncomfortable with the gay lifestyle; some even see it as a "sin". Others feel the opposite and feel there should be no discrimination allowed, regardless of the consequences to the military or its mission. They have no concern for the lives of soldiers who might be compromised by inclusion of emotionally or physically unprepared men or women in combat. The correct solution is some standard that attempts to meet both needs. That's what the DADT policy tried to accomplish. Ironically, the DADT policy is exactly the way people should behave. Our individual sexual orientation is NOBODY's business and should not be flaunted publicly. But if a person makes it a public issue, then it CAN effect the military mission and should be taken into consideration. DADT is just such a compromise. It's not perfect but it was a step in the right direction and it is evolving. Ultimately, democracy is compromise by mutual understanding and consent, not dictatorship by politically correct notion.
I agree. Sexuality is a private thing and in a professional setting, there is no place for its discussion. However, in a situation where other people spread rumors about a person's sexuality, I don't think it's fair that person should be punished. In the situation that started this thread, he didn't talk about it or, as you put it, "flaunt" his sexuality publicly. Other people took it upon themselves to out him. In such an instance, is it fair that he should be punished? I don't think so. In fact, if anyone is punished, I think it should be the roommate who decided to go snooping and start talking about something that was none of his business...
I am a bit pained to see the word flaunt being thrown about is if asking for one's orientation not to be a semi-criminal offense is a thinly disguised plea to have permission to talk about behind-closed-doors intimacy... That's a slippery slope if I ever saw one. You would understand, if perhaps you understood the simple wish to hold the hand of one's partner in public and not being able to. We're not talking sloppy sex on the sidewalk, people. Something as simple as walking hand in hand in a park is not allowed for gays and lesbians in the military. You say, "Big deal, just don't do it," but those small things, those little moments, are parts of what make up a relationship. Those little things that str8 people may never think about because there is nothing to think about for them, are the things that bring about the most anguish for gays and lesbians. I don't want to talk to you about my sex life. I don't. I just want to be able to go to the company/battalion/squadron picnic and when asked, "Who is the fellah' you came with?" be able to say it as plainly and simply as anyone else might. Non-issue. Get it?
i agree with most of what NaCl has said....I do think it's a little much to expect women in the military to be "butch". As a female in the military, I don't think I should have to be like a man to serve my country; women can be tough and dedicated and I don't see why we should be expected to conform to be men, in terms of behavior and appearance...that whole "butch" expectation throws me off. We should be expected to be military professionals with our minds set on the mission at hand, not trying to imitate men. Just as men need to conduct themselves to the same degree as military professionals. I see it as the military knowing no sex, race, and imo orientation. When wearing the uniform we should all be the same. I just don't think I should be expected to cut off my hair into some "butch" man hair cut, go around acting like a man, and trying to impersonate a man. I can do just fine with how I am now, and so can a good chunk of women serving. As a military member you are expected to conduct yourself as a professional at all times. As a straight female, if I wanted to walk around in uniform on base with my boyfriend, I could not display any real physical affection. Breif exchanges are allowed, but otherwise no one is supposed to "flaunt" their love life while in uniform gay, straight, that's a guideline for everyone.
In regard to the OP, he admitted there were other issues that contributed to the final discharge from service. I doubt the mere act of "being reported" would result in discharge of a person who, otherwise, was a good soldier. Remember the friend of my daughter that I mentioned? She's a helicopter mechanic on front line combat Apache choppers. She's done two tours in Iraq and she "was reported" as being gay by a disgruntled fellow soldier. Her boss looked at her work history -- exemplary -- and had the trouble maker transferred out of the unit. My daughter's friend has since made the military a career and her sexuality has not been a problem. I think when Wrey had his troubles, the issue was not treated the same as it is today. One more comment . . . on a nuclear submarine, there is NO room for deceipt or doubt. Submariner duty requires complete trust and cooperation from every crew member. (One of my best friends was the missile targeting officer on a boomer for eight years.) That man who violated the OP's privacy and went into the OP's computer, should be disqualified from working on a sub. There's no difference to me between snooping on someone's computer and going through their duffle bag. When I was in Nam, if I caught someone going through my foot locker or dufflebag, he would have needed months in the hospital to recover! At the very least, this man should be transferred to duty where he is not critical to the mission . . . and what do you think would happen if his new duty assignment team knew about his snooping in personal areas?
I agree. My boyfriend meets me at work on my lunch break and eats with me, but while I'm out on the floor where customers can see me, I don't hold his hand, hug him, kiss him, etc. Significant other or not, it just looks unprofessional. In my opinion, when you're at work, personal life things shouldn't come into play. Of course, everyone makes friends at work who they invite into their confidences, but you should use discretion when you decide to talk to them about personal things...
Precisely. While in uniform. And I am in complete agreement with said same rules against PDA in uniform. But there is a life outside of uniform. And it is in this aspect of one's life that lines get drawn and inequalities holds rein.
Very true. When I was booted, DADT was literally months old. No one knew really what it meant and how its directives were to be carried out. That's how my friends who are str8 got in trouble. When the witch hunt happened (57 airmen and officers removed form my base at the time) my str8 friends thought that DADT meant that they were no longer under any obligation to report gays and lesbians whom they new to be gay or lesbian. When they were asked, they admitted to knowing figuring that DADT had cleared the matter. They were wrong and they paid for it. That will hurt me forever.
There's nothing wrong with multiple view-points. It's how people express those viewpoints that the mods are worried about. Different opinions and a healthy debate are great-it's when people start being disrespectful and rude that it becomes a problem. I agree. Outside of work, whether we are talking in or out of the military, I am a firm believer that you're life should be your own. No one should be able to tell you that you can or can't like someone or show that you care about them. Getting back to the original question, in my opinion, it shouldn't matter whether or not a person is homosexual when it comes to them joining the military. What makes a straight person any more capable of fighting for their country than a homosexual?
Odd that the military has yet to hire a private firm meeting their needs, where orientation would not matter. They seem to do it for other things. However, given their dated logic, they might believe it could still corrupt nearby soldiers.
