Nitpick - yes it does. And I agree that if you can have openly gay soldiers serving in the Australian army then I’m pretty certain you can manage it in the American one.
Addressing the OP directly (hi Bear!) I’m a bit in two minds on this issue. I agree that looking at this logically there really is no rationale behind preventing gay men from serving in any role that a straight man can, other than the simple fact that the straight man might feel a bit uncomfortable about this (to which I say “suck it up, you’re in the army you big fucking cry baby”). Allowing them to serve but in non-com roles is a complete no brainer from where I stand, in fact it’s actually worse because it then actively stops all the gay soldiers in combat from serving and relegates them to a non-com roles they may not want, and again for what purpose? If it’s purely to keep them away from the jarheads who fear for their anal virginity who might get pissy then the military clearly doesn’t feel it has much control over its own troops and its ability to enforce policy changes.
That said, I’m a pragmatist, and I recognise that sometimes you have to take a half step forward when you can’t take a full one. For example I’m glad we got civil partnerships in the UK rather than holding out for SSM, because it makes the objective of getting the latter much more realistic now. Sure it’s not perfect, but life isn’t.
On this issue though, I’m inclined to go for repeal DADT entirely and have gays in combat roles, simply because I can’t see any reason not to (and the reasons people are saying it would be difficult are just not good enough to me). Complete equality (i.e. women in combat roles) is a whole other issue and I think should probably be discussed in a different thread.
That’s a different question, and frankly it cuts both ways. While the demands of the military are plenty hard on families, they are similarly hard on single military members - who do not have that family structure to lean on, are denied pay parity with their married counterparts, and are discriminated against routinely when it comes to benefits like base housing.
I do not think this needs to be addressed as part of this reform - but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t an overdue reform of its own.
No, that pretty much sums up the fear as far as I can tell. Nobody has stressed concern for the safety of the gay soldiers (unless they just used it as a way to promote their anit-gay agenda in the first place, in which case it isn’t a legitimate or sincere concern anyway). It’s always about the coodies and ass raping the gays will introduce into the ranks.
But it may be the military itself who is pissy. Sure if the military agrees to do the right thing and allow gays to serve openly in any job they qualify for, then the soldiers will obey and follow along. But right now it’s the very military itslef and the highest Generals and many Congressmen who are pissy. They need convincing first. And if they are anything like the people I’ve talked to, they don’t want to budge at all. Yet for some reason, so many people will settle at “Well as long as they’re not allowed in the infantry, it’s okay. . .”
What if the leaders and powers that be would only compromise that far? Hopefully we’ll never have to ask ourselves outside of the hypothetical.
Interesting. What this means is that gay soldiers are bigger, stronger and have more testosterone than their straight buddies . . . and even though the gays are a small minority, let’s say two percent, each of them is strong enough to successfully overpower 49 of his comrades. :rolleyes:
Well, I’m sorry for all the big strong dudes who are so frightened about the marauding gay ass-rapers, but there are already gay men serving. Most of them just aren’t out. What makes anyone think that being out would mean these men would suddenly become makeup wearing flamers out to screw any ass they can catch?
I don’t give a rat’s nipple for how uncomfortable these guys would be. They’re soldiers. They should have the discipline to handle whatever gets thrown at them, even if it’s the knowledge that the guy next to you likes to take it up the bum.
Women in the military *always *have the possibility of sexual assault hanging over them. Maybe the straight guys would benefit from feeling a little of that fear, too. *
BOOGA BOOGA! Big Gay Al is after your ass virginity!
*No, I do not think gay servicemen are likely to go around raping their non-gay compatriots.
I was in the Army during the 80’s and I don’t care if the person is gay or straight, man or woman. If you want to serve and meet the physical, mental and psychological requirements then go ahead. If you meet the requirements of a combat unit, more power to you. If you’re tough enough to hang with the special forces units, I won’t stand in your way (mostly because you would kick my ass). Hey, who can forget Demi Moore as GI Jane?
My concern comes when standards are lowered for one group. Women in general had to do fewer pushups and situps and could take longer on the 2 mile PT run. They also didn’t have to carry the same heavy backpacks but were given lighter loads. Fortunately, my unit commander (mechanized infantry) didn’t hold with that. We had a couple women assigned to our unit in our HHQ. He made them do everything that the guys did. He said that he would not put his unit at risk because they had to slow down for someone who couldn’t cut it. And the women stood up to the challenge, carrying the same packs (one even carried a mortar base!), matching us on the runs and never falling out. Sure, the women were constantly being hit on, but no one ever got out of line. One asshole got a little pushy on a date, word got back to the unit and the next day he was sporting a shiner and a fat lip. They were our sisters. We gave them crap, didn’t cut them any slack and watched out for them. Just like we always had the backs of everyone else in the unit.
I knew a couple gay guys and a few lesbians in the service. One friend just seemed different from the other guys and finally I asked him. He started getting pissed and flustered but I told him that I didn’t give a shit, my uncle was gay and I was OK with it. He immediately relaxed and admitted it. He told me, “Don’t worry about me coming after you in the shower or something. You’re not my type.” I was relieved and disappointed. Wasn’t I cute enough? Seriously, I told him I was OK and we stayed good friends.
I mean no offense, but it seems just as prejudiced to declare that military people are all decent people as it is to declare they all “hate fags” or rape women all the time. And considering the points made along those lines are considerably more measured than yours there - i’d tend to say it’s you who’re the strange one.
I’m not sure comparing the military to the civilian community at large is fair here - as has been pointed out military servicemembers tend to be younger than the population at large.
Just as a rough comparison I looked at college rape statistics - lo and behold, they are described as a similar epidemic:
You’re right, but that’s because his statement was considerably more sweeping than just soldiers; he talked about the military at large in general. He identifies the group he’s talking about as “the military” in the first two sentences of the part I quoted. He makes it clear that he is portraying an alternative view on that same group of people, and his statement does not become either more measured or identifies a particular subset within the military that he is talking about - simply, “No, we don’t “hate fags””, “No, we don’t rape women all the time”, and “We’re actually decent people” are all absolute statements about the military in general (with “we” being the term used since i’m under the impression Chessic is in the military himself). He made three absolute statements.
Hardly. Saying a group of people are “decent” doesn’t seem absolute to me - unless we’re calling them absolutely decent. And saying “we don’t rape women all the time” implies that this happens sometimes.
It does when the very subject of the matter is the entirety of the group. **Chessic **is concerned with what he considers the absolute statements of others - that he does say “we don’t rape women all the time” does indicate that he feels the argument of others is not “sometimes women are raped”, otherwise he would feel no need to draw a distinction; he’d be in agreement. So the arguments he is disagreeing with are, to him, absolutes. And his statements are in direct opposition to that - he doesn’t indicate that he is talking about a different group, or a subset. Rather, the group that others are talking about, he is also talking about. “We (the absolute you refer to) are not this; rather, we (that same absolute) are this”.
IOW, he doesn’t specify a subset, and moreover it is reasonable to say that he is talking about the group complained about, which is an absolute in his eyes. I think it’s certainly fair to say that his statements were likewise absolutes.
And as a technicality, I would argue that “we don’t rape women all the time” doesn’t necessarily imply that it happens some of the time, though i’d agree it’s likely accurate in Chessic’s sense (the absolute still exists, though). The extra information which would be unnecessary might simply be a response to a claim of another who he has seen; a near-quote.
The anti-gay policy itself perpetuates the false ideas about gay soldiers. The compromise you propose would also reinforce these false ideas. If we have a policy that prevents gay soldiers from serving, it is only natural that those in the military justify the policy by thinking that gays would be disruptive, dangerous, whatever. Keep the policy and you are saying, “Yeah, we agree with you. You are right. We’re not letting gays serve combat roles because everything you thought about gays is true.”
I don’t know that you can get that from the statistics that I posted - if you have others that support your claim please post them.
It is of course true that sexual harassment, misconduct and even rape are to be found in the gay community as well as among heterosexuals. When I was active duty I witnessed examples of sexual harassment and rape that involved gay sailors.
Whether these incidents involve gay or straight servicemembers - they are violations of both the UCMJ and general military discipline, and should be addressed as such. I don’t think many here would argue that point.
Seriously, I told him I was OK and we stayed good friends.
