Gays in the Military

[Redress]

Since it looks like either this year or early next DADT will almost certainly be repealed, and the latest polling shows over 70 % support for allowing gays to serve openly, it's time to ask the basic question. Do you think the law should be changed so gays can serve openly in the military?

 

[Gina]

Yes, right now. The rest of our society is "integrated". There is no reason for gay Americans to be barred from serving our country. As we have seen, many of them have critical skills, like Arabic translators. Isn't that a matter of national security?

Bravo to congress for "manning up" to pass the bill.

 

[Your Star]

Yes. They should repeal the law, and allow gays to serve openly.

 

[digsbe]

I think gays should be allowed to serve, but we should keep DADT. why is it so important to disclose one's sexual orientation?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I think gays should be allowed to serve, but we should keep DADT. why is it so important to disclose one's sexual orientation?

So you are saying that DADT should be in place for heterosexuals, also. Good to know.

 

[digsbe]

So you are saying that DADT should be in place for heterosexuals, also. Good to know.

Sure. I don't think the army should ever ask someone's sexual orientation and neither should people go around disclosing it. Should we also then allow heterosexual males to bunk and shower with women in the army?

 

[Your Star]

I think gays should be allowed to serve, but we should keep DADT. why is it so important to disclose one's sexual orientation?

The point is, that gays would not have to be in constant fear of being outed. They don't have to pretend to be heterosexual, just to be able to serve.

 

[digsbe]

The point is, that gays would not have to be in constant fear of being outed. They don't have to pretend to be heterosexual, just to be able to serve.

No one has to pretend to be heterosexual, they don't have to go around having sex with women or talking about girls. They just have to put sex aside and serve there country. What about the heterosexual men that would be uncomfortable with a homosexual showering with them and bunking with them? I support homosexuals being allowed to serve, but I also think they should not disclose their sexual orientation nor should they be asked about it. One's orientation is irrelevant to military service.

 

[Redress]

No one has to pretend to be heterosexual, they don't have to go around having sex with women or talking about girls. They just have to put sex aside and serve there country. What about the heterosexual men that would be uncomfortable with a homosexual showering with them and bunking with them? I support homosexuals being allowed to serve, but I also think they should not disclose their sexual orientation nor should they be asked about it. One's orientation is irrelevant to military service.

A strait person can talk bout their significant other, bring them to command functions, introduce them to people, and so on. A gay person cannot even be seen in public holding hands with their significant other.

 

[Black Dog]

I used to be against it. After another poster here opened my eyes, I see no reason not to let a gay person serve openly. Let them serve with pride and distinction just like the rest of us.

It is their country too.

 

[digsbe]

A strait person can talk bout their significant other, bring them to command functions, introduce them to people, and so on. A gay person cannot even be seen in public holding hands with their significant other.

That's just a sacrifice they will have to take if they want to serve. On the flip side, should heterosexuals have to shower and bunk with someone who is attracted to them sexually? It would be the same as having males and females showering and bunking together. I don't like that homosexuals can't bring their partners to functions or talk about them, but it's just a sacrifice that must be made for the greater good.

 

[Your Star]

No one has to pretend to be heterosexual, they don't have to go around having sex with women or talking about girls. They just have to put sex aside and serve there country. What about the heterosexual men that would be uncomfortable with a homosexual showering with them and bunking with them? I support homosexuals being allowed to serve, but I also think they should not disclose their sexual orientation nor should they be asked about it. One's orientation is irrelevant to military service.

One's sexuality doesn't have anything to do with their military service. But we shouldn't be so naive to pretend that it doesn't come up. LGBT people in the military shouldn't have to announce it to everyone, but if asked they should be able to be honest, and not scared that their sexuality will be something that may jeopardize their ability to serve in the military.

Also about the people who would be uncomfortable showering, and bunking with homosexuals, the answer is that they need to get over it. It's nothing that the homosexuals should be ashamed of, and it's not their problem. It's the problem of the people who are uncomfortable, and they need to get over it.

 

[Caine]

The problem people fail to look at is that it will create divisiveness amongst units, especially in combat arms where only men are allowed to serve, and often have to share hygiene facilities.

 

[Redress]

That's just a sacrifice they will have to take if they want to serve. On the flip side, should heterosexuals have to shower and bunk with someone who is attracted to them sexually? It would be the same as having males and females showering and bunking together. I don't like that homosexuals can't bring their partners to functions or talk about them, but it's just a sacrifice that must be made for the greater good.

Thjere is a difference between thoughts and actions. Thinking "oh, that person looks good" is fine, acting on it in an inapropriate manner is not, and there are rules already in place to handle this outside DADT.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Sure. I don't think the army should ever ask someone's sexual orientation and neither should people go around disclosing it.

So, if a heterosexual DOES disclose his sexual orientation, shall he be discharged?

Should we also then allow heterosexual males to bunk and shower with women in the army?

Sure.

 

[tacomancer]

No one has to pretend to be heterosexual, they don't have to go around having sex with women or talking about girls. They just have to put sex aside and serve there country. What about the heterosexual men that would be uncomfortable with a homosexual showering with them and bunking with them? I support homosexuals being allowed to serve, but I also think they should not disclose their sexual orientation nor should they be asked about it. One's orientation is irrelevant to military service.

I agree with in a sense. The difference though is that within the military, your personal life often cannot be off base, so this is a different situation. At a regular job situation, I think what you post applies perfectly.

 

[Black Dog]

The problem people fail to look at is that it will create divisiveness amongst units, especially in combat arms where only men are allowed to serve, and often have to share hygiene facilities.

That is just not true. I was in Armor and Air Defense Artillery for years. Both are a combat MOS. We had gay men in a few of the units I deployed with. It was kept quiet, but it proved to be no problem for anyone. A few got discharged, and we lost good people because of it including a damn good commander. It is simply a shame.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

That's just a sacrifice they will have to take if they want to serve.

This is the entire problem with your position. It becomes hypocritical at this point for you to say that sexual orientation should not be an issue. Your comment demonstrates that you SEE it as an issue.

On the flip side, should heterosexuals have to shower and bunk with someone who is attracted to them sexually? It would be the same as having males and females showering and bunking together. I don't like that homosexuals can't bring their partners to functions or talk about them, but it's just a sacrifice that must be made for the greater good.

There is no "greater good" here. This is just hypocrisy on your part. If sexual orientation should not be an issue in the military, how can you justify it being OK for a heterosexual to bring their partners to funcitons, and not homosexuals?

And as far as your comment in regards to a homosexual being attracted to a heterosexual, are you sexually attracted to each and every female you see? Where do you get the notion that every homosexual is attracted to every heterosexual of the same sex?

 

[digsbe]

Thjere is a difference between thoughts and actions. Thinking "oh, that person looks good" is fine, acting on it in an inapropriate manner is not, and there are rules already in place to handle this outside DADT.

So we should allow men to shower and bunk with women? They might think it, but as long as they don't do anything is it ok? It's not just about if homosexuals will do something or not, it's about how other soldiers feel. It's not right to have many heterosexuals feel uncomfortable by being forced to shower and bunk with someone they know is openly gay.

One's sexuality doesn't have anything to do with their military service. But we shouldn't be so naive to pretend that it doesn't come up. LGBT people in the military shouldn't have to announce it to everyone, but if asked they should be able to be honest, and not scared that their sexuality will be something that may jeopardize their ability to serve in the military.

Also about the people who would be uncomfortable showering, and bunking with homosexuals, the answer is that they need to get over it. It's nothing that the homosexuals should be ashamed of, and it's not their problem. It's the problem of the people who are uncomfortable, and they need to get over it.

So hetero soldiers should just "get over it?" Should I be allowed to jump into a female showering facility and bathe with them and say to them to just "get over it"? That isn't right. I am not anti-homosexuals and I feel that they should be allowed to serve. However, I think DADT is a good and necessary thing so that heteros won't feel violated and homosexuals can still serve.

 

[Your Star]

And as far as your comment in regards to a homosexual being attracted to a heterosexual, are you sexually attracted to each and every female you see? Where do you get the notion that every homosexual is attracted to every heterosexual of the same sex?

Also to elaborate on this, even if a homosexual thought someone they were bunking with was attractive do you not think that they would have the self control to not go after them? Especially if they know that they are heterosexual.

 

[Redress]

So we should allow men to shower and bunk with women? They might think it, but as long as they don't do anything is it ok? It's not just about if homosexuals will do something or not, it's about how other soldiers feel. It's not right to have many heterosexuals feel uncomfortable by being forced to shower and bunk with someone they know is openly gay.

So hetero soldiers should just "get over it?" Should I be allowed to jump into a female showering facility and bathe with them and say to them to just "get over it"? That isn't right. I am not anti-homosexuals and I feel that they should be allowed to serve. However, I think DADT is a good and necessary thing so that heteros won't feel violated and homosexuals can still serve.

Gay men are not women, gay women are not men. The biological difference is not there. Gay men can see a penis any time they want by looking down.

 

[Your Star]

So hetero soldiers should just "get over it?" Should I be allowed to jump into a female showering facility and bathe with them and say to them to just "get over it"? That isn't right. I am not anti-homosexuals and I feel that they should be allowed to serve. However, I think DADT is a good and necessary thing so that heteros won't feel violated and homosexuals can still serve.

You say your not anti-homosexual, but your opinions are.

Yes they should get over it, we would be a better society if people would accept others for who they are, and not have irrational fears about homosexuals.

 

[Apocalypse]

Gay men are not women, gay women are not men. The biological difference is not there. Gay men can see a penis any time they want by looking down.

I believe gay men are sexually attracted to penises?

 

[digsbe]

This is the entire problem with your position. It becomes hypocritical at this point for you to say that sexual orientation should not be an issue. Your comment demonstrates that you SEE it as an issue.

How so? I think sexual orientation shouldn't be something that is asked when someone enlists and isn't a qualifying aspect of being a soldier. However, what I am saying is that sexual orientation becomes an issue when it violates the rights and privacy of the vast majority of other soldiers.

There is no "greater good" here. This is just hypocrisy on your part. If sexual orientation should not be an issue in the military, how can you justify it being OK for a heterosexual to bring their partners to funcitons, and not homosexuals?

And as far as your comment in regards to a homosexual being attracted to a heterosexual, are you sexually attracted to each and every female you see? Where do you get the notion that every homosexual is attracted to every heterosexual of the same sex?

There is a greater good. Homosexuals can still serve and no one has to feel sexually violated or have their privacy infringed on. Personally, I would be fine with having soldiers not allowing their wives/husbands to events in order to make thing "fair."
And it doesn't matter if I'm attracted to every female, would it ever be appropriate for me to shower with women, use women's bathrooms, or go to an all female's bunking facility and sleep there among them? I may not be attracted to every woman on earth, but the fact that I am a heterosexual male means that it will always be inappropriate and a violation of the privacy of women for me to live, shower, and bunk with them. It's not just about my sexual preference or whether or not I am attracted to individuals, it's also about the rights and privacy of women who would feel uncomfortable with a hetero man seeing them naked and sleeping in the same room as the, in close proximity.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

So we should allow men to shower and bunk with women? They might think it, but as long as they don't do anything is it ok? It's not just about if homosexuals will do something or not, it's about how other soldiers feel. It's not right to have many heterosexuals feel uncomfortable by being forced to shower and bunk with someone they know is openly gay.

It's not RIGHT?!!! :doh To quote you, I suppose that's the price they will have to pay to be in the military.

So hetero soldiers should just "get over it?" Should I be allowed to jump into a female showering facility and bathe with them and say to them to just "get over it"? That isn't right. I am not anti-homosexuals and I feel that they should be allowed to serve. However, I think DADT is a good and necessary thing so that heteros won't feel violated and homosexuals can still serve.

Heteros feeling violated is their own problem. If no one does anything physical to them, whatever their paranoia is, is for them to deal with.