can a gay man serve honorably in the US military?

[smileyeagle1021]

As to not derail the Avatar and why I like it thread even further, I'll start a new thread here.
I am of the personal opinion that it is impossible to have integrity as a gay person in the military. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a farce, there is no way that sexuality won't be discussed. Like it or not it permeates nearly every part of life. Don't believe me? Count how many people will ask about your husband/wife on any given day (if you have a ring on your finger). Not married, expect coworkers and friends to ask about how your dating life is going. Hell, even talk about a new movie and inevitably someone will mention how hot so and so was in a certain role and ask for your opinion.
There is only so much dancing aroun the question a gay man (or woman) can do before they are outright lying. I know because I've been in the situation before.
"Did you see (movie), (actress) was hot, doncha think?"
"No, not really my type"
"Oh you must be more into (actress)"
"No, not really"
"Well, what is your type"
at this point in the conversation there is only two options. Be honest (which would violate military policy) or lie (which violates one's integrity).
OK, I guess someone could say "I'd rather not talk about it" but at least in civilian world you might as well say "check my web browsing history, you'll find some good dirt there".
As Hobbs pointed out, there is punishment for the person who outs the gay soldier, though no where near as extreme as the punishment for the gay soldier... which begs the question, why the double standard?
Are not both parties in violation of Don't Ask Don't Tell (one for asking the other for telling)? Why the more severe punishment for the gay soldier who was forced between keeping his integrity or following military code?
And speaking of integrity, how can a gay person claim to be serving with honor when they've violated military code simply by showing up?

[Hyena Dandy]

Smiley, I've told you again and again. I'm Catholic, I'm Gay, and I'll happily vote for someone who will end things like Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Catholic church is not the problem. Most of the people who ARE the problem hate Catholics almost as much as they hate gays. I live in a town that's proud of being 'accepting' of my sexuality, which is good, but they're not at all accepting of my religion. I've been mocked and yelled at in the street for wearing a cross, and at one point someone who was part of my parent's (non-catholic, UU church which is pretty much Atheist Church) refused to donate because they'd raised a Christian, and as a Christian I must be sexist/creationist/homophobic/etc.


Hobbs - It may be illegal, but how well its enforced really depends. I know that there are openly gay soldiers out there. They're serving in the front lines in Afghanistan (Er... Sorta squiggly lines. Front circles? Point is, they're in a combat situation). The reason for that is because they were found out after they gained the trust of their comrades. Esprit de Corps is overriding the rules. Whereas the majority of people fired for their homosexuality are not in daily combat. I'm sure Smiley has examples where they are, but still. In most cases, Esprit de Corps has not had a chance to overrule regulations. And even some of the people who were are coming back. For example

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/11/choi-cnn/

As that article points out, you can still GET fired, but it doesn't always happen.







Smiley, this isn't a direct response to your thread, its a copy-paste from the Avatar thread.

[draggar]

can a gay man serve honorably in the US military?

I've known a couple so yes.

[jackfaire]

First of all yes DADT is a completely BS policy. That being said it is not as commonly nor as easy to enforce as one would think.

I served with a guy that we all knew was gay. We knew about his boyfriend and those that were friends with him would discuss his relationship like anyone else's.

That being said yes to higher ups or outsiders he did play the pronoun game. He played it with us at first. "My girlfriend is the manager at Banana Republic" etc. You watch out for your brothers your sisters the person next to you. It's like being a part of this family that will forgive anything and will kick anyone's ass that picks on you cuz hey that's our job.

If you screw up we kick your butt if you do good we celebrate it, and if you need a helping hand we are there.

So while that bullshit policy may be there you have a bunch of soldiers sticking their thumbs in their ears waving fingers and blowing a raspberry at the morons who like it.

[HYHYBT]

Smiley, this isn't a direct response to your thread, its a copy-paste from the Avatar thread.

Thanks for clearing that up; not having followed the Avatar thread, I was wondering what the Catholic church had to do with it.

"Atheist church?" I've never been to one and so have to take your word for it...

As for serving honorably while lying, well... the rules say, essentially, that you have to lie about this, so it would hardly be reasonable then to turn around and say they shouldn't be in there if they lie either. I don't know whether the policy was really the necessary compromise it's always been claimed to be or not, but it has to go. *Every* argument for keeping it, or for going back to the previous policy of asking up front, is based in either fiction or in making those who still hate gay people feel more comfortable about it by being able to pretend there aren't any around them. Actually, I hope someone here will disagree and provide a counterexample, just because, if there is going to be debate over something (not just here) then there ought to be reasons on both sides. I was a bit embarrassed reading the coverage of the Prop 8 trial a few months ago for the same reason: the defense's witnesses only confirmed the plaintiffs' case.

[Hobbs]

Hmm, interesting when reading the actual law.

Sec. 574, Sec 654,
(b)
`(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that--

`(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;

`(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale;

It seems to me that there are exceptions to immediate dismissal, as present in (C) and (D). I need to find the JAG man's number and ask him some questions...

[lordlundar]

The concept behind DADT has baffled me, mainly because the military is usually more forward thinking than the rest of the US when it comes to these matters. As an example, the armed forces in the US had a pretty high multi-colored integration rate when the country was still thinking segregation was a good thing. (yes, I admit they chocked with women serving on the front lines, but it's improving)

Hell, if the guy next to you is willing to lay his life on the line for you, what difference does it make who he is? Part of being in the military is trusting the person next to you. If some minor thing like race, religion or sexual preference is blocking that trust, all you're doing is putting everyone at risk over a petty dislike.

[smileyeagle1021]

I've known a couple so yes.

That though depends on how you define honorable.
As it stands the law requires a gay man or lesbian woman to lie about their orientation. There is an argument on whether or not one can claim something is honorable if based on a lie.

Giving a background on where my point of view is coming from, my grandma grew up in the depression and learned the true value of things the hard way, and she taught me always, you can earn money again, you can purchase goods again, but you can never regain your integrity once you have given it away.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I don't believe there's any loss of integrity simply because something you do is based on a lie. For a lie to be truly negative, it needs to be malicious, selfish, or (to a small extent) pointless.

Omitting or lying about one's orientation is secondary to why and for what it's done. If it's for the purpose of serving your country/making the world a better place because it's either required or would allow you to better pursue those ends, I don't see the problem. No one's been hurt, and it isn't a selfish act (in this case) and while I firmly believe that the truth is always important, it's not always the best policy.course of action.

If that paragraph made any sense at all....

[jackfaire]

it isn't a selfish act (in this case)

The S in LDRSHIP stands for Selfless Service. This means sacrifice.

[Hobbs]

Gen. Petreaus just had an interview about DADT. I'll try to find a link.

[wolfie]

I think DADT is a bad policy because it creates a security risk - by penalizing certain people if information about their personal life becomes known, it leaves an opening for blackmail by hostile parties (e.g. foreign spies) who find that out and threaten to reveal it.

This is just my personal opinion, but a large part of the reasoning behind wanting to keep gays out of the military seems to be that it's corrosive to morale to have the possibility that someone in your platoon wants to get you into bed.

How's this for an alternative:
- Your fellow soldiers are your brothers (and sisters) in arms.
- For anyone serving aboard ship, everyone on the same ship is "off-limits".
- For any other couple, go 3 steps up the chain of command (not 3 steps of rank) from the higher-ranking person (if both are enlisted, assume the first step up is to an officer). If the lower-ranked person's chain of command reports through the same person, and that person is in uniform (i.e. not elected or appointed), then the relationship is forbidden. The "elected or appointed" exemption is because it shoudn't really be a problem if CINCPAC and the chief of Strategic Air Command are "getting it on".
- Special rule for gays: being "in the closet" is forbidden (blackmail risk). You don't have to flaunt it, so long as you're not actively trying to hide it (i.e. reverse DADT). This could be generalized to any personal issue which, while not prohibited by military policy, the soldier is trying to hide (since, for example, someone who's a fan of the Smurfs but doesn't want anyone to find out because they'd be an object of ridicule could be blackmailed for that reason).

Since the "3 steps" rule would make any affair between soldiers who would be working together closely "off-limits" (hetero or gay), it doesn't matter if someone in your unit is attracted to you because they're not permitted to act on that.

[Hobbs]

Because that'd be too restrictive to people and their personal lives.

[Green_Fairy]

personally, i think it should be a "mind your own business" policy. but honestly, aside from the cost issue, i don't think it would be that big of a deal. in The Boy's command, they "play gay" all the time (of course, they always follow it by "no homo"). one time, they were rather bored so decided to play "chicken" and see who would back out of a kiss first. neither guy backed down and they ended up kissing. much laughter followed. and then they went on their way.

as for the cost issue, they would probably want to make new barracks for the gay soldiers. for the same reasons that they separate men and woman. of course, that would cause issues of "fornication" amongst the "homo folk."

[AdminAssistant]

Green Fairy, I think that's the current DADT policy, "mind your own business." Which is obviously not working.

Why would they need separate barracks? Would the straight soldiers be afraid the "gay" was contagious? Or that a homosexual brother-in-arms might decide to fondle him in the night? I think that's a bit overboard. ....Actually, thinking on it further, separating straights from gays would be hugely discriminatory. Nope.

Anyone know how they handle this in countries that allow open LGBTs to serve?