Pages

  • Sharebar

Though it may be a sisyphean task, I'd like to try and start a lucid discussion about gays in the military. More specifically, I am interested where you guys stand on the subject of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and how much the men and women of the Armed Forces, themselves, should figure in the decision.

There's always a lot of discussion on this forum about what is right but what really defines that word in this particular instance? Defense Secretary Robert Gates for instance, takes the speculative approach without revealing much of his own views. Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown is ready to support a "clean repeal bill" without commenting on the essence of the argument.

What I would like to get into is the underlying logic of who decides and whether that is right?

I have always felt the men and women of the Armed Forces to be the unsung heroes of Democracy. One can easily make the argument that without the millions who have died for our rights and freedoms no government, no school, no investment bank would have any significance or value in spite of approval rating, graduation rate or revenue accrual.

Why is it then, that on the subject of this volatile and emotionally charged topic...I never get to hear from the soldiers?

Analysts and associates do not get asked much when it comes to the daily wheel and deal of the investment bank. The truth of the matter it is the MD's who scour the golf courses, country club dining halls and gallery openings for the big ticket clientele. Though the analysts, associates and VPs all play an integral role...the are ultimately replaceable and there is an army of willing simians ready to take their place.

Does the same rationale apply to the military?

I would argue that it does not and that it cannot . The low ranking members of the Armed Forces are the ones on the front, putting life on the line day in and day out. In this parallel, they are the dealmakers and the dealbreakers. Unlike monkeys, privates and grunts don't make much and risk their necks for it. Unlike investment banking, armed forces recruiting lines have dwindled greatly.

Unlike IB, the military BSD sits in the BO, far far from the ramifications of his choices.

Why have I not heard what the soldiers think about this issue?

What do you think?

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation. Learn More.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions. Learn More.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews. Learn More.

Comments (99)

  • Virginia Tech 4ever's picture

    Doesn't matter. Senate will pass the repeal at 3 pm and the president will sign it. As a conservative, I say choose your hills to die on. This isn't a fight worth fighting. Next issue: national bankruptcy.

  • monkeysama's picture

    Since Republicans like war and they hate "teh gay" I propose that we make our armed services the gayest fighting force on the planet. That way we will only go to war when absolutely necessary.

  • Aggravate's picture

    As a former soldier I'll tell you this, the only people vehemently opposed to gays in the military are people not in the service or evangelical groups within the military. And even that 10-15% is mostly just getting behind that message since some civilian preachers like Ted Haggard told them to hate gay people for Jesus.

    Spend 30 minutes with a platoon of infantrymen and you will hear more racial and gay slurs then you have heard at the office or out at the bar in the last year. That said, not a single one of those guys would hesitate to put it on the line for the black guy they just called a filthy welfare reared porch monkey, or the white guy with who is asked no less than 15 times an hour how many times he screwed his sister on leave and how many miracle whip sandwiches he ate between sessions. It's just something soldiers do and it will be no different when openly gay men serve in combat arms units. Sure some bad stuff might happen from time to time but the army desegregated well before southern schools did and it worked out fine. So as long as it is fine with them, it is fine with me and all you Jodies don't get a vote until you exchange your ferregamo loafers for a pair of combat boots. If that day ever comes hopefully you'll have an openly gay squad leader with 5 deployments under his belt calling you a "queer" when you complain about being tired during the last 5 klicks of your patrol.

  • BigBucks's picture

    Every person I know who is in the armed forces echoes aggravate's sentiment, enough is enough with don't ask don't tell, it was a ridiculous policy to begin with.

  • Edmundo Braverman's picture

    Aggravate said everything I would have. My Marine buddies and I filed this one under "Who gives a fuck?" decades ago.

    In fact, I'd really like to hear a cogent argument in favor of excluding gays or enforcing don't ask, don't tell. I don't think it exists.

  • eokpar02's picture

    Midas Mulligan Magoo:

    Why is it then, that on the subject of this volatile and emotionally charged topic...I never get to hear from the soldiers?

    There have been countless studies showing the majority of people in the military don't care about someone's sexuality in the military.
    http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-pentagon-study-sho...

    I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
    -Styles P

  • GOB's picture

    I was told an interesting perspective by someone currently at West Point...

    He said his objection is on the grounds that it is not fair that he and his girlfriend (also at West Point) cannot bunk together but a gay couple hypothetically could- thus creating an inequality. Interesting right?

  • In reply to GOB
    EngPhD's picture

    GOB:
    I was told an interesting perspective by someone currently at West Point...

    He said his objection is on the grounds that it is not fair that he and his girlfriend (also at West Point) cannot bunk together but a gay couple hypothetically could- thus creating an inequality. Interesting right?

    I wonder if fraternization regulations could be applied. This usually refers to relationships between ranks but can also apply to any relationship that is "prejudicial to good order and discipline." Presumably homosexual lovers in the same barracks would fall under that category.

  • In reply to GOB
    Aggravate's picture

    GOB:
    I was told an interesting perspective by someone currently at West Point...

    He said his objection is on the grounds that it is not fair that he and his girlfriend (also at West Point) cannot bunk together but a gay couple hypothetically could- thus creating an inequality. Interesting right?

    Unless the rules have changed its NO sex in the barracks, which presumably would include gay sex. Also, tell that guy that it is disgusting that he is dating a trou (female cadet). Gross.

  • In reply to Aggravate
    rebelcross's picture

    Aggravate:
    As a former soldier I'll tell you this, the only people vehemently opposed to gays in the military are people not in the service or evangelical groups within the military. And even that 10-15% is mostly just getting behind that message since some civilian preachers like Ted Haggard told them to hate gay people for Jesus.

    Untrue. As a former soldier myself, I can tell you a lot of the people I served with have big time reservations about the sexual orientation of others in the platoon being made public to all. It has nothing to do with racism or sexism, just a preference to focus on the task at hand and leave one's complex personal issues at the door. People have mixed feelings about homosexuality, no reason to mess with what is already very good chemistry for our fighting forces. Not when lives are at stake. Don't like it then don't join, you know in joining that you are expected to give up certain personal liberties.

    Just because you are not opposed to gays openly serving in the military doesn't mean no other soldiers are.

  • anaismalcolm's picture

    IMO relationships and sex should not be talked about in the military anyway, regardless of the person's sexual orientation. I think it'd be unfair if a gay couple could have an open relationship while serving but a heterosexual couple couldn't, but I don't know if that's going to be the case. But to me, if someone is willing to die for their country, who cares who they have sex with.

  • Cold-Steele's picture

    As an active-duty military member currently serving in Iraq (about to redeploy to Afghanistan) I can tell you how most of us feel: We don't give a crap. The WSO member "Aggravate" brings up an excellent point pertaining to military members' ability to berate each other but still effectively work together.

    Seen how I'm from Utah I can't even count how many different dirty cousin-banging, polygamist jokes people have made at my expense. Furthermore... I can't even count how many different ways I've personally told people how I'd wife-up and bang all of their Moms---simultaneously---and of course fail to support them because they're dirty harlots anyway. Um, yeah, whatever. I digress. It's just something we do and you better believe that we're going to make fun of gay dudes... That's just too easy. Now that I think about it having a token gay dude around would actually create a plethora of opportunities to set some of hetero-dudes up for epic gay jokes. I can just imagine it, HA!

    As idiotic and insensitive that all may sound to some of you out there the bottom-line is that gay dudes will be accepted---and to be honest---they already are. I personally know few gay dudes; one even brought his "room-mate" to a Christmas party several years ago. Who care? The guy is really smart and awesome at his job.

    The real rejects of the military are whiny, thin-skinned, lazy douche-bags. I don't care whether you're white, black, brown, gay, or used-to-be-a-chick; if you are painful to be around and suck at your job I will probably hate you. Sorry.... Actually, I'm not.

    Like i-banking, in the military it's all about who's going to get the mission done---who you can DEPEND on.

    Anyway, there's two-cents from a guy who's actually in "the suck" on the day of the Bill's passage. If you were offended by some of my remarks, quit being a thin-skinned, pansy! It was a joke.

    Regards.

  • In reply to monkeysama
    moranges's picture

    monkeysama:
    Since Republicans like war and they hate "teh gay" I propose that we make our armed services the gayest fighting force on the planet. That way we will only go to war when absolutely necessary.

    I think your logic is flawed. If the armed services are "the gayest fighting force on the planet", wouldn't the Republicans, seeking to purify America, get into pointless wars just to kill off the military? Just sayin'.

    "Despite a voluminous and often fervent literature on 'income distribution', the cold fact is that most income is not distributed: it is earned."
    -Thomas Sowell

  • In reply to Cold-Steele
    rebelcross's picture

    Cold-Steele:
    Like i-banking, in the military it's all about who's going to get the mission done---who you can DEPEND on.

    LOL, i-banking is so not about "who's going to get the mission done." It's about who can use the least amount of effort to look like they've produced the most. If you can really hone your ability to bs early, you're gonna make one hell of an MD.

  • Cold-Steele's picture

    Mission first... People Second. ;) Gotta feel it when you say it though. lol

  • spoonfork's picture

    Throughout history there have been various civil rights issues that, in retrospect, clearly have a a "right" and "wrong" side. Those that opposed freedom for the slaves were wrong. Those that opposed women's right to vote were wrong. Those opposed to desegregation were wrong.

    Gay rights is the current civil rights issue in the US. Those opposing gay rights will, in time, be viewed as backwards and bigoted as the KKK.

  • Virginia Tech 4ever's picture

    Ban on gays in the military was never about civil rights--it was about military morale and ensuring that the fighting force was not embroiled in sexual escapades or fear or discomfort about living arrangements. Apparently, after several decades of review, most in the military don't think having gays in the military will have a materially negative impact on the fighting force. Don't ask, don't tell was actually a progressive, first step in that long period of observation. As long as the commanders don't have a problem with it, I don't have a problem with gays in the military, but this no more a civil rights issue than women not allowed combat roles--it's strictly about military efficacy. It has nothing at all to do with morality or civil rights.

  • In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
    spoonfork's picture

    Virginia Tech 4ever:
    Ban on gays in the military was never about civil rights--it was about military morale and ensuring that the fighting force was not embroiled in sexual escapades or fear or discomfort about living arrangements. Apparently, after several decades of review, most in the military don't think having gays in the military will have a materially negative impact on the fighting force. Don't ask, don't tell was actually a progressive, first step in that long period of observation. As long as the commanders don't have a problem with it, I don't have a problem with gays in the military, but this no more a civil rights issue than women not allowed combat roles--it's strictly about military efficacy. It has nothing at all to do with morality or civil rights.

    I suppose it's reasonable to argue the ban was due to homosexuality being classified as mental disorder back in the early 1900s. But, the scientific community and medical community backed off on the classification many decades ago. There is simply no evidence that gays in the military have deleterious effects on military efficacy. If one is going to make the argument that gays disrupt military operations, they had better check the actual studies done on the subject. If they do that, and still make that argument...well, the source of their position isn't pragmatic inquiry and rational thought.
  • Virginia Tech 4ever's picture

    Dude, you're so irrational ABOUT your opinion that I don't think you actually read what I said. I'm basically agreeing with you that most in the military have concluded that there are few materially negative impacts on the fighting force. If so, I'm 100% fine with the decision. I think in the modern era, the basis of concern has to do with sharing close quarters with someone who may be sexually attracted to you. For a lof of people, that is uncomfortable, which is why we have men's and women's restrooms, men's and women's dorm rooms. It's not hard to see how the commanders could have potentially seen this as an issue and decide that it was easier to ban it than to try to manage the situation. That's a far cry from bigotry.

  • In reply to spoonfork
    cphbravo96's picture

    spoonfork:
    Virginia Tech 4ever:
    Ban on gays in the military was never about civil rights--it was about military morale and ensuring that the fighting force was not embroiled in sexual escapades or fear or discomfort about living arrangements. Apparently, after several decades of review, most in the military don't think having gays in the military will have a materially negative impact on the fighting force. Don't ask, don't tell was actually a progressive, first step in that long period of observation. As long as the commanders don't have a problem with it, I don't have a problem with gays in the military, but this no more a civil rights issue than women not allowed combat roles--it's strictly about military efficacy. It has nothing at all to do with morality or civil rights.

    I suppose it's reasonable to argue the ban was due to homosexuality being classified as mental disorder back in the early 1900s. But, the scientific community and medical community backed off on the classification many decades ago. There is simply no evidence that gays in the military have deleterious effects on military efficacy. If one is going to make the argument that gays disrupt military operations, they had better check the actual studies done on the subject. If they do that, and still make that argument...well, the source of their position isn't pragmatic inquiry and rational thought.

    You are exactly the example of what soldiers/commanders are afraid of, touchy, overly emotional homosexuals taking up their time with feel good issues and complaints about not being accepted. You can't even have a rational discussion about the topic. VT4ever is agreeing with you and you are arguing with him.

    Nobody in the military really cares if you're gay. The purpose for the don't ask, don't tell policy is exactly the reason that VT4ever explained. Soldiers scream and cuss and berate others because that is how you build the bond that is necessary to go to war.

    Adding openly gay men (or women) to the equation is a potential disaster if they don't have some very thick skin. The other soldiers are going to make fun of you for whatever they can come up with. My nicknames included, David Hasselhoff, Baywatch, lifeguard, preppy, Saved by the Bell, Zach Morris, frat, and any combination of Greek letters that sounded like a potential fraternity. I took the names because every chick in my unit and the ones near us wanted to have sex with me, so the names didn't bother me because everyone else was envious. That's just the way the military works.

    Regards

    "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
    - Ronald Reagan

  • Gekko21's picture

    Until they prove that sucking cock decreases firing accuracy, I really don't give a fuck. Although at the same time, I would hope that gays would do it discretely and not act like they are from San Francisco...but that's just me.

    "Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."

  • In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
    spoonfork's picture

    Virginia Tech 4ever:
    Dude, you're so irrational ABOUT your opinion that I don't think you actually read what I said. I'm basically agreeing with you that most in the military have concluded that there are few materially negative impacts on the fighting force. If so, I'm 100% fine with the decision. I think in the modern era, the basis of concern has to do with sharing close quarters with someone who may be sexually attracted to you. For a lof of people, that is uncomfortable, which is why we have men's and women's restrooms, men's and women's dorm rooms. It's not hard to see how the commanders could have potentially seen this as an issue and decide that it was easier to ban it than to try to manage the situation. That's a far cry from bigotry.

    What am I being irrational about? I don't really think I'm disagreeing with you. I'm arguing that there is no rational reason to oppose gays in the military.

    As to people being uncomfortable about a gay guy seeing them naked... Who gives a ****? There are many professions and situations that involve living in close quarters with other people, some of whom may be gay. I assume, like studies done in the military, it's not really an issue.

  • In reply to cphbravo96
    spoonfork's picture

    cphbravo96:

    You are exactly the example of what soldiers/commanders are afraid of, touchy, overly emotional homosexuals taking up their time with feel good issues and complaints about not being accepted. You can't even have a rational discussion about the topic. VT4ever is agreeing with you and you are arguing with him.

    I'm most definitely not gay. Please let me know where I'm irrational on this Yep, I think we probably are in agreement.

    cphbravo96:
    Nobody in the military really cares if you're gay. The purpose for the don't ask, don't tell policy is exactly the reason that VT4ever explained. Soldiers scream and cuss and berate others because that is how you build the bond that is necessary to go to war.

    Adding openly gay men (or women) to the equation is a potential disaster if they don't have some very thick skin. The other soldiers are going to make fun of you for whatever they can come up with. My nicknames included, David Hasselhoff, Baywatch, lifeguard, preppy, Saved by the Bell, Zach Morris, frat, and any combination of Greek letters that sounded like a potential fraternity. I took the names because every chick in my unit and the ones near us wanted to have sex with me, so the names didn't bother me because everyone else was envious. That's just the way the military works.

    Regards

    So you're arguing that its best to keep the gays out because they're probably too big of babies to deal with being called names and that's what DADT is there for? Seriously?

  • happypantsmcgee's picture

    Spoonfork, you seem like a smart guy (I'm not being sarcastic). But you're off on this one, by a long shot. ANT's point about the shower is a valid one, as is the point about the making homosexual soldiers bunk with females. Both of those measures illustrate the impact that gays in the military would have on effectiveness, albeit in different ways.

    The question of whether women should shower with men is relevant to the discussion because, just like a woman would feel objectified if she was forced to shower in the presence of men (leering eyes and all), so would a straight man be able to make a similar case if asked to shower with gay men.

    The issue of whether straight soldiers would or should have to live with their gay counterparts is also important as the living conditions in most forward positions are extremely lacking in the privacy department. Service members are roomed with same sex counterparts to mitigate the impact of this lack of privacy on their comfort, feelings, whatever. If you start randomly assigning men to live with other men in their unit, the issue of a straight man being asked to room with a gay man will ultimately come up and cause an issue. (Imagine asking a farm boy from the bible bet to bunk with a guy that was extremely excited about the fact that he was gay. It would definitely have an enormous impact at that individual's moral and, by extension, the rest of the unit's.)

    Here's the point cph was trying to make. The second you allow men and women to serve openly, they will, and rightfully so, start to be made fun of for being gay by their counterparts. This can lead to a whole host of issues from an EO standpoint and lead to a lot of guy's jobs/futures being harmfully effected or destroyed if a complaint is made about the ribbing they give openly gay subordinates/peers. As soon as one of these openly gay soldiers gets offended enough to complain to someone, you have a bunch of guys careers that are all but ended by the complaint this person or persons filed against them. I know you think that its about their 'skin not being thick enough' but the reality is, racial jokes and the like are an integral part of moral, bonding, etc. There will be significant issues, at least at the outset, for gay soldiers as far as harassment is concerned which will further degrade unit morale and readiness.

    The final issue I have with this is timing. On a theoretical level, I agree that Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be repealed but on a practical level, I think many are underestimating the impact that its repeal could have on our forces. To this end, I think that the timing of this initiative could not have been worse. You're now in a position where soldiers are fighting in extremely fragile circumstances, in wars that they know are the opposite of popular in most places, and now you want to inject another, potentially volatile, variable into the mix. It just doesn't make sense to me from a readiness standpoint. If this administration, or any other, wants to repeal DADT then they are free to do so but it's on them to be responsible and prudent with the timing and implementation of said ban.

    I would a bit more OK with the ban if it was implemented much the way women are tasked in the military currently. They are free to serve, be promoted, given awards, punished etc but only outside of combat arms branches. This would mitigate the aforementioned privacy issue (thought not eliminate it) and could serve as a stepping stone for the eventual inclusion of openly gay soldiers in combat. This is much the way women were integrated into the military as they were first relegated to roles in nursing, some office work, etc. As they garnered acceptance and the military as an institution was able to work out some of the kinks in their living conditions, promotions, etc. women were able to have more mobility in the services and they work seamlessly with their male counterparts today. I just don't understand the rush to get this done right now.

    spoonfork:
    As far as showering. I don't know...don't care. See what the soldiers want and do that. I personally wouldn't have any issues showering with women.

    Not how it works bud, sorry.

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • spoonfork's picture

    happypantsmcgee - Thanks for the polite response.

    I totally understand the point you are making. I just have trouble believing that the issues would be disruptive in a major way. All of the evidence, expert testimony, behavioral studies, etc that I've read on the issues seem to indicate that it really is not that big of a deal.

    Take Israel as an example. Gays have been openly serving in the IDF since the early 90s. Israel has been in constant military engagement for half a century. Yet, they transitioned to allowing openly serving gays. Were there privacy/sensitivity issues at the outset? I assume there were. They worked through them and now it's not an issue. See this piece of research: http://www.palmcenter.org/node/554

    Armed Forces and Society Journal:
    ...
    A few scholars conducted careful studies in the immediate aftermath of Israel's 1993 decision to abolish restrictions on gay and lesbian soldiers. However, the long-term impact of the new policy was not yet apparent and even the most thorough of these early analyses is only eight pages long. Our rationale for considering more recent evidence that accumulated in the seven years since Israel lifted its gay ban is that with a history of over half a century of continuous military engagement, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is considered to be one of the premiere fighting forces in the world. Hence, the Israeli case affords an opportunity to examine the impact of lifting a gay ban in a high-stakes security context. After discussing the historical evolution of homosexual personnel policy in Israel, we examine whether Israel's decision to abolish restrictions on gay and lesbian soldiers influenced military performance, readiness, cohesion or morale. Finally, we ask if lessons from the Israeli case may be relevant for determining whether lifting the American gay ban would undermine the effectiveness of the U.S. armed forces. Our findings are that Israel's decision to lift its gay ban had no impact on performance and that despite differences between the two cases, lessons from the Israeli experience are relevant for determining what would happen if the U.S. Congress and Pentagon lifted the American gay ban.
  • In reply to spoonfork
    cphbravo96's picture

    spoonfork:
    cphbravo96:

    You are exactly the example of what soldiers/commanders are afraid of, touchy, overly emotional homosexuals taking up their time with feel good issues and complaints about not being accepted. You can't even have a rational discussion about the topic. VT4ever is agreeing with you and you are arguing with him.

    I'm most definitely not gay. Please let me know where I'm irrational on this Yep, I think we probably are in agreement.

    cphbravo96:
    Nobody in the military really cares if you're gay. The purpose for the don't ask, don't tell policy is exactly the reason that VT4ever explained. Soldiers scream and cuss and berate others because that is how you build the bond that is necessary to go to war.

    Adding openly gay men (or women) to the equation is a potential disaster if they don't have some very thick skin. The other soldiers are going to make fun of you for whatever they can come up with. My nicknames included, David Hasselhoff, Baywatch, lifeguard, preppy, Saved by the Bell, Zach Morris, frat, and any combination of Greek letters that sounded like a potential fraternity. I took the names because every chick in my unit and the ones near us wanted to have sex with me, so the names didn't bother me because everyone else was envious. That's just the way the military works.

    Regards

    So you're arguing that its best to keep the gays out because they're probably too big of babies to deal with being called names and that's what DADT is there for? Seriously?

    DADT is there because it isn't anyone's business if you smoke pole. But gay people think they are in some civil rights battle and that they must take every opportunity they can to tell people that they are gay. We don't care (and we already knew). They are the same people that claim they are just like everyone else and argue for acceptance then walk through the city streets in head-to-toe, crotchless leather suits with whips and wearing butterfly wings, tied to their life partner Bruce.

    If you aren't gay, your brother must be because you are arguing the hell out of a policy that will never affect you...since you aren't gay and surely aren't going into the military.

    Like Anthony said, the military isn't some social experiment, it isn't leverage to use in come "civil rights" battle, but to the GLTB (or whichever order it goes) community it is. I'm a fan of "actions speak louder than words" but instead of acting in a normal, socially acceptable manner, many gays want to do the opposite and then lambaste those who don't accept their ways.

    Ant brings up a good question. Why can't I show with females? I'm not attracted to every female I see and therefor won't have sex with every girl I come into contact with, so why can't I bunk and shower with them, since we are all professionals?

    Regards

    "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
    - Ronald Reagan

  • Jerome Marrow's picture

    Acting in a 'normal', 'socially acceptable' manner?

    Some of the biggest bigots on this site come out once again.

  • spoonfork's picture

    Most of the gay people I know, you wouldn't know they were gay. They drink beer, watch sports, etc. Yet, if they were in the military they couldn't go out to dinner together on Valentine's day and be confident their jobs aren't in danger. If it's no one's business, then repeal DADT, right? You say you already know who's gay in your unit, so what's the big deal?

    Ah yeah...I must also be black because I think it's worth defending black people's right to vote.

    OK, you are making a claim that the repeal of DADT will cause disruptions. Please provide evidence. I have provided a scholarly article above concluding the opposite.

    Chrit on a pogo stick, the shower thing again? Somehow by the grace of Yahweh, Israel dealt with it. If you're that concerned about it, look up their policy and treatment of the issue. If people want separate showers for gays, fine by me. Do whatever.

  • spoonfork's picture

    Dismissing concerns? I've tried repeatedly to speak to you, even breaking it down bullet-point style. Then I provided an example and a scholarly article dealing directly with your concerns. At this point, I have to believe you're either a complete moron or being deliberately obtuse.

    If you are against gay rights, just because, you are a bigot - by definition of the word (which apparently you don't know). Sorry it hurts your widdle feelings. Chin up kid. As far as wanting you to be quiet? Ha, preach it brother! No skin off my back if you want to look like an idiot.

    Living with that persecution complex must be exhausting.

  • Jerome Marrow's picture

    Bigots
    #1
    "But gay people think they are in some civil rights battle and that they must take every opportunity they can to tell people that they are gay. We don't care (and we already knew). They are the same people that claim they are just like everyone else and argue for acceptance then walk through the city streets in head-to-toe, crotchless leather suits with whips and wearing butterfly wings, tied to their life partner Bruce."

    Yeah, I'm sure that is exactly what most gay people are like.... glad to hear you have the ability to detect gay people from a mile away btw. If you already knew, what is the point of DADT other than to be abusive to people's rights?

    #2
    "Imagine asking a farm boy from the bible bet to bunk with a guy that was extremely excited about the fact that he was gay. It would definitely have an enormous impact at that individual's moral and, by extension, the rest of the unit's"

    Right, so because one individual with even crazier personal beliefs/tastes (Christianity) feels uncomfortable, a homosexual person shouldn't be allowed to be open about their sexual orientation.

    #3
    "I don't know, I didn't realize the military was a gay pride parade. Gays were never forbidden from the military, they just had keep their sex life to themselves. I suppose the military should be all about people expressing themselves."

    And what about straight individuals? Do they need to keep their sex lives to themselves as well? If it is found out that a man has a girlfriend or has gone out to a bar to meet women, should they be dismissed from the military?

    "I do not oppose anyones rights. I support everyones right to suck whatever they want in the privacy of their own home. What I do not support is one group forcing an other"

    Except that isn't what is going on--people would like to be able to live without fear of people know that they have a different sexual orientation. Just as any straight male here would not like to have trouble for going out and meeting women, having PDA with their girlfriend, etc. gay individuals just might feel the same way.

  • Jerome Marrow's picture
  • Jerome Marrow's picture

    Anthony, did I credit you with all of those posts? Did my original post mention your name or username at all? Seriously dude, every thread you post in you go off on random tangents and make stuff completely up. Quit it.

    And yes, it certainly shows you to be a bigot. You clearly believe that gay people as a group have an agenda and that they ought to be forced via DADT to act in a way that is against their personal orientation. That, to you, is 'respect' for their rights.

  • TNA's picture

    Everyone has an agenda dude. The military is not a place of fairness.

    You are a bigot for calling me a bigot!

  • Jerome Marrow's picture

    lol so you admit, literally, that you support the military discriminating against gays, but you are upset about being called a bigot.

  • petergibbons's picture

    Most of the people serving our country who were kicked out of the military due to DADT were because of the asking, not the telling. So it's great that people here believe that personal lives aren't the business of their co-workers...I happen to agree. But that wasn't the case in the military, and the US Army lost some good soldiers (including language specialists that they've had a hard time replacing) because of it.

    I'm not sure if any of you ever had gay roommates in college, or gay teammates in sports. I did, and somehow, we made it through practices, bus rides, parties and even the locker room without things getting weird.

    Now that this is behind us, how about finding Bin Laden?

    Life, liberty and the pursuit of Starwood Points

  • TNA's picture

    I do not support discrimination, I simply support people keeping their sex life private.

    I am glad you had no problem showing with gay men. I am sure there are men who would have a problem. I suppose their feelins and rights mean nothing though.

    It is so sad that in the year 2010 so many of you are filled with so much hate.

    With that, I must depart. All these negative vibs are messing with my ch'i. Once again spoon, thanks for stepping up and owning up to the hate. It is the first step towards tolerance. God bless.

  • In reply to TNA
    spoonfork's picture

    ANT:
    I do not support discrimination, I simply support people keeping their sex life private.

    I am glad you had no problem showing with gay men. I am sure there are men who would have a problem. I suppose their feelins and rights mean nothing though.

    It is so sad that in the year 2010 so many of you are filled with so much hate.

    With that, I must depart. All these negative vibs are messing with my ch'i. Once again spoon, thanks for stepping up and owning up to the hate. It is the first step towards tolerance. God bless.

    :golf clap:

    I must admit I'm a little disappointed with that attempted coup de grace, but so it goes. Good day, sir.

  • happypantsmcgee's picture

    The israeli army is a completely ridiculous example in this case. I'll explain further tonight. I'm fairly busy but rest assured, I'll get back later.

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • In reply to Jerome Marrow
    cphbravo96's picture

    Jerome Marrow:
    ...because one individual with even crazier personal beliefs/tastes (Christianity)...

    BIGOT!!!!

    Jerome Marrow:
    ...Except that isn't what is going on--people would like to be able to live without fear of people know that they have a different sexual orientation. Just as any straight male here would not like to have trouble for going out and meeting women, having PDA with their girlfriend, etc. gay individuals just might feel the same way.

    The last I check our military is an all volunteer force. No one is forced into the military, it's their decision. There are certain rules you abide by as you are essentially signing away your freedoms and liberties. You can't have sex with married people when your in the military because it's illegal, you can be punished and jailed for it...even though it's your civil right to have sex with whoever you want, whenever you want.

    You also can't wear a pork pie hat when you are in uniform and you have to shave everyday.

    Wait, what?!? I have to shave everyday? That's not fair, I didn't choose to have facial hair, I was born this way.

    Regards

    "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
    - Ronald Reagan

  • In reply to Jerome Marrow
    cphbravo96's picture

    Jerome Marrow:
    Anthony, did I credit you with all of those posts? Did my original post mention your name or username at all? Seriously dude, every thread you post in you go off on random tangents and make stuff completely up. Quit it.

    And yes, it certainly shows you to be a bigot. You clearly believe that gay people as a group have an agenda and that they ought to be forced via DADT to act in a way that is against their personal orientation. That, to you, is 'respect' for their rights.

    Again, this is the military we are talking about, not your apartment. When you are in, you have to do tons of things you don't want to do, or otherwise would not have to do if you weren't in the military. Shave every morning, exercise, wake-up early, poop into a hole in the ground, take showers with a bunch of dudes (oh wait), stand in formations, sometimes for hours, etc, etc, etc. So yes, gay people (along with everyone else in the military) should be 'forced' to act in way that is against their personal orientation.

    Regards

    "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
    - Ronald Reagan

  • In reply to petergibbons
    cphbravo96's picture

    petergibbons:
    ...I'm not sure if any of you ever had gay roommates in college, or gay teammates in sports. I did, and somehow, we made it through practices, bus rides, parties and even the locker room without things getting weird...

    I find it laughable you would even try to compare your sports team with the military. When's the last time you were away on a game trip for a whole year where the only way you washed your balls for the majority of that time was with a wetnap?

    Regards

    "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
    - Ronald Reagan

  • petergibbons's picture

    I'm just saying that there are precedents where heterosexual and homosexual men have to be in close quarters because of some mission higher than their personal preferences, and they deal. What I did playing college sports is not what my brother does as a Marine, and I understand that. However, you can't argue that straight guys and gay guys haven't shared spaces without dealing with it, regardless of who was uncomfortable.

    Military exceptionalism isn't exactly a strong argument, but I agree that there is a very different dynamic with respect to morale and importance of mission, making a very high bar for social policies being enacted within a military at war. That said, I think we hit the bar on this one.

    Life, liberty and the pursuit of Starwood Points

  • In reply to petergibbons
    happypantsmcgee's picture

    petergibbons:
    I'm just saying that there are precedents where heterosexual and homosexual men have to be in close quarters because of some mission higher than their personal preferences, and they deal. What I did playing college sports is not what my brother does as a Marine, and I understand that. However, you can't argue that straight guys and gay guys haven't shared spaces without dealing with it, regardless of who was uncomfortable..

    Yeah, you shared space for the length of a bus ride, practice, etc. It's a whole different ball game when you're talking about sharing space for 13 months with zero privacy.

    Ok, as to why the Israeli Army is a poor example for this particular case. Self-Disqualification. What is that HappyPants? Well, I'll tell you. In countries with mandatory service (and Israel in particular due to their ongoing engagement status in armed conflict) disallowing openly gay men to serve opens the door for people self-disqualifying out of their mandatory service. It's very similar as to the rationale behind homosexuals not getting affirmative action. Before you freak out, there have been studies on the representation of openly gay individuals as a total percentage of college students across the country, not just a specific schools (I'm looking at you Oberlin) and they show that gays are underrepresented by about 3-5% depending on the study. You can use whatever methods of conjecture you want to rationalize this but suffice it to say; there are more than a few monkeys here that could throw on a lisp and purple cardigan for a shot at the Ivy League. (Did he just make a bigoted joke about gays and their accents? Yes, yes he did but only because no one ACTUALLY talks like that. They choose to.) The other reason Israel is a bad example for this particular argument is their deployment and force projection structure. They operate, almost exclusively, out of established urban areas and solidified postings in their HOME country. This is a huge issue as they have the infrastructure capabilities to house, train, feed, bathe, etc. all of their personnel right there on their turf. Why does this matter, you ask? Well because when the United States Military operates, they do so with the intention and ability to move quickly and project force where it needs to go. Sure, there are examples of large, seemingly permanent, bases in Iraqistan but there are many more COBs, COPs, and the like that house far fewer men for long stretches of time.

    There are numerous examples of countries attempting to assimilate homosexuals into their active services and it not working well. I am trying to find the literature on it (So eok, Jerome, and spoon don't sic the ACLU on me) and will post when I do

    I really feel like you shouldn't be allowed to weigh in on this issue without some sort of military experience. As fun and 'intimate' as your high school tennis team was, it simply does not compare to the reality of modern military living and operating conditions.

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • spoonfork's picture

    In the meantime here's 20 different studies spanning 50 years on gays in various military outfits from the US and around the world:
    http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/what_d...

    Summary:
    Research on openly gay service is extensive, and includes over half a century of evidence gathered by independent researchers and the U.S. military itself, as well as the study of the experience of foreign militaries. The U.S. military's own researchers have consistently found that openly gay service does not undermine cohesion, and the military has repeatedly sought to condemn or suppress these conclusions when they emerged. Yet no research has ever shown that open homosexuality impairs military readiness. This fact has been acknowledged by the Government Accountability Office and by the Pentagon, which has said in response to evidence suggesting that openly gay service works that its policy is "inherently subjective in nature" and is the result of "professional Military judgment, not scientific or sociological analysis." Below are the major research studies on service by gays and lesbians.

    The evidence just isn't on your side. Your objections aren't new. I understand what you're saying, I really do. There are entire institutions dedicated to the study of the subject - and they don't reach your conclusions.

    If you find that report on homo/no homo integration failing I'd be legitimately interested in reading it.

    If after the repeal of DADT our elite forces within active warzones start showing evidence that there are issues with homosexuals being there, then absolutely, make adjustments, restrictions, etc. An evidenced based policy is entirely appropriate. DADT is anything but.

  • happypantsmcgee's picture

    Oh....so the institutions that are formed to research the viability of gays in the military found that its a good idea..shocking and I bet none of these fine establishments are liberal think tank type places...see cause if they found it was a good idea not to do it and the debate over DADT ended, they would kinda be out of a job and what not ya know....

    Either way, as far as I am concerned, as much as I like you, you have no credibility here. You can site all of the studies you want but the reality is you can't fathom what the actual environment you so freely pontificate about is actually like.

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • In reply to spoonfork
    cphbravo96's picture

    spoonfork:
    In the meantime here's 20 different studies spanning 50 years on gays in various military outfits from the US and around the world:
    http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/what_d...

    Summary:
    Research on openly gay service is extensive, and includes over half a century of evidence gathered by independent researchers and the U.S. military itself, as well as the study of the experience of foreign militaries. The U.S. military's own researchers have consistently found that openly gay service does not undermine cohesion, and the military has repeatedly sought to condemn or suppress these conclusions when they emerged. Yet no research has ever shown that open homosexuality impairs military readiness. This fact has been acknowledged by the Government Accountability Office and by the Pentagon, which has said in response to evidence suggesting that openly gay service works that its policy is "inherently subjective in nature" and is the result of "professional Military judgment, not scientific or sociological analysis." Below are the major research studies on service by gays and lesbians.

    The evidence just isn't on your side. Your objections aren't new. I understand what you're saying, I really do. There are entire institutions dedicated to the study of the subject - and they don't reach your conclusions.

    If you find that report on homo/no homo integration failing I'd be legitimately interested in reading it.

    If after the repeal of DADT our elite forces within active warzones start showing evidence that there are issues with homosexuals being there, then absolutely, make adjustments, restrictions, etc. An evidenced based policy is entirely appropriate. DADT is anything but.

    It's probably worth considering a few things, such as: (1) Who's conducting the research, (2) What, if any, is their motivation for doing such research, (3) Who they are interviewing, (4) Whether the interviewee(s) is giving honest answers, and (5) Whether the interviewee(s) are capable of answering the questions (actual soldier vs. command element speaking PR language).

    And again, this isn't a freakin' laboratory and this isn't science class. We don't have a military so we can run experiments that may or may not work out. This is our country's main defense element in the midst of 2 wars (potentially more given NK) and it's silly to risk the potential consequences at this point in time.

    Sorry I disagree with you. I'll save you the effort...

    "I'm a bigot" and people will, one day, look back at me and think that I'm as backward as the KKK.

    Regards

    "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
    - Ronald Reagan

  • In reply to cphbravo96
    happypantsmcgee's picture

    cphbravo96:
    spoonfork:
    In the meantime here's 20 different studies spanning 50 years on gays in various military outfits from the US and around the world:
    http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/what_d...

    Summary:
    Research on openly gay service is extensive, and includes over half a century of evidence gathered by independent researchers and the U.S. military itself, as well as the study of the experience of foreign militaries. The U.S. military's own researchers have consistently found that openly gay service does not undermine cohesion, and the military has repeatedly sought to condemn or suppress these conclusions when they emerged. Yet no research has ever shown that open homosexuality impairs military readiness. This fact has been acknowledged by the Government Accountability Office and by the Pentagon, which has said in response to evidence suggesting that openly gay service works that its policy is "inherently subjective in nature" and is the result of "professional Military judgment, not scientific or sociological analysis." Below are the major research studies on service by gays and lesbians.

    The evidence just isn't on your side. Your objections aren't new. I understand what you're saying, I really do. There are entire institutions dedicated to the study of the subject - and they don't reach your conclusions.

    If you find that report on homo/no homo integration failing I'd be legitimately interested in reading it.

    If after the repeal of DADT our elite forces within active warzones start showing evidence that there are issues with homosexuals being there, then absolutely, make adjustments, restrictions, etc. An evidenced based policy is entirely appropriate. DADT is anything but.

    It's probably worth considering a few things, such as: (1) Who's conducting the research, (2) What, if any, is their motivation for doing such research, (3) Who they are interviewing, (4) Whether the interviewee(s) is giving honest answers, and (5) Whether the interviewee(s) are capable of answering the questions (actual soldier vs. command element speaking PR language).

    And again, this isn't a freakin' laboratory and this isn't science class. We don't have a military so we can run experiments that may or may not work out. This is our country's main defense element in the midst of 2 wars (potentially more given NK) and it's silly to risk the potential consequences at this point in time.

    Sorry I disagree with you. I'll save you the effort...

    "I'm a bigot" and people will, one day, look back at me and think that I'm as backward as the KKK.

    Regards

    You, sir, are the kind of person that used to lead lynch mobs...you obviously hate freedom of any kind and are an extremely homophobic bigot

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

Pages