I’ve got an anecdote to share about this. A friend of mine knew a gay man while he was in the army. The gay man decided he wanted out of the military, so he told his commanding officer (or whoever) that he was gay. The c.o. thought he was just bullshitting to get out of the army; turns out, the man had once made a video with his boyfriend, and he decided to show it to the c.o. The c.o. watched the tape and, without saying a word, started filling out the dismissal papers.
IIRC the “official” reason is something about unit cohesion.
Unofficially, of course, is another beast entirely. There are still way too many male-type people who believe that being gay makes you perpetually horny, indiscriminate when it comes to fucking men, trees or the hole in your gas tank, and unrepentent regarding any of it.
The issue of gays in the military isn’t that simple.
The military still has a lot of people who believe that homosexuality is a) a sin (a la His4Ever); b) that it is a choice; and c) that gays are predators out to get and “convert” straights. You know it’s bullshit, and I know it’s bullshit. Unfortunately, your average 18-year-old recruit from the sticks doesn’t think it’s bullshit. Forced integration would invite violence against gays and people perceived to be gay.
When I was in Navy Basic Training [oldgeezer]back in Nineteen and Ninety-One[/oldgeezer], we had a class on sexual harassment. The instructor, a man, came right out and responded to the question of why the Navy didn’t allow gays by saying, “Well, guys, how would you feel if another man put his hand on your penis? That’s why we don’t allow gays in the Navy.” The instructor was playing on the attitudes of the naive to justify this policy.
When “don’t ask, don’t tell” became policy a few years later, a handful of people I went into the Navy with were essentially hounded out when it was “anonymously” reported that they were gay. They weren’t, but because of the perception that they were, they were kicked out of the Navy. (Don’t forget, too, that the military was looking for any available excuse to discharge people because of the Reduction in Force that was in effect.)
All of that said, I think that the military is being incredibly stupid not to allow homosexuals into the service. Most enlightened (i.e. intelligent) people know that the stereotypes are false and hurtful. And the service can make tremendous strides in ensuring equality for gays. I’m just not sure that forced integration is the way to do it.
Robin
They certainly will not change anytime soon if people keep dismissing criticism of it as “old news” and doing nothing. The job of the military is to protect the country, and if one sees them doing something as insanely stupid and counter-productive as this, then it needs to be constantly pointed out. Their job is too important for them to have the luxury of bigotry.
[sigh] This subject it so tired.
Everything everyone already said are the real points as to why not, but also, they have admitted it’s stupid.
In effect, it’s the same as booting me out for being a redhead. After all; everyone knows redheads are fiesty, tempermental and quick to anger - certainly not traits a command would want in its soldiers if they are facing combat or other stressful situations.
What a shame that segregationists didn’t think of that argument back in 1948, when President Truman ordered the racial integration of the armed forces. How convenient to deflect the blame for institutional bigotry onto a nebulous and apparently all-powerful silent majority of 18-year-olds.
MsRobyn and AirmanDoors, you know I’m very fond of both of you, which makes it all the more disappointing that you’re defending the indefensible.
So much for the war on terrorism, huh? The commander in chief SHOULD be kicking some ass for a stupid move like that, but NOOOOOOOOOOOO… he’s as ignorant as the rest of 'em.
Well, too fucking bad for Pvt. Cletus.
Look, we had this issue in the Canadian army when it was determined the Forces couldn’t discriminate against gays. The message from the brass was, “This is the new rule. If you don’t like it we’ll be happy to accept your resignation.” If soldiers can’t follow ORDERS, they’re useless and should be heaved out on their asses. IF you want to change the attitude of soldiers, the first place to start is to give them a proper, legal order.
I am quite positive than in 1950, many American soldiers thought blacks were second-rate human beings and shouldn’t share the same barracks, washrooms, and mess halls as white soldiers. Should the U.S. Army have therefore continued segregation to protect the poor wittle babies?
It is not an acceptable solution to this problem to punish gays. They’re adults. They know what they may face. Let them make up their own minds.
“Forced integration”? I don’t think anyone is suggesting every unit have a Homo Quota. There’s no “forced integration” being suggested here. I think the folks in this thread are simply suggesting that the rule against gays being removed - both the general prohibition and Clinton’s odious “don’t ask don’t tell” rule - be removed. That’s not “forcing” anything.
With all due respect to the fine men and women in the Armed Foces, it is their job to follow their goddamned orders, and if thay aren’t capable of sucking up the order to accept gays into the military, the only honorable thing to do is resign. The vast, vast majority of soldiers I served with accepted the change in rules. The rest you can do without.
**
**
Having a hard time seeing where MsRobyn and Airman Doorsare defending the policy. Explaining it from a military perspective having lived with it, perhaps, but not defending it. In fact it looks quite the opposite.
They did the same as I: Shrugged.
We all agree it’s stupid, but we are not policy makers. If we were, the enlightened views of the Doper crowd would shine through and we’d all be happy and … pleased … with the US military not giving a fig if some soldiers (sailors, airmen, etc.) are homosexuals.
. . . I thought you were zany and wacky and always getting into harebrained scrapes!
::WHOOSH::
That wasn’t what I was saying at all.
It’s true that bias against gays is institutional, and enforced by policy. However, the ban only dates from the early '80s and was implemented solely for the benefit of the religious right. And with Bush in the White House, it’s gonna get worse before it gets better.
I, for one, think it’s absolutely shameful that a significant talent pool isn’t being utilized merely because the members of that talent pool are gay. If it were up to me (and a not-insignificant number of actual servicemembers), I wouldn’t discriminate at all on any basis, except maybe physical and mental disability (but that’s a different kettle of fish). The problem is that the policy has to be changed by the president acting as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and with the political climate so firmly against gay civil rights, I don’t see it happening too soon.
Sorry.
Robin
Are you saying that homosexuals were not banned from the military prior to 1980?
No it doesn’t. I mean, Chevy Chase dodged the draft during Vietnam by saying he was gay, didn’t he? The ban dates from the 1700s/1800s, and started being seriously enforced after WWII.
Like you MsRobyn, I was also in the Navy. From 1990 to 1996 to be exact. I am not homophobic in the least, I have several friends that are gay, including one that we lost to AIDS several years ago. That being said, I cannot say that I am comfortable with gays in the military. Not because I think they cannot do the job, or that it would be a detriment to moral, rather because of the close living quarters that are sometimes a part of military service. While I don’t imagine that any gay man is going to see me in the shower and then come over for a grope, the fact of the matter is that I’m unclothed in the company of a person that is sexually interested in my gender. It’s the same reason that in our ‘enlightened’ society, we don’t all shower in the same room, and have separate rest room facilities. When we as a society can be able to look past nudity = sexuality, then I believe that integration of gays won’t be as much of an obsticle. Not saying it’s right, or fair, but I know that was my own personal objection to it when I was in the Navy.
However, on the OP, I cannot see how this was warrented. But then I don’t know thier duty stations, or living arrangments, or what they were doing at the time they were discharged. Just because someone has a certain specialy, doesn’t mean that their current post needs that specialty. The military is great on putting people that are really good at something, in a position that has nothing to do with their training.
Actually, on reading the story, I don’t see how this is that big a deal…over 500 people signed up for the training. They cut 9…shrug. Not that big a deal. These people weren’t fluent in the language already, they were in school to learn it. Which means they have an talent for langueges, not that they already knew them…big difference.
First, thanks to Revtim for posting the apposite argument to Airman Doors’s “Well, that’s the way it is.” I think – I hope – nobody’s seeing Doors and Robyn as defending the attitude of the military; I see it as more in the sense that Minty Green might report a given outrageous SCOTUS decision as “Well, that’s the law of the land, as pronounced by those with the job of determining it. I’m not saying you have to like it, but you need to live with it until it’s changed.”
Which brings me to… “Some people see things as they are, and say ‘Why?’ …”
As for Gobear’s comment, yes, the segregationists did protest long and hard about Truman’s integration of the services. And the President at the time did what he’s famous for doing…
Now, the question at hand, everyone having given appropriate expressions of dismay at the services’ ostrich-headed moves, is, “What the heck can we all do about this?” One obvious solution is to write your congresscritters. A note to the President or Secy. Rumsfeld expressing outrage at the action – stressing the loss to national security capacities as well as the lack of any danger to the armed forces from retaining the gay translators – might not be amiss.
Nobody here is asking the obvious question: How will this affect the United States’ relationship with the worldwide gay Arab community?
I for one feel comforted and much safer knowing these deviants are dismissed.
I mean, what if some important bit of intelligence had to be interpreted, and these guys were under their desks sucking some poor private’s dick instead of tending to the store?
America, your military remains ever vigilant, rousting out the homos so you can sleep easy. Give thanks that only good ol’ reliable heterosexuals are guarding our freedoms!
[If you are sarcasm impaired, I’d rather not hear from you. Thanks]
Well yes we are, in a smallish, voting public, paying their salaries kinda way.
Yeah. Just like in high school gym.
To all straight guys out there: We’ve seen it. You haven’t got anything that we haven’t got.
The idea that there’s somehow something different and unacceptable about a gay guy seeing your willy is ludicrous. Do you think that the straight guys in the shower haven’t glanced at your equipment? I mean, even if you’re straight, you compare equipment.
So, having a gay guy in the shower with you creeps you out? Because you’re afraid of what the homosexual might be thinking?
That, my friend, is most decidedly your problem.
Unless a gay person makes unacceptable advances towards an unwilling party, they have done nothing wrong. Except in your head.