Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants

[AllardChardon]

Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – A Pentagon spokeswoman says recruiters have been told that they must accept gay applicants, following a federal court decision striking down the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said Tuesday that top-level guidance has been issued to recruiting commands informing them that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule has been suspended for now. Recruiters also have been told to inform potential recruits that the moratorium could be reversed at any point.

Last week, a federal judge ordered the military to stop enforcing the 1993 law banning openly gay service members. The Justice Department is appealing the decision and has asked for a temporary stay.


It's anyone's guess how long it will be before the military actually accepts the gay applicants.

 

[Handley_Page]

How long before there's a question on the Application:-

"Are you Gay ?"

as if that has anything to do with the applicant's ability to do a particular job. . . .

 

[sr71plt]

I wouldn't suggest anyone declare for at least a few years to come.

 

[AllardChardon]

Alexander the Great preferred the company of his men during battle and rest time and it did not seem to impair his abilities in any way. It used to be perfectly acceptable to be a homosexual warrior. Maybe the many Gods of Mount Olympus want a little recognition for their way of handling this situation and are helping it along. Better in the military than the priesthood, any day! IMHO

 

[sr71plt]

Alexander the Great preferred the company of his men during battle and rest time and it did not seem to impair his abilities in any way. It used to be perfectly acceptable to be a homosexual warrior. Maybe the many Gods of Mount Olympus want a little recognition for their way of handling this situation and are helping it along. Better in the military than the priesthood, any day! IMHO

We have no idea, of course, how willing Alexander's partners were or how many of them used sexuality to get ahead by means short of warrior ability--to possibly disasterous effect on the line.

It's not so simple a matter, I'm afraid. And I say that from being under restrictions far more stringent than the military has for two and a half decades--and somehow muddling through.

Again, if I were in the military today, I'd use the possibilities of what is unfolding now as a backup--not as my main chance.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

For now, though, the decision pisses off voters. So its another nail in Obama's coffin in two weeks.

 

[sr71plt]

Yep, I'm sure you keep track of what ALL voters think about EVERYTHING, JBJ.

Some of us are willing to wait for the actual voting before we put our foot in our mouths--not that you did on your predictions on the last national election, right?

 

[AllardChardon]

I have a tendency to over-simplify, please excuse this.

More to the point is the ability to be a good soldier, no matter what the sexual inclination may be. And homosexuality among warriors and elsewhere in society were more acceptable in ancient Greece than today.

I can see no logical reason why a homosexual man is inferior as a warrior or soldier than a heterosexual man. I think the problems that the military fears arise in the middle of the night.

In today's homophobic America declaring that you are gay can still be a death sentence, sad to say.

 

[sr71plt]

I have a tendency to over-simplify, please excuse this.

More to the point is the ability to be a good soldier, no matter what the sexual inclination may be. And homosexuality among warriors and elsewhere in society were more acceptable in ancient Greece than today.

I can see no logical reason why a homosexual man is inferior as a warrior or soldier than a heterosexual man. I think the problems that the military fears arise in the middle of the night.

In today's homophobic America declaring that you are gay can still be a death sentence, sad to say.

I think that most who say GMs can't make good warriors are really hiding other emotions behind that. Of course GMs can make good solidiers--and probably more loyal soldiers to their peers than others on the whole.

Soldiers/sailors are thrown together in both close/lack of privacy quarters and into danger where teamwork and quick reflexes--and simple responses to simple commands and indoctrination--are required.

Straight males in the military are hit with complexity when either a GM (or a woman, for that matter) are inserted into their unit/daily life. It causes discomfort, the need to think about issues that aren't clearcut military operations, and sexual tension worries that distract from the "main mission"--when sometimes lack of focus on the main mission means death to oneself and others.

As archaic as the opinions/feeling/fears of a straight male in these situations might be (and toward women too, not just GMs), they are real--and affect the whole unit.

Saying they shouldn't get in the way can, in the real world, get people killed--because that does little in the short term about erasing reality.

Indecision and lack of quick reflexes in support of the guy next to you can work just as much against a GM guy in combat as the other way around, too (as can any clash of personality).

Another cut at it that I've seen is the granting of unearned position/status/responsibility on the basis of the granting of sexual favors. (And I've seen this with both GMs and women in high-stress, high-responsibility situations).

It's all something to be worked with--but it's not something to be simplistic about and say it just shouldn't be a danger in combat situations because it's no longer politically correct.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I have a tendency to over-simplify, please excuse this.

More to the point is the ability to be a good soldier, no matter what the sexual inclination may be. And homosexuality among warriors and elsewhere in society were more acceptable in ancient Greece than today.

I can see no logical reason why a homosexual man is inferior as a warrior or soldier than a heterosexual man. I think the problems that the military fears arise in the middle of the night.

In today's homophobic America declaring that you are gay can still be a death sentence, sad to say.

Cuz birds of a feather flock together. The military has long had a problem with alcoholics forming cliques.

 

[Xelebes]

I think that most who say GMs can't make good warriors are really hiding other emotions behind that. Of course GMs can make good solidiers--and probably more loyal soldiers to their peers than others on the whole.

Soldiers/sailors are thrown together in both close/lack of privacy quarters and into danger where teamwork and quick reflexes--and simple responses to simple commands and indoctrination--are required.

Straight males in the military are hit with complexity when either a GM (or a woman, for that matter) are inserted into their unit/daily life. It causes discomfort, the need to think about issues that aren't clearcut military operations, and sexual tension worries that distract from the "main mission"--when sometimes lack of focus on the main mission means death to oneself and others.

As archaic as the opinions/feeling/fears of a straight male in these situations might be (and toward women too, not just GMs), they are real--and affect the whole unit.

Saying they shouldn't get in the way can, in the real world, get people killed--because that does little in the short term about erasing reality.

Indecision and lack of quick reflexes in support of the guy next to you can work just as much against a GM guy in combat as the other way around, too (as can any clash of personality).

Another cut at it that I've seen is the granting of unearned position/status/responsibility on the basis of the granting of sexual favors. (And I've seen this with both GMs and women in high-stress, high-responsibility situations).

It's all something to be worked with--but it's not something to be simplistic about and say it just shouldn't be a danger in combat situations because it's no longer politically correct.

Which is all bullshit. The Canadian Forces in the '90s implemented the gay-allowed policy and there was scarcely any effect felt. Consider that armies draw more from the conservative and rural crowd than the universities, by your comparison there should have been something, some deterioration of morale but there wasn't with regards to that issue. Don't you dare say that the United States is worse because the armies draw from the same crowd and much of the bigotry seen in the United States is institutionalised, not strictly popular.

 

[Stella_Omega]

DADT has been used to coerce women soldiers into sex-- if she turns him down he accuses her of being a lesbian. If she IS a lesbian, she can't tell him no for even more reasons.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Please do remember that all the respondents from the Pentagon are older, senior officers and bureaucrats. The actual 'responding to orders' is done by younger enlisted and NCO's who, as poll after poll shows, really don't have any problem with it. This is anxiety for anxiety's sake.

If you will recall, HST integrated the military with an executive order. He didn't ask anyone's opinion, he gave an order as CINC and it was obeyed. Bubba Clinton could have done the same thing but spineless ass that he is, he wouldn't for fear someone might not love him. It's a damned poor day when an authoritarian system has people at the top who refuse to use their authority until forced by a civilian judge.

 

[sr71plt]

Which is all bullshit. The Canadian Forces in the '90s implemented the gay-allowed policy and there was scarcely any effect felt. Consider that armies draw more from the conservative and rural crowd than the universities, by your comparison there should have been something, some deterioration of morale but there wasn't with regards to that issue. Don't you dare say that the United States is worse because the armies draw from the same crowd and much of the bigotry seen in the United States is institutionalised, not strictly popular.

You don't get the point. Candian and U.S. societies are two different animals.

You can't legislate reality. You can bring it along, but you can't just decide that something is reality because it's politically correct this Tuesday.

(And I suggest that I know a whole lot more about gays functioning--in reality rather than on paper-- within the U.S. government institutions than you do.)

On this particular issue, I'll note that this whole thing could snap right back into place--and move to even worse--starting on 3 November. Leaving whoever waved their hand today hanging out to dry.

 

[wet_special]

Ya'll tick me off

Holy shmoly cow. Get off your damn soap boxes you sanctimonious turds! Any one of you EVER serve? This is not a question of over simplification, it's just your arrogant disregard for the troops. I'll explain.

I was there when General Conway asked a packed gymnasium two questions and asked all present to raise their hands if they wish to answer in the affirmative:

one: Would you have absolutely no problem with having an openly gay room mate?
two: Would the marine corps have no problem incorporating openly gay marines?
(emphasis mine)

Out of easily four hundred, maybe four to six raised their hands.

You haven't served.

You haven't had to live with a stranger based on dictates of another stranger.

You haven't had to shower in a room full of naked strangers.


You want to cite some study about how Canadian troops got integrated with homosexuals? Canada doesn't even have free speech the way we do. This study must have been flawed. Have you tried to imagine how PDA's within close confines would make some heterosexuals feel?

Call it homophobia, call it bigotry, say that we're all the same. That roomful of marines tells me all I need to know about how the military prefers their military. Squawk all you want if it makes you feel enlightened and all embracing. You're really just sticking your noses in our business where it doesn't belong.

And just try to pin your bigoted hangups on me. I dare ya.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, yes, that (wet-special's posting) does represent the atmosphere that still exists--and helps make my points, I think.

I might note, though, that in the current REALITY circumstances, that general in that gymnasium is, of course, going to get that response. Political correctness by the unaffected theorists aside, that sort of intimidation is what exists in REALITY. And the general's action was clearcut intimidation.

Perhaps I'm pretty much alone on the thread in being able to see it from the perspective of the man most affected.

There is the side, as Stella mentions, that the current DADT policy does promote blackmailed sexual capitulation to a superior that would be less (but not go away) on an open declaration policy--and I've had it happen to me within the intelligence community and I write about it in my Lit. stories (it's included in several of the "Spy Candy" stories I've been posting off and on for the past six weeks).

But that doesn't erase the REALITY of what a gay person faces in government, including military, service. And that's what leads me to say gays should protect themselves as best they can and not declare openly no matter what the law says--at least until a whole lot of REAL attitudes in society change.

In my own experience, since it was useful to my employers, DADT worked just dandy. They knew it, promoted it, used it. And didn't want to hear about it, because raising your hand was a guaranteed bounce right out of the foreign service--and they had a use for it.

 

[wet_special]

DADT is flawed

DADT has been used to coerce women soldiers into sex-- if she turns him down he accuses her of being a lesbian. If she IS a lesbian, she can't tell him no for even more reasons.

I'm no fan of DADT, but that's irrelevant here. You paint a picture in which DADT deprives gays of rights in cases of harassment. What pap.

The situation you describe is sexual harassment. It is made more odious by its relation to DADT, but that's on the scumbag. How different should her reaction be if she is straight? It would not be. Not one bit.

 

[Stella_Omega]

wet, you're quite right when you say that amny marines would kill any fellow marine they found out was gay.

But I sure have met a lot of gay men who are decorated veterans-- from all branches of the armed forces.

I doubt many soldiers would scream out their sexuality in the middle of boot camp, because nobody is that stupid. Trust me on this, every gay man knows damn well what kind of homophobia they will encounter in the armed forces.

But they should not be kicked out of the forces if the word gets out.

 

[sr71plt]

How different should her reaction be if she is straight? It would not be. Not one bit.

She wouldn't have the added blackmail threat of being exposed as operating outside of regulations (DADT doesn't negate the illegality of being gay in the service). If she's straight, that whole line of threat is gone unless her assaulter can successfully claim she's lesbian.

So, yes, different at least a bit. (pretty much different a big bite)

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Who hasn't served?

I've got twenty-nine years in, active and reserve, retired rank of E-8 and in the position of acting battalion sergeant major. Now, would you care to unwrap that flag from around your belly and entire the real world? And I'm not talking about a bunch of Marines in boot camp.

 

[sr71plt]

Who hasn't served?

I've got twenty-nine years in, active and reserve, retired rank of E-8 and in the position of acting battalion sergeant major. Now, would you care to unwrap that flag from around your belly and entire the real world? And I'm not talking about a bunch of Marines in boot camp.

Well I'll have to go with wet on your "the polls prove the soldiers themselves have no trouble with it." That's barf. Some don't certainly. It only takes a few who do to make life hell--and life threatening--for the GM.

Again, political correctness by unaffected theorists is sweet--but doesn't cut it in REALITY.

 

[wet_special]

wet, you're quite right when you say that amny marines would kill any fellow marine they found out was gay.

Okay Joker, where's your quote. Stupid.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well I'll have to go with wet on your "the polls prove the soldiers themselves have no trouble with it." That's barf. Some don't certainly. It only takes a few who do to make life hell--and life threatening--for the GM.

Again, political correctness by unaffected theorists is sweet--but doesn't cut it in REALITY.

I absolutely agree, but at least the injunction removes one threat against gay soldiers.

 

[amicus]

I have a tendency to over-simplify, please excuse this.

More to the point is the ability to be a good soldier, no matter what the sexual inclination may be. And homosexuality among warriors and elsewhere in society were more acceptable in ancient Greece than today.

I can see no logical reason why a homosexual man is inferior as a warrior or soldier than a heterosexual man. I think the problems that the military fears arise in the middle of the night.

In today's homophobic America declaring that you are gay can still be a death sentence, sad to say.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Testosterone; Allard, here is a little logic for you. It is a natural chemical produced in the male and female bodies but men produce ten tmes as much as women. Testosterone leads to greater body weight and strength in the male and is considered to be the source of aggressive behavior; it makes males meaner and and more bad-ass soldiers than women or those in between.


ami

 

[Stella_Omega]

~~~

Testosterone; Allard, here is a little logic for you. It is a natural chemical produced in the male and female bodies but men produce ten tmes as much as women. Testosterone leads to greater body weight and strength in the male and is considered to be the source of aggressive behavior; it makes males meaner and and more bad-ass soldiers than women or those in between.


ami

Mansplainer, n: One who takes it upon himself to explain something that he doesn't actually understand, to those who are in no need of his explanation. Usually fueled by testosterone, which is why the epithet has been gendered.