Gays in the Military

[Joe Wordsworth]

Found this quote, really liked it.

“Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.” --Barry Goldwater

 

[Lauren Hynde]

"You... are... scum! Do you hear me, soldier?"

"Yes, sir!"

"Do you know what we are going to be doing today?"

"No, sir!"

"We are going to be doing push-ups, all day, you and me, all day! Do you think that's funny soldier?"

"No, sir!"

"Well, just for that, you are going to be doing those push-ups with me lying on your back! You are going to discover muscles you never knew you had! Big... muscles. Hard... muscles!"

 

[angela146]

When the policy first went into effect, I was a senior in high school and my father was a one-star.

He was actually home (i.e. not deployed) when the whole political debate was going on. When President Clinton agreed to the "don't ask don't tell" compromise, I asked dad what he thought about it.

He shook his head and said that President Clinton didn't understand the military. Then he said, that the President shouldn't have compromised. He should have just given the order and expected it to be followed. It was the one and only time in my life that I heard my father speak a word in disagreement with his Commander in Chief - and on that issue of all things.

When he saw the look of shock on my face, he smiled and said, "Wasn't what you expected was it?"

I shook my head.

He said something to the effect of, "We would have figured it out. There would have been some resignations from a few star-types who seem to think that 'can't' is part of the English language, but the rest of us would have gotten the job done."

I was proud of my dad that day.

 

[Guest]

In Queer Eye for the straight guy, Carson held up a Marine dress blue uniform, and said "If there are no Gays in the military, who designed this?"

 

[Carnevil9]

What's wrong with these gay dudes? They want to be in the military? They want to get married? These are things I go out of my way to avoid. They don't know how good they've got it. Dumbasses.....Carney

 

[Guest]

From "The West Wing"...

Major Tate: Sir, we're not prejudiced toward homosexuals.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: You just don't want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?
Major Tate: No sir, I don't.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: 'Cause they impose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion.
Major Tate: Yes, sir.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: That's what I think, too. I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change.
Major Tate: Yes, sir.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: The problem with that is that what they were saying to me 50 years ago. Blacks shouldn't serve with whites. It would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I'm an admiral in the U.S. Navy and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... Beat that with a stick.

 

[SeaCat]

I still have a hard time getting my mind around the whole issue. I have never understood the barring of homosexuals to serve in the military, then again I also have a hard time understanding the banning of women from serving in the Combat Arms sections of the military.

If you are able to deal with the physical demands placed on you why should your gender or sexual orientation matter in the least?

Then again I do happen to live in a country where sexuality is considered to be something to be hidden.

Cat

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Because people are often too blinded by the superficial to consider merit as an issue.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I still have a hard time getting my mind around the whole issue. I have never understood the barring of homosexuals to serve in the military, then again I also have a hard time understanding the banning of women from serving in the Combat Arms sections of the military.

If you are able to deal with the physical demands placed on you why should your gender or sexual orientation matter in the least?

Then again I do happen to live in a country where sexuality is considered to be something to be hidden.

Cat

Because homosexuality is seen as sort of gross and hedonistic. And because women are seen as physically different from and traditionally not as good soldiers-of-war as men. And because many caveats are made for women who serve in the military, and those exemptions or less stringent standards are seen as a reinforcing of the argument that they /are/ less capable.

Simple 'nuff, not hard to get.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

What's wrong with these gay dudes? They want to be in the military? They want to get married? These are things I go out of my way to avoid. They don't know how good they've got it. Dumbasses.....Carney

Nothing wrong with wanting to serve your country. I came within the final steps of enlisting in the Navy, and was only rejected because I couldn't duck walk. I wish that I had been accepted, but at least I can say that I attempted to enlist.

As for marriage, well, that depends on whom I would be marrying and the terms of the marriage.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Because homosexuality is seen as sort of gross and hedonistic. And because women are seen as physically different from and traditionally not as good soldiers-of-war as men. And because many caveats are made for women who serve in the military, and those exemptions or less stringent standards are seen as a reinforcing of the argument that they /are/ less capable.

Simple 'nuff, not hard to get.

I doubt that most soldiers are opposed to hedonism or "gross" things any more than most civilians. After all, they've earned the right to kick back even more than the rest of us.

And while most women wouldn't make it past the processes, why exempt those who can?

 

[cloudy]

Women have a very long warrior tradition.

*Boadicea
*Queen Aethelburgh
*Queen Thyra of Denmark
*Hetha, Visna and Vebiorg led companies of the Danish army
*Emma Countess of Norfolk, Matilda Countess of Tuscany (and her mother), Sichelgaita Princess of Lombardy, Urraca Queen of Aragon, and Teresa of Portugal all led troops into battle
*Nicola de la Haye, daughter of the castellan of Lincoln defended the town against several raids and was made sheriff of Lincolnshire in 1216

...the list goes on and on.

Just sayin'.

 

[Trombonus]

Not to mention Joan of Arc.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I doubt that most soldiers are opposed to hedonism or "gross" things any more than most civilians. After all, they've earned the right to kick back even more than the rest of us.

And while most women wouldn't make it past the processes, why exempt those who can?

I have nothing intelligent to say about that. I don't know what most soldiers think or don't think, I'm just sayin' what the "reasons" behind the positions are. I think they're not particularly rational, but I don't make policy.

Personally, I like uniform and individually-tested standards for the military--and very high ones.

Women have a very long warrior tradition.

*Boadicea....sheriff of Lincolnshire in 1216

...the list goes on and on.

Just sayin'.

I don't doubt there have been women soldiers, even very important women soldiers... I have nothing really to say about the statistics of women who are/have been soldiers. Just that they've had less of a history than men, less long and less broad and less diverse--and that's probably one reason why they're seen as lesser soldier-candidates today.



Ooooh, and “we dont get our rights because we are “gay or women or minorities”, we get our rights as indiviuals” (Ron Paul).

Pppppow

 

[SeaCat]

Because homosexuality is seen as sort of gross and hedonistic. And because women are seen as physically different from and traditionally not as good soldiers-of-war as men. And because many caveats are made for women who serve in the military, and those exemptions or less stringent standards are seen as a reinforcing of the argument that they /are/ less capable.

Simple 'nuff, not hard to get.

Okay there are two arguments here.

The first is that homosexuality is seen as gross and hedonistic. Is it? If it is then is not heterosexuality hedonistic? If not why not?

The second argument is that women are weaker and less able to be soldiers than males. As you have said many caveats are given them. Who decided to give them these caveats? Who decided that they needed less stringent standards? Was it the women? Somehow I think not. Any person with a reasonable physical fitness standard can pass the military physica fitness exams. This applies to both men and women. The standards for women were lowered because of their "perceived" weakness and to keep them from the Combat Arms fields. (ie. Combat Pilot, Infantry, Armor, etc.)

Cat

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Personally, I like uniform and individually-tested standards for the military--and very high ones.

This makes sense. Don't drop the standards. Just let anyone in who can meet them.

Ooooh, and “we dont get our rights because we are “gay or women or minorities”, we get our rights as indiviuals” (Ron Paul).

I've been saying this for ages. I'm bi, but I don't claim any special rights because of it. I just want my civil liberties, the same as the next guy or gal, regardless of orientation. Nor do I expect preferential treatment for any of my ethnic heritages, which are too diverse to really make me part of any ethnic groups in the first place (French, English, German, Scots, Irish, and Shawnee).

I like that comment by Ron Paul more than his other one about 9/11, which was really a dumb thing to say.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Okay there are two arguments here.

The first is that homosexuality is seen as gross and hedonistic. Is it? If it is then is not heterosexuality hedonistic? If not why not?

Meh.

Is it?

Do you want an objective norm? 'Cause I can't give one (I'm the guy around here who doesn't like to assert them, period). But, sure, some people think there are and that they include the abnormality and grossness of gay sex. Probably on religious and cultural lines (independantly of each other and together).

The second argument is that women are weaker and less able to be soldiers than males. As you have said many caveats are given them. Who decided to give them these caveats? Who decided that they needed less stringent standards? Was it the women? Somehow I think not. Any person with a reasonable physical fitness standard can pass the military physica fitness exams. This applies to both men and women. The standards for women were lowered because of their "perceived" weakness and to keep them from the Combat Arms fields. (ie. Combat Pilot, Infantry, Armor, etc.)

Cat

Who decides? Politicians, lawyers, social groups--likely in that order. Actually, a lot of our standards changes here and there have been women suing this or that organization--there was a case a few years back about firefighters and this one woman sued because she couldn't do the overshoulder carry and they settled by changing the policy to the ankle drag. It was on Dateline or something.

There's probably a healthy bit of women demands in the sea of social bigotry.

 

[CharleyH]

Meh.

Is it?

Do you want an objective norm? 'Cause I can't give one (I'm the guy around here who doesn't like to assert them, period). But, sure, some people think there are and that they include the abnormality and grossness of gay sex. Probably on religious and cultural lines (independantly of each other and together).


Who decides? Politicians, lawyers, social groups--likely in that order. Actually, a lot of our standards changes here and there have been women suing this or that organization--there was a case a few years back about firefighters and this one woman sued because she couldn't do the overshoulder carry and they settled by changing the policy to the ankle drag. It was on Dateline or something.

There's probably a healthy bit of women demands in the sea of social bigotry.

Loved Lauren's post. (edit to add the aside).

Somehow, I knew it would come to this. Welcome back, JW!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I like that comment by Ron Paul more than his other one about 9/11, which was really a dumb thing to say.

Which one? That a major reason they're jacking us is our involvement over yonder?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Which one? That a major reason they're jacking us is our involvement over yonder?

Yeah, that one. Yes, they are angry at us over more than Iraq, which happened after 9/11 after all. It's about Israel and other things. And they're not justified. No one denies that they are doing this because we do things that they hate, but that doesn't justify or excuse 9/11.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Yeah, that one. Yes, they are angry at us over more than Iraq, which happened after 9/11 after all. It's about Israel and other things. And they're not justified. No one denies that they are doing this because we do things that they hate, but that doesn't justify or excuse 9/11.

I don't so much have a problem with identifying the reasons... had he made a judgement about it? Might have problems with that. But laying out the reasons? I found that intellectually responsible.

 

[Dar~]

Haven't completely read the whole thread, but I am a military wife and I am not "allowed" according to the UCMJ to give head to my husband in the privacy of my own home because it is deemed fornication and licentious behavior. Even straights are only "allowed" missionary position sex. If they consider a blow job between husband and wife bad, surely they are correct in assuming butt sex is a crime against God!

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I don't so much have a problem with identifying the reasons... had he made a judgement about it? Might have problems with that. But laying out the reasons? I found that intellectually responsible.

I think that he was careless in not making it clear that he was just explaining and not excusing it. A case of foot-in-mouth disease. I can't picturing Ron Paul sympathizing with Al Quaeda, of all people. And chronologically, it made no sense: 9/11 happened before the Iraqi War.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think that he was careless in not making it clear that he was just explaining and not excusing it. A case of foot-in-mouth disease. I can't picturing Ron Paul sympathizing with Al Quaeda, of all people. And chronologically, it made no sense: 9/11 happened before the Iraqi War.

I'm with you except for that last bit.

An Iraq War happened before 9/11. And Iraq-involvement goes back before that. And Middle-Eastern involvement yet further.

 

[Pure]

Seac said, Okay there are two arguments here.

The first is that homosexuality is seen as gross and hedonistic. (Is it? If it is then is not heterosexuality hedonistic? If not why not?)

I don't think that's exactly it, seac. The argument i always heard from the military types is "Who's going to want to be in a foxhole with a gay? you turn your back on him and ....."

In a way, the antiwoman argument is similar "How would a man fare in a foxhole with her, trying to think of the enemy with T and A waving in his face. Suppose they were doing IT when the enemy attacked."