Finally-maybe some rationality!

**12voltman59** · May 8, 2008, 1:53 AM

Ran across this story:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/07/mullen-dadt/

To me--it is way past time that the US military drops the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding "gays" serving.

It always struck me as total BS when it has been argued that "people would never accept gays in the service!!"

Well--the military made a change much, much bigger than accepting gays--it came to accept blacks and totally intergrate them at all levels of military service--then after that----came to accept women serving in more than simply peripherial roles.

The fact is--if the civillian powers-that-be say to the military commmanders--"Admirals and Generals--you are going to allow gays to openly and proudly serve in the service---now get to it--go figure out how that is to be done and get to it!!"

The Generals and Admirals would stand to attention--give a salute and say "Yes sirs/maams!" amd go get it done.

We have our share of vets on here and I have found many vets who are now GLBT----they may not have been active and open about this when they "did their time" but the society in general has to get real as does the military leadership that gays and lesbians serve well in the military now--and always have----

For an example of that---go watch one of the episodes of the 10-hour/10-part documentary that ran last week on PBS called "Carrier" where the film makers went along for a six month deployment of the aircraft carrier, USS Nimitz in 2005 where the ship and crew went to the Persian Gulf.

They spent a good part of one hour discussing the fact that many of the crew members of the Nimitz are gay.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/carrier/

You can watch each of the ten episodes--it was episode 3--"Super Secrets" that spent time dealing with this subject, along with others.

**shameless agitator** · May 8, 2008, 2:50 AM

About bloody time!

**jamieknyc** · May 8, 2008, 3:46 PM

I am not genrally sympathetic to 'political' gay causes. But not letting them serve in the military should be abolished.

By the way, no one should underestimate the ability of military brass to drag their feet on something they don't really want to do.

**chook** · May 8, 2008, 5:58 PM

I say, why not let gays join up for the services.........at least ya know that your arse will be covered at all times...........

Cheers Chook

**shameless agitator** · May 8, 2008, 6:07 PM

In reality, the enforcement of this policy has been pretty sporadic anyway. A friend of mine was in the guard & was about to be deployed. To get out of it he actually outed himself to his C.O. figuring he'd be discharged. The C.O. told him he could just be gay in Hawaii. On the other hand though another friend was a major on deployment in Bahrain when one of his enlisted guys showed him some gay porn he'd found on one of the computers. He said if he'd found it himself, he could have just deleted the files and pretended he'd never seen them & if it had been straight porn he could have just reprimanded the guy. Being gay porn though, he had to report the dude & have him discharged. I think one way to really force the issue would be since the military is so short handed as it is right now, to have a campaign for GLBT military folks to come out. They'd be forced to either repeal this stupid policy or discharge them all.

**jem_is_bi** · May 8, 2008, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by shameless agitator

In reality, the enforcement of this policy has been pretty sporadic anyway. A friend of mine was in the guard & was about to be deployed. To get out of it he actually outed himself to his C.O. figuring he'd be discharged. The C.O. told him he could just be gay in Hawaii. On the other hand though another friend was a major on deployment in Bahrain when one of his enlisted guys showed him some gay porn he'd found on one of the computers. He said if he'd found it himself, he could have just deleted the files and pretended he'd never seen them & if it had been straight porn he could have just reprimanded the guy. Being gay porn though, he had to report the dude & have him discharged. I think one way to really force the issue would be since the military is so short handed as it is right now, to have a campaign for GLBT military folks to come out. They'd be forced to either repeal this stupid policy or discharge them all.

I would wait until George Bush is not in the White House before staging such a protest. Even if it leads to disaster, he does not have a good track record on making smart decisions on such matters that have these religious right overtones.

**TaylorMade** · May 9, 2008, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by jem_is_bi

I would wait until George Bush is not in the White House before staging such a protest. Even if it leads to disaster, he does not have a good track record on making smart decisions on such matters that have these religious right overtones.

I wouldn't say this is a religious issue, but that its core it is a military discipline/security/morale issue.

I have a theory about this, I'll flesh it out later.

*Taylor*

***pan*** · May 9, 2008, 6:12 PM

hmmmm. wonder if this means the military will reverse my discharge for having homosexual tendencies, lol.

**darkeyes** · May 9, 2008, 6:25 PM

Yea..me knos...prob very naughtie of me an dead remiss..but jus cant get mesel 2 worked up bout peeps bein discriminated against cosa sexual orientation for military service... me knos we shud all b free of it no matta our job an hav the same opportunity 2 get on wiv our career on same basis as every 1 else..but as a pacifist who loathes the military an all it stands for an all it means an wot its ther for, it is diff for me, no thats rong..its effin imposs for me 2 bring mesel 2 give bakkin 2 me own kind in this.. make no apologies for it but such is me feelin gainst war an its perpetrators, that it is jus summat me cant do...

Thing is...the more me c's wots goin on the world the more me confrimed in me view.. ther betta waysa settlin disputes tween peeps than slaughterin each otha...

**12voltman59** · May 9, 2008, 9:41 PM

To me---as I said in the title of this post---to me-it would be a rational and reasonable thing for the powers that be in our military and civilian leadership to accept and allow "gays"* to openly and proudly serve in our armed services---because the fact is--they pretty much always have and always will--just like there always have been and always be gays in society in general.

It seems that many of the military "brass" have come to realize and accept that fact and that is a big move forward in this regard, but just because the military leadership is coming to that decision it would be best--convincing some of the more extreme members of the Congress and Senate might be another matter---right now--there is a conservative Republican Congressman who has put up a bill that would outlaw all men's magazines from being sold at stores on bases for all branches of the service and also ban the possession of them and this not only includes the ones that are more sexually explicit such as Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, etc.--but would also ban more mainstream men's magazines like FHM and Maxum!!!

It always did get me that some argued that "it would not be possible to have gays serve in the military" because the fact is--if the president of the US, in his or her role as Commander in Chief said that gays should be allowed to serve-then it would be the duty of the military leaders to salute and say "Yes sir/maam!" and then go make it happen.

The military came to accept and intergrate blacks and then females into the ranks and that went reasonably well.

The thing is with the far right-they have-as has part and parcel of their political/social agendas that being gay is some sort of evil thing--they know that their gig is over if the military allows gays to serve--then they could not make a case that gays can have their rights denied in other ways--like holding jobs, getting married, adopting children and the like---

I do believe it is only a matter of time that gays are fully accepted in the service--and just like the rules regarding fraternization of officers and enlisted in all cases and enlisted males and females when they work in the same command---gays would not be free to have relations unfettered with other gays because such relationships do affect "unit cohesion and morale" and the like.

I bet that with any of the people who are candiates for president, even McCain--by the end of their administration whether that be four or eight years--the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" will be gone and there will be full acceptance of gays in the US military.

*Gays--for the purposes of this discussion--male and female homosexuals and bisexuals of either gender.

**shameless agitator** · May 10, 2008, 1:57 AM

Excellent post Volty. I'm not so sure it would happen under McCain though. I think it would be more likely under him that don't ask don't tell would be rescinded & we'd go back to a flat ban. We have to remember that before this stupid policy, it was even worse. They would ask, and if they caught you lying about it, you were facing court martial, dishonorable discharge & possible incarceration. I see McCain kowtowing to the religious wrong enough to try to take us back to those bad old days.

**binectar** · May 10, 2008, 4:03 AM

The problem with all this isn't that men and women are gay...or bi. The problem is the incomprehensible need of gays or bi's to be known as such! I spent 6 years in the military. While at the time I was only beginning to realize I enjoy bisexual activities, I nonetheless would never have categorized myself as anything other than heterosexual. Yet there were more than enough people - men and women - who everyone either knew, or (usually justifiably) suspected as being gay/bi. I know this because it was well known within these closed groups that I was not harsh in my judgment of their sexuality.

What screwed everything up was the childish need of immature individuals thinking that some sort of "recognition" of their sexuality was needed! Why on earth is it necessary at all?!? If I like to suck cock, or eat pussy...if I enjoy bondage or group sex...Whose business is it if I harm no-one? And why on earth do they need to know?!? Yes, it's a failed policy, but more legislation is not needed...we need to go back to the times when it was tacitly accepted or rejected. Prejudice will always occur, law or no law. The only thing we need to protect is the Golden rule!

**shameless agitator** · May 10, 2008, 8:54 AM

If we'd accepted that logic, Nectar, we would still have anti-sodomy laws and gay bashing would still be considered socially acceptable & would be rarely, if ever, prosecuted. It is exactly because millions of gay rights activists have been willing to risk their lives to be able to be recognized for who they were and still have civil rights that you can hold your partner's hand in public without having to worry about being arrested or beaten to death.

**viajero** · May 10, 2008, 9:39 AM

Sometimes it takes a war to get people off their high horse and realize the military is not a private country club with exclusive membership. These are not men and women looking to play on a golf or tennis course for chirst sake! (Not that I condone discrimination their either.) They are signing up knowing they may have to die for their country regardless of whether they agree with the cause or not. We don't really have the luxury of saying no to a loyal person who is physically and mentally fit enough to assume this role . If they accept the risk they may have to suck in bullets why should we care what they are sucking on in their private life.

**12voltman59** · May 10, 2008, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by binectar

What screwed everything up was the childish need of immature individuals thinking that some sort of "recognition" of their sexuality was needed! Why on earth is it necessary at all?!? If I like to suck cock, or eat pussy...if I enjoy bondage or group sex...Whose business is it if I harm no-one? And why on earth do they need to know?!? Yes, it's a failed policy, but more legislation is not needed...we need to go back to the times when it was tacitly accepted or rejected. Prejudice will always occur, law or no law. The only thing we need to protect is the Golden rule!

Binectar--being "gay" in the military is not just something that is left up to the individual to decide--it is the action of anyone performing sexual activity (male-male or female-female sex or I would also suppose a 3-way sexual act) that is anything but sexual activity between males and females--by legal definition of the related US Federal Statue-- it is the action of engaging in homosexual sex that is prohbitited irrespective of whether those doing the action call it gay or bisexual sex--it is the act itself that is considered homosexual behavior----and it is simply not a matter of the US military changing a policy--Federal legislation has to be enacted to first strike "Don't Ask--Don't Tell" from the federal statutes---they would then have to also pass a new legislative bill that would make homosexuality legal and not some sort of criminal act---

This wikipedia entry provides information regarding what is the number and other pertintent information of "don't ask--don't tell."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

It is necessary for there to be an act of Congress--both the House and Senate and for a president to sign that legislation in order for things to change.

**bhg08054** · May 11, 2008, 11:31 AM

Here's a question. And it's one I don't know the answer to, do don't flame me, just share your opinion.

In the past, other groups that were discriminated against by the military gained equal footing by first being formed into segregated units. Once these segregated units showed that they were just as effective as the "regular" troops, the barriers started to fall. Would it help or hinder if an all-gay regiment was formed?

**FalconAngel** · May 11, 2008, 3:24 PM

Originally Posted by bhg08054

Here's a question. And it's one I don't know the answer to, do don't flame me, just share your opinion.

In the past, other groups that were discriminated against by the military gained equal footing by first being formed into segregated units. Once these segregated units showed that they were just as effective as the "regular" troops, the barriers started to fall. Would it help or hinder if an all-gay regiment was formed?

The flaw in the rationale that you are using is the fact that gays have been in the military since the worlds first armies were formed. It isn't like when blacks or women were first brought into the military.

Now, granted, that it would be a very reasonable plan were it a fact that gays were not currently serving, albeit closeted.

I have served in units where some of the members of the unit were LGB, myself included, and some of them were known to be Gay or Lesbian. Nobody in the unit cared all that much, since all that mattered was the job getting done right.

The big issue that I think that the military has is the old, cold war era issue of security; fear that they could be found out by enemy spies who would threaten to "out" them if they did not do as they asked. Of course those same idiots that are opposed to gays in the military, for that reason, forget that any unfaithful married person in the military could run into a similar situation, only they would use their infidelity as a reason.

The idiotic "don't ask, don't tell" policy does nothing to alleviate that problem. Allowing them to serve openly does eliminate that threat.