Yahoo.com : Mullen wishes Congress had waited on gay ban vote

[Redskins Diehard]

Are you honestly suggesting or trying to state that there aren't homosexuals serving in the military or that there aren't homosexuals who are known to be gay by their fellows serving honorably in the military today? That's preposterous!

I think you underestimate the intelligence of our soldiers, sailors, and marines if you think that they can't figure out that they are indeed serving with gays and who they are.

I think you are speaking about a culture and an institution that you have little experience with. That is fine...but you speak very authoritatively, and that is a concerning. Yes, there are plenty of gay service members serving in silence. If it is all common knowledge then this would not even be an issue. I disagree with ZoEd on his position that it can't or isn't worth doing. But I agree 100% that it will be a challenge in some places/units. To think that every homosexual serving in the military is known by his fellows is preposterous.

[Fergasun]

I just don't like the idea that "gay people can't control their sexual drive", which seems to be one of the main thrust against allowing them to serve. Let's play "hypothetical strawman" or something like it. Let's say there is a heterosexual whose desires are to dominate and rape women. He's allowed to serve in the military, even though he may be dangerous. He hasn't actually done anything wrong. Yet homosexuals, simply because of their desire to have sex with members of the opposite sex are treated differently, even if they've never done so. The argument that they can't control their sex drive reminds me of some of the things people thought about African American's a long time ago.

[Burgold]

I think you are speaking about a culture and an institution that you have little experience with. That is fine...but you speak very authoritatively, and that is a concerning. Yes, there are plenty of gay service members serving in silence. If it is all common knowledge then this would not even be an issue. I disagree with ZoEd on his position that it can't or isn't worth doing. But I agree 100% that it will be a challenge in some places/units. To think that every homosexual serving in the military is known by his fellows is preposterous.

Oh, I'm absolutely sure that there were will be challenges and in some instances a ton of friction. I also believe that our troops know that amongst their ranks today they are serving side by side with homosexuals. I suspect that some of them have an inkling of which guy in their unit might be gay and in other cases, might even outright know.

I believe in our military's ability to rise up to any challenge. Even the psychological ones. I also believe that for some it will be very difficult and for others impossible. There were quite a few teachers who left the profession after the schools were desegregated. Some couldn't handle the idea. Some were probably excellent teachers too and their absense caused hardships. Still, today, we are far better off.

And you, as others have stated in this thread have stated, are correct. I don't know, I'm only speculating. And I wasn't trying to speak with authority, but rather with simple hope and conviction.

[Fergasun]

I think you are speaking about a culture and an institution that you have little experience with. That is fine...but you speak very authoritatively, and that is a concerning. Yes, there are plenty of gay service members serving in silence. If it is all common knowledge then this would not even be an issue. I disagree with ZoEd on his position that it can't or isn't worth doing. But I agree 100% that it will be a challenge in some places/units. To think that every homosexual serving in the military is known by his fellows is preposterous.

With all due respect, the military is under civilian control. Are you assuming all homosexuals will come out immediately if allowed to? Maybe some (many?) would continue under a DADT policy for their own self-preservation. I think the hardest part about a DADT repeal is that you're dealing with 18-19 year old kids who still may hold many homophobic biases. Yes, its the soft bigotry of low expectations. Yes, it also shows that homosexuality is still viewed as abnormal behavior.

[10fttall]

Ok, we get it. Lots of people love the idea of playing around with the military and grandstanding their pet issues. Oh, sure they don't think it will be easy. Sure, it will cause lots of problems, but they support our soldiers, by gosh. They believe they can overcome ANY challenge. (Gee, doesn't that sound grand?) So no problem adding some more challenges. Yeah, let's give them more challenges because it is POSSIBLE for them to handle it. Because our military will be fine, right? Or at least it won't cease to exist, right? There, there you go; the military definitely won't cease to exist, so therefore this is a grand idea! Is that how it goes?

And thank all of you who are using strawmen of blacks or Jews. If you are actually postulating that these groups have any relation to the issue of gays and sexual orientation; then thank you for being forthright about your ignorance. Otherwise, I appreciate you trying to support your argument by bringing up race and religion to make your case sound more reasonable by proxy.

[Burgold]

...or perhaps after getting through these problems the military will become stronger and even more unified?

Often the worst part of a transition is the anticipation. The actual change... Hey, these people are just people! And heck, I've been working with these people before anyway, now the only difference is that I know which ones are which... if they choose to say.

[killerbee99]

It just pisses me off that people compare the fight for the rights of a race of people to the rights of homosexuals......disgusting they dont compare. The rights of blacks and women to serve should not be compared to the rights of homsexuals to serve OPENELY in the Army. Keep your homsexuality to your self, its immoral and disgusting and yes I am black and do vote Democrat majority of the time, but I do believe in the Teaching of God and this being Gods country.

I am also a Staff Sergeant in the US Army, and I can tell you this, many soldiers might know some gay soldiers but they mostly tolerate them bcos they keep their sexual orientation to themelves, I tolerate it toO just because some of these soldiers are good soldiers. But I tell you this, if they start allowing gays to serve openely, I will quickly serve my time and get out. It would be just another step towards the breakdown of our society. Yes, I am a soldier, black, and a democrat, and I find homosexuals very offensive for their lifestyle choice.

[killerbee99]

However, if they do repeal DADT, I will off course, have to look out for the well being of all my soldiers, even though it will be against my personal beliefs. Just trying to imagine a flaming homosexual being an Army soldeir or Marine....further wussification of our forces in my opinion.

[Fergasun]

It's the implication that homosexuals can't control themselves that is troublesome. What if folks started to say, "We don't want Christians openly serving in the military because they are going to proselytize the hell out of everyone else." That would be troublesome, yet I seem to remember more scandal involving that then homosexuality. Furthermore, I don't know what the difference will end up between DADT and openly gay service-members. Will open service be more symbolic, as give the strong feelings against it, it still may take a lot of courage to be open. There's probably still a lot of unopenly gay people around no matter what job they take.

I think the military has a bigger problem with pervasive sexual harassment of females (well documented, I saw a recent survey that said 30% of women admitted to behind sexually harassed).

killerbee,

Do you find equally offensive the lifestyle choices of those heterosexuals who live a promiscuous lifestyle as well? Yet you admit that gay soldiers can also make good soldiers. Is the military willing to sacrifice a smaller pool of which to choose "good soldiers"? Look at the way people though of blacks up until maybe the early 20th century. You can read a lot of books from that time that say things like "the negro and the white man are different, the negro lacks self-control". It reminds me of how people think homosexuals similarly lack self-control and inhibition.

[killerbee99]

True, that's why I am torn, between my beliefs in the Bible and trying to be accepting of homosexuals and believing that all people have rights, and fighting for those rights as a Democrat. If it happens to be repealed so be it, I will just do the same thing I always do, keep away from homosexuals and work with them only when I have too. Also yes, I I find heterosexuals who live a promiscous lifestyle offensive too. But not to the dergree of homosexuals, just isn't right for a guy to be having sex with another guy, God did not make us that way. Still don't even know how the living arrangements will work, it will be so uncomfortable for everyone involved, oh well, carry on.

[ZoEd]

No one is saying that gay's can't control their sexual desires fergasun. Of course they can, so can hetero's. So what you're telling me is society has seen it fitting to segregate based on gender, but why? Why this segregation? Because of the attraction of the opposite sex? If so, then doesn't that same attraction exist between homosexuals towards hetero's of the same gender? So if this attraction exists then why should a hetero be forced into the same uncomfortable situation a woman would be forced into if she were made to live, shower and dress with a man? Why? Because it doesn't support your arguement, that's why.

You think a happily married family man couldn't shower with women and control his sexual urges? I think it's "troublesome" to think they a hetero male couldn't control their animalistic desires.

[Redskins Diehard]

With all due respect, the military is under civilian control. Are you assuming all homosexuals will come out immediately if allowed to? Maybe some (many?) would continue under a DADT policy for their own self-preservation. I think the hardest part about a DADT repeal is that you're dealing with 18-19 year old kids who still may hold many homophobic biases. Yes, its the soft bigotry of low expectations. Yes, it also shows that homosexuality is still viewed as abnormal behavior.

What does the military being under civilian control have to do with this?

Yes, some homosexuals would continue to keep their orientation to themselves. Except it will be their choice. And my advice to anyone that planned on serving in infantry units(the kind I am familiar with) would be to be discrete about their orientation.

But if I were still in charge those 18-19 year old under my command would understand that under no circumstances are they allowed to act out on their homophobic biases. If they choose to ignore that direction then they can find another place to work.

[ZoEd]

Not sure what you are advocating here? Are you saying that people should not have to live with other people in the military? I'm advocating that in the military we don't have a choice where and whom we live with. As you well know in the AOR, entry level servicemen and women, in Korea, during exercises, you're assigned living quarters. You don't get to choose you're piss mate, roomate, bunk mate or any other mate. You go where you're told. Right now it's separated by rank and gender, now lets add sexual preference as well. If not, you run into the situation that's been pointed out over and over again, lets make the military co-ed, because it's the same thing. Where in the civilian world are people forced to live with someone else?

What happened to the NCO? In the Army we had standards for dress and appearance. NCO's were expected to enforce those standards. If they were enforcing those standards then they were doing their job. If they were enforcing some undefined standard then they were wrong. Sure one of your NCOs may be accused...my thought is that you and your commander will figure out if he/she was justified in the correction. I certainly do not think that major decisions as to "how gay is too gay" will be left to the company level to figure out. Nothing happened to the NCO, however, again as you may well know, in the military preception is reality and the NCO was labled because of the incident. I've personally witnessed many incidents where a white person asked a black person to turn off the Rap music because every other word was N this and biatch that. "What's wrong redneck doesn't like black people". It causes unnecessary tension. The military has come a long way yes, but it's not an easy road. As far as professionalism, it's not really spelled out in the UCMJ and is often left up to interpretation. What one CO sees as unprofessional another may find acceptable. However, repealling DADT will have some severe growing pains and in typical military fashion a lot of leadership will be gun shy to make a stand against a flambouyant individual because it may be preceived as bigotry. Again, unnecessary stress upon an already stressed out force.

No doubt Congress is "grandstanding". No doubt in my mind that this passed because of purely selfish political reasons on the part of Congressional Democrats. But I think that it may actually be better to do this during a time of "war" Why? Because the force is focused on something pretty important....like fighting and surviving and winning. As a communcations officer in the warzone I was worried about one thing...making commo work in a very challenging environment. When I would send new commo guys to line companies, or platoons, or wherever the questions I would get from commanders and first sergeants were always "can he do the job?" "can he function under stress?" "is he fit enough?" You know it's not that simple if a person is allowed to serve openly. All these things that you stated will be overshadowed by the stigma that comes with being openly gay. I know this isn't right and people should be able to be who they are but here in the real world it isn't that easy and you know it.

I guess if all your troops can not coexist with the gay guy then he gets his own room. They will probably get over it pretty quick.No, they won't get over it pretty quick. Where are these rooms going to come from? Seriously, I'm at a training base and we're begging for beds on a daily basis and at times are even triple bunking just to accomodate the influx of people. So where do you suppose these extra beds come from?

BTW, I have no numbers or proof about this but I honestly belive that although society has accepted homosexuality most are simply tolerant of it. Anytime I've been involved in a conversation about homosexuals in the military I always here the same statement "I don't agree with it but they can do whatever they want in their own bedroom." This isn't acceptance, that's tolerance. I think the vast majority of society accept the fact people are born with a different color of skin, they don't tolerate it. So when arguing that it's the same thing as race is just asinine. Besides, last time I checked a person doesn't have a choice what color skin they have. I know, homosexuals don't have a choice they're hard wired that way. If that's the case every person on the face of this earth who has a sexual perversion is hardwired that way and can't help it.

[killerbee99]

BTW, I have no numbers or proof about this but I honestly belive that although society has accepted homosexuality most are simply tolerant of it. Anytime I've been involved in a conversation about homosexuals in the military I always here the same statement "I don't agree with it but they can do whatever they want in their own bedroom." This isn't acceptance, that's tolerance. I think the vast majority of society accept the fact people are born with a different color of skin, they don't tolerate it. So when arguing that it's the same thing as race is just asinine. Besides, last time I checked a person doesn't have a choice what color skin they have. I know, homosexuals don't have a choice they're hard wired that way. If that's the case every person on the face of this earth who has a sexual perversion is hardwired that way and can't help it.

That's the way I deal with it too, I don't really know any gay soldiers personally but as long as they keep to themselves, I am ok with them. But you know how the military is when people BS about how they met this or that chick, can't imagine a gay guy boasting to his fellow soldiers how he tagged some dude in the club. Disgusting, but anyways, I am thinking they would probably limit the branches that they can serve in, openly anyways. Like females can't work in direct combat arms unit (Infantry, Special Forces), they may have to do with homosexuals.

My question is this, why NOW? , will gay soldiers be required to identify themselves, or everything be the same without DADT, will someone who openly likes to have sex with men be allowed to serve in direct combat units where the other guys don't know if that gay soldier is hitting on them or not, checking them out in showers, etc. not to talk about just the effect it will have on a squad talk less of a unit.

I will support the rights of homosexuals to indulge themselves, just will not have them push for a man and a man to be called "marriage", and serve openly with fanfare in the Army, Marines or any branch of the Armed Forces. That's where I know most soldiers and a lot of people draw the line. I am sorry but being a Homosexual to me is not normal and a choice that someone made to want to sleep with another guy, or female with another female. Just my opinion of course.

[ZoEd]

That's the way I deal with it too, I don't really know any gay soldiers personally but as long as they keep to themselves, I am ok with them. But you know how the military is when people BS about how they met this or that chick, can't imagine a gay guy boasting to his fellow soldiers how he tagged some dude in the club. Disgusting, but anyways, I am thinking they would probably limit the branches that they can serve in, openly anyways. Like females can't work in direct combat arms unit (Infantry, Special Forces), they may have to do with homosexuals.

My question is this, why NOW? , will gay soldiers be required to identify themselves, or everything be the same without DADT, will someone who openly likes to have sex with men be allowed to serve in direct combat units where the other guys don't know if that gay soldier is hitting on them or not, checking them out in showers, etc. not to talk about just the effect it will have on a squad talk less of a unit.

I will support the rights of homosexuals to indulge themselves, just will not have them push for a man and a man to be called "marriage", and serve openly with fanfare in the Army, Marines or any branch of the Armed Forces. That's where I know most soldiers and a lot of people draw the line. I am sorry but being a Homosexual to me is not normal and a choice that someone made to want to sleep with another guy, or female with another female. Just my opinion of course.

Do fat people have rights? Skinny people? People with bad credit? People with misdemeanors? People with GED's? Single parents? Just wondering, because right now they're not allowed in the Air Force, shouldn't they be given a chance to serve their country? Isn't this discrimination?

Don't genetics have a role in making you fat or skinny, isn't it hard wired. Step away from the food fatty, eat another cheeseburger twig.

How dare you not pay a credit card bill, don't you have a choice what economic bracket you fall in to?

Public drunk when you were 18, how dare you get a misdemeanor! No way can you serve.

I could go on and on, if these things can prevent you from serving, why can't chosing to participate in homosexual conduct while on active duty? Keep in mind, where most people get DADT twisted is this; you can be a homosexual and serve in the military, you just can't tell anybody or participate in homosexual conduct. No one is telling you that you can't be gay. Just don't do it. There's a lot of things in that people in the military have to refrain from while on active duty.

For example, prostitution is legal in Las Vegas but not for the military. We are forbidden from paying for sex.

Spice, this new fangled synthetic THC sprayed on incense, is legal to purchase and possess but not for military.

In states or countries where pot is legal, we can't partake.

You can't drink oversee's anymore unless you're 21.

We have rules that we have to live by, they're called standards. We don't get to pick and choose which ones on what day that we follow. You follow them all or compromise good order and discipline. Service before self, the second core value that all Airmen are trained to follow.

[killerbee99]

Do fat people have rights? Skinny people? People with bad credit? People with misdemeanors? People with GED's? Single parents? Just wondering, because right now they're not allowed in the Air Force, shouldn't they be given a chance to serve their country? Isn't this discrimination?

Oh you dont have to tell me this , I know, I am currently an Army Recruiter based in Cincinnati right now. That's why I don't understand why I don't understand whats so pressing about repealing DADT now. But the counter aguement to what you are saying ZOed would be well, blacks and women weren't allowed to serve their country till a while ago, thus the military should end discriminations against homosexuals.

[killerbee99]

Yes, I know this topic has been beaten to death, but here we are again

[Larry]

deleted post.

See Dead Horse, beating.

[MurrayH81]

Disclaimer: Served honorably with the US Coast Guard. Served with people who I knew or suspected to be gay (of both sexes). I am a male heterosexual. I have a difficult time dealing with guys "making out in public", and admittedly less so with girls "making out in public". I guess that makes me tolerant and quirky.

I suspect that many people might fall into the same disclaimer category.

I also won't pretend to know the solution, but I doubt any realistic solution can be implemented quickly.

I didn't worry then (and don't now) about being forced into an undesired sexual encounter with a gay man. Admittedly, I would imagine that specific services and situations would or could escalate that worry level.

I believe the main source of angst from guys in the military regarding gay men is a threat to their perception of being the top Alpha male. Only the fear of punishment/consequences prevents them from seducing or raping women (civilians or other military personnel) in certain situations (heightened sex drive and short term pleasure seeking).

http://www.warandgender.com/wggensex.htm

These men may believe homosexual males will behave in the same manner that heterosexual males behave towards women, in similar circumstances. I will honestly say that I would not want to be sharing an isolated fortification with a group of openly gay men, who were larger and in better condition than I, who believe (as many hetero males do, at least as far as their behavior indicates) that "No" means "I want you to force me."

The issues here are of course deeper than that. For some, it's a matter of religion "gays = vile perversion by choice", or a behavioral problem. For a small minority, they may have unwanted "gay longings" which are only suppressed and controlled by being in their current environment.

[Redskins Diehard]

We have rules that we have to live by, they're called standards. We don't get to pick and choose which ones on what day that we follow. You follow them all or compromise good order and discipline. Service before self, the second core value that all Airmen are trained to follow.

Funny I could write this to explain why gays should be allowed to openly serve.

[ZoEd]

Funny I could write this to explain why gays should be allowed to openly serve.

How is this funny? Please explain. I mean DADT is a rule/standard thats made to be followed. Why rescend it? What is there to be gained? Are you trying to say that if the military rescends it people need to shut up and color. I agree, but why rescend DADT? To appease an extremely small percentage of people who make a choice to live a homosexual lifestyle? Because the president is trying make good on an empty promise. Until you can honestly explain to me what is to be gained by doing this then your posts are pointless to me.

What's funny is how you cherry picked one sentence out of an entire post, made a drive by comment just to be a smart ass.

[Redskins Diehard]

Oh you dont have to tell me this , I know, I am currently an Army Recruiter based in Cincinnati right now. That's why I don't understand why I don't understand whats so pressing about repealing DADT now. But the counter aguement to what you are saying ZOed would be well, blacks and women weren't allowed to serve their country till a while ago, thus the military should end discriminations against homosexuals.

If you are referring to "now" as in right now when Congress passed this then I agree with you. The transition should take place according to Sec Gates recommendation.

I find it hard/impossible to believe that you are dealing with those same restrictions that supposedly the Air Force has placed on enlistments.

[Redskins Diehard]

How is this funny? Please explain. I mean DADT is a rule/standard thats made to be followed. Why rescend it? What is there to be gained? Are you trying to say that if the military rescends it people need to shut up and color. I agree, but why rescend DADT? To appease an extremely small percentage of people who make a choice to live a homosexual lifestyle? Because the president is trying make good on an empty promise. Until you can honestly explain to me what is to be gained by doing this then your posts are pointless to me.

What's funny is how you cherry picked one sentence out of an entire post, made a drive by comment just to be a smart ass.

That is exactly what I am saying. Why rescind it? Has nothing to do with "appeasing" a minority.

Frankly I don't care if my posts are pointless to you. Like you I have served in the military. Like you I have served in leadership positions. I have taken directives from higher headquarters that I did not agree with and executed them as my own. I have directed subordinates to execute things that I know they did not agree with and expected them to "roger that" and drive on. Some of them had far greater implications than showering with someone that might look at your ***.

My thought has nothing to with a promise that the Commander in Chief made on the campaign trail. And absolutely nothing to do with the circus that is the House of Representatives. It has everything to do with freedom and equality. That is what is to be gained.

[killerbee99]

That is exactly what I am saying. Why rescind it? Has nothing to do with "appeasing" a minority.

Frankly I don't care if my posts are pointless to you. Like you I have served in the military. Like you I have served in leadership positions. I have taken directives from higher headquarters that I did not agree with and executed them as my own. I have directed subordinates to execute things that I know they did not agree with and expected them to "roger that" and drive on. Some of them had far greater implications than showering with someone that might look at your ***.

My thought has nothing to with a promise that the Commander in Chief made on the campaign trail. And absolutely nothing to do with the circus that is the House of Representatives. It has everything to do with freedom and equality. That is what is to be gained.

I know that, and that is why I am really torn on this issue....to answer the other guys question yes almost all branches have restriction on who can enlist. The funny thing is even if we suspect or know a guy is gay, as long as we dont ask him and we dont tell we can put him in the Army, even though we all know we are not allowed to put any one with homosexual conduct in the Army. Go figure, ah life as a recruiter...bliss!!!!

[Enter Apotheosis]

[Original Comment Removed]

My apologies... that was just not a productive way to express my general frustration towards kilerbee's post and serves as an excellent example of not thinking things through before hitting 'Submit Reply'.