And lifting DADT won’t change this one little bit. So it’s a non-argument, for either opposition or support.
Here are the basic facts*:
Gays and lesbians have always been in the military.
They always will be present, no matter what the official rules are.
As a whole, gays and lesbians are no better, and no worse, than their straight counterparts.
Now, whatcha gonna do? The US fighting man (and, where Congress will permit, woman) has done a pretty damn good job by our country. so, you going waste time and effort sniffing sheets (which is expensive, in terms of actual investigatory cost, in unit morale, and in loss of trained, qualified soldiers), or you gonna man up and let 'em be? Well, finally we’ve manned up. Rather late in the game, but better late than never.
Bryan Fischer doesn’t understand that this is their country too, and they love it as much as I do - And should be allowed the privilege of putting their lives on the line in its defense. But then, what is Mssr. Fischer’s military experience…? Oh, wait - He has NONE. Guess he must not be man enough.
15 years military experience talking here. I’ve served with gays and lesbians - Self-confessed.* Some were damn good - truly outstanding. Some were horrible excuses for human beings or sailors, but the vast majority were right-down-the-middle-average.
**Yes, techincally I should have turned them in. Tough shit - I can’t see losing a good sailor for something that minor, and the ones that were real shitheads, well, there, there are more important, more justifiable reasons and ways of booting out of the service.
Who was it that postulated that the battle over gay rights was really between gay people and self-hating gay people? The more of this stuff I see, the more I’m convinced they were right.
In the meantime, I’m just laughing at that Freeper mod’s unintentional hilarity. “The gay agenda is anti-freedom of speech. Therefore, anyone discussing it will be banned.”
Well, duh! What kinda people do ya think are going to be most attracted to a career where you have to spend such long periods of time cut off from opposite-sex company?!
I know you’re trying to be funny - Sorry, it didn’t work. I don’t do ‘funny’ all that well anyway. But I’ll give you an answer - The vast majority are like me: Hetero. A minority, though likely a somewhat larger minority than you’d find in the population at large, are homosexual. The military is a meritocracy, and that always appeals to motivated minorities.
@vd:
Naaah. Oh there might be a slight dip, for a little while, but nothing that recruiters couldn’t keep up with.
Interesting (and very plausible) theory, but I suspect that this attraction has been offset by DADT and the boys’ club attitude endemic to any male-dominated entity.
To be fair, some of the same people opposing the idea of gay and straight male soldiers serving together probably also oppose male and female soldiers serving together. Mistreatment of women in the military seems to actually strengthen their case.
Not hardly a theory - I lived that life, and it’s observed reality.
You may’ve read my eulogy for Chief Electricians Mate Liz Swindler, some years back? Lesbian, and a very good friend. She originally attracted to the service by the opportunity to gain respect and responsibility based on her own merits. Not even remotely the only lesbian, though - In fact, the percentages of lesbians were much more out-ofline with the population at large than was so with gays. But straight women were hardly sitting around twidling their thumbs, either - they were busting their asses, and making names for themselves. The real problem had nothing to do with DADT in those days - It was the Combat Exclusion Law - If Congress won’t allow you to go into ‘combat’*, your career opportunities are by definition limited. That was a real downer when trying to recruit women. Sexual orientation was one very small aspect of the recruiting picture. Remember - I was a recruiter, too.
No, DADT was mostly just a giant nuisance, an incredible waste of resource, and a shameful compromise that only covered politicians’ asses. Clinton should NEVER have accepted that cowardly cop-out.
*Recognizing that a lot of the ‘non-combat’ roles can very easily find themselves with a rife in-hand, facing an armed and determined foe. And that law (and supporting regulations) has been relaxed a LOT over the years.
How do you know, since they’ve only been allowed to tell since two days ago?
I’m not yanking your chain, that’s a serious question. I used to be a gym teacher, and that’s a profession with a stereotype for lesbians. But the fact is, you don’t know until you get to know your colleagues rather well. And there were quite a few times I saw people who were assumed to be gay turn out not to be.
I wonder if in the military there will be mild surprise both at who is gay, and who isn’t.
which is a statement you can’t apply to *every *gay man, and is no different than saying, “Well straight men are looking for love and understanding like anybody else. The idea that they are looking for crude coupling with any woman they see, who is in good shape, is absurd.”
As **Argent **said, some are, some aren’t, and that shouldn’t mean anything regarding DADT.
Since you ask straight out, I’ll give you a straight answer (sorry 'bout the horrible pun. ).
I asked.
Deceptively simple, eh? Mind you, this was even before DADT. Your remark about “only after getting to know your colleagues” is quite correct - But in the military, you do get to know your fellows quite well. You sleep in the same box with them (or trench, barracks, what-have-you), you bathe with them, you eat with them. You go out and drink with them, and get into fights with (and beside) them. You count on them to get you back to base/ship/camp after a night’s carrousing, and they count on you. You depend on each other not only to do the day-to-day jobs, but to protect and fight for you. If you don’t trust that the man or woman beside you will give their all for you, and you’re not prepared to do the same (even if you personally hate their guts), then one of you is in the wrong place.*
So, when you know live in each other’s pockets, you learn things about others. And when you learn to trust, and are proven trustworthy, confidences are given. In my case, I sat on the couch at Liz’s place, and she quizzed me on the current crop of lesbians aboard the ship - I went eleven for twelve. The one I didn’t get outright? Liz herself. She literally put her career in my hands. I flatter myself to think I was worthy of that trust. She’s passed away now, and so I use her name in a manner that I think she would appreciate and approve.
As for gays? A bit harder to pick out - But I know factually of one bisexual male, leaning strongly towards ‘gay’ - He was a shithead. We got rid of him - A real punk, and a loose cannon, besides. Busted and BCD’d for Articles 86, 87, 91, 92, 107, 117, annnnnd 134. We threw the book at the dirtbag, and not a single charge having anything to do with who he was taking to bed. I was also once propositioned by an O-6 (Captain). He was very coy about it, but at the same time quite unmistakable.
Certainly, there are some out there that are incorectly-placed in people’s minds. It’s the nature of being human - People will assume, and will often enough be wrong. shrug
My guess? When the coming out (and don’t expect too huge a tidal wave of it, either - some are just more comfortable being closeted) is done, most folks will be largely unsurprised. Except perhaps that some homosexuals will be startled by how many people already knew.
*This, BTW, is the root of “Unit Cohesion” commentary. To a degree, that commentary is correct, but only to a degree - If a person is trustworthy, they’ll be trusted. If they’re not, then they won’t be - Homosexuality is generally only an excuse to get rid of someone who doesn’t fit. Soldiers, Marines, and Sailors know who they can trust with their lives, and who they can’t. I suspect that this is less of an issue in the Air Force, but I could be seriously mistaken.
