• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Homosexuals in Military

Status
Not open for further replies.

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I'm not sure I am understand correctly what you are trying to say, but if I am, I think Mathew Shepard, for one, would beg to differ. Well, he would if he hadn't had is head beaten in with a pistol and then been left, tied to a fence post in the middle of nowhere, to die.

Fortunately, an isolated incident. The current level of violence and discrimination against gays and lesbians is many times less than what African-Americans endured at the height of 'Jim Crow'. They still suffer from discrimination and bias, but not the extremes that blacks had to endure just 40 years ago, and violence is thankfully rare.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I am just curious, what happens when DADT gets overturned by the next Democratic President? If it doesn't happen with the next election, it will happen eventually. And I would be surprised if allowing gays to openly serve in the military is not on their agenda.

I think it is inevitable, not a just possiblity or a probabality. I imagine that some who make an issue of it will be dealt with swiftly and firmly, examples for the rest. No seperate berthing either, not practical and cost prohibtive. It will be a doen deal, take or leave it.

So, I am curious what those people who have objections to serving with gays will do when they start serving openly?
 
I've said this before. One of my roommates on a cruise was a pillowbiter. And that guy would just leer at you when you changed, and made it VERY uncomfortable to be in that stateroom.

He had that personality that if he could have been open, he would have been the flaming homo shouting "look at me! I am GAYYY!" from the topmast. It's easy for people to go "but my gay buddy is not like that". I had a gay housemate in college. He was not like that. Did not mind living with him. But the guy I had to cruise with, a whole different story.

Call me a caveman, but keep it at DADT unless they get their own berthing and heads. Women would not like it if a random guy moved into a stateroom and used their shower. He might be a perfect gentleman, or he may be trying to get them in the sack by hook or crook the whole cruise. That is not a way to live. Especially sailing into harms way.

I view living with a gay looking to "convert" no different than forcing women to live with a guy that thinks all women want him, they just don't know it yet.

As a female, I would be very uncomfortable if there were a straight guy in my stateroom watching me change. On the other hand, if it were a homosexual female I wouldn't be bothered by it. I thought long and hard about why that is, and I really think it's because I know that if the guy liked what he saw I would have no defense against him. With the female, though, if she did get out of hand I know I could probably take her (well at least my chances are a lot better with her than with a guy).

I don't think gays serving openly would somehow make them more likely to make sexual advances than they do now, serving under DADT. I don't think the problem is with them at all. I think it's people being afraid of them, and that's where things have to change. Obviously a lot of new training and counseling measures had to be put into place when women started serving on ships, and the same would have to be done for homosexuals. The whole point is to alleviate sexuality and sexual behavior from the military workplace, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual. I understand why MB would be uncomfortable, and I would be too, but was anything done about it? If a straight guy were acting like that toward me I would confront him about it and bring it up the COC if I had to. These things aren't acceptable regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

I think overall there are few people who would be okay with things like mixed gender showers, etc. for varying reasons. Regardless of the rationality (or lack thereof) behind any of them, these things have to be seriously considered before gays can serve openly in the military. I think it's certainly a possibility and I think it could happen in my lifetime, but it won't happen tomorrow.

In principle, DADT seems a little ridiculous to me because I don't believe in putting on blinders, looking the other way, or pretending that something isn't there. All of it amounts to lying to oneself, which is highly immoral to me. However, I understand that it was a compromise to an issue that's very difficult to solve.

I agree with villanelle. The military isn't the place to bring about this kind of revolution. It has to be accomplished in society at large first, and I also think that we're not far from that.
 

Mumbles

Registered User
pilot
Contributor
Maybe I'm off base here, but I seem to recall DADT came in to existence only because the Joint Chiefs threatened to resign en masse if Bill Clinton forced the services to accept open homosexuals in 1993.
 

picklesuit

Dirty Hinge
pilot
Contributor
So do you find it tough to work around straight women, being as they may find you attractive and you have to question their motives?

Actually, sometimes it is hard to work with women in the military (especially an enlisted girl who has been in for more than about a year)
They know they can get guys to do things for them that a male sailor wouldn't do for another guy (Who here has heard "can you lift that for me, it's too heavy")

Women get treated different, and it makes getting the job harder sometimes.

That being said I do like having their viewpoint, and their take on things. Sometimes having someone other than a bunch of "A-Types" like ourselves around can help a squadron.

The difference between working with a woman and a gay male is any advance toward me by a woman, while inneffective due to me being married, isn't neccessarily (sp?) unnappreciated. A gay male hitting on me, however, is not only not appreciated, but unexpected. You don't expect Ens. Bob Smith to make the move on you, not when you grow up straight.

I think I am being clear as mud here, but it's only my opinion.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Maybe I'm off base here, but I seem to recall DADT came in to existence only because the Joint Chiefs threatened to resign en masse if Bill Clinton forced the services to accept open homosexuals in 1993.

I never heard anything of the kind, and I would doubt it. While General Colin Powell was critical in pushing the compromise we now have, I did not hear much about the other JCS members.
 

Lobster

Well-Known Member
Welp, I was going to stay out of this thread but I'd like to say a little something.
I am an RA at a large state school. As such, we are required to attend certain intercultural/diversity meetings a few times each semester in case our residents fall under those groups and want to discuss those issues with us (and yes, a few guys on my floor were in fact gay/bisexual).

So, long story short, I have been to several of the LGBTG/A meetings here at MSU and have gleaned quite a bit of information that isn't immediately visible to the "general public" (read: we straight folk who aren't directly affected by these issues).

Do you think that the LGBTG/A population in America is so vocal about their sexuality because they want attention, or do you think that certain segments are vocal because like any other oppressed minority group in our country's history, they want people to know that they are in fact treated like second class citizens? Hypothetically-speaking, how would you feel if you were homosexual and you couldn't legally bind yourself with a partner and accrue the same benefits that a "normal" couple has? And I'm not talking about marriage, I'm talking specifically about the legal rights that come along with being in a civilian union (taxes, property rights, etc).

How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn't do job X/Y/Z or join the military *specifically* because of your sexual orientation?

How would you feel if you couldn't hold hands with your partner in public for fear of getting beaten up, getting spat on, getting death threats, getting run off the road, or having your property vandalized? (and yes, I have heard first-hand accounts of all of these things happening, and I have even *seen* some of them happen just on my campus).

Also, gays/lesbians have standards, too. I have no idea where most men get off thinking that "OH GOD IT'S A GAY, HE WANTS TO TOUCH ME!" because they might look at you and be disgusted.

Every single gay/lesbian person that I have ever talked to (and asked this question) has told me that for as long as they can remember - even from the time they were little kids - they knew they were different. As they got older, they realized they were gay, and eventually like everyone that goes through puberty with hormones raging, they acted on it. Regardless of what anybody says, from the words of homosexuals themselves, it is most definitely not a "choice" that you make. I doubt anybody would willfully choose and continue to live a lifestyle that would net them persecution, unequal rights, and death threats.

Does any of that sound like equality to you? Because to me, it simply comes off and rampant homophobia. As mentioned before, plenty of other countries allow homosexuals into the military with no negative repercussions.



MB, no disrespect, but...should we then give them their own drinking fountains, seats in the back of the bus, a segregated section of restaurants, and separate schools, too?



I'm glad you're an RA and think because you've gone to a few meetings you're more educated on the subject than the rest of us. Pretty much everyone in the forum is in college or has been through college and delt with the whole gay/lesbian thing at one time or another or lived with or in close proximity to someone who is in fact gay, that is the world we live in today. So get down from your ivory tower you're not anymore educated than anyone else in here.


I understand your point about equal rights for everyone and agree with you that there are certain people out there who do not treat the gay/lesbian community equally. It is a shame that there are still people like that in the world but it happens. You can't compare that to sitting in the front or back of the bus or drinking out of a different fountain the two are not even close to eachother. The fact is that most people who are gay and get a hard time for being gay flaunt it for everyone to see. That is a form of getting attention. Again, I'm not running around screaming "straight pride" or making a big deal out of the fact that I'm straight. I have no problem with being gay, you're still a person, we're all the same when you get down to it.

Gays have the same opportunities in this world as everyone else, they are allowed to wed one and other at the present time and they are allow to live how they would like. What they choose to do with those rights is their own business. And gays can do job x/y/z just like everyone else. But lets look at it this way, if someone goes into an interview and is less qualified for the job than another applicant they won't get the job. Then they go and say "oh its because i was gay" no, its because you couldn't do the job as well as the other guy. Certain gay people, and I'm not saying all of them think that way "I can't do it because I'm gay, they won't allow it because I'm gay" they sit around and feel sorry for themselves.

And the whole "oh his gay he wants to touch me" comment, most of us don't think that way but there are gay people out there that will pursue straight folks and try to convince them that gay is the way. I don't care if you're gay but I like women i'm going to like women, don't expect me to change just because you think i'm cute.

The military should keep the don't ask don't tell policy because they don't need to deal with these issues. Living on a ship for long periods of time with someone who runs around in assless chaps will cause problems. And how long before the FOD walk on a carrier deck turns into a gay pride parade? Gays are treated just like everyone else in the military, they get their heads shaved, wear the same uniforms, and do the same jobs as the straight folks. The bottom line is that not many people are Homophobes, most people don't care, its when we start seeing or hearing about parades and other things is when everyone goes "alright enough is enough just be chill about it"


I'm not trying to offend anyone or piss anybody off i'm simply letting my voice be heard and participate in a healthy debate
 

MrSaturn

Well-Known Member
Contributor
...Mathew Shepard...

it is unfortunate to see someone killed out of hate and malice. What differs is that he was a victim to a few degenerate a$$holes who targeted him because of his sexuality.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

But comparing one crime to another isnt as helpful as looking at the big picture.

2006 the FBI has hate crimes statistics.
51% are Racial crimes; 4700 crimes
15% are from sexual orientation; 1400 crimes

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/incidents.html
[/FONT]
Would you be willing to bet that there were more than 1400 hate crimes across the country in the year 1963?
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
As a female, I would be very uncomfortable if there were a straight guy in my stateroom watching me change. On the other hand, if it were a homosexual female I wouldn't be bothered by it. I thought long and hard about why that is, and I really think it's because I know that if the guy liked what he saw I would have no defense against him. With the female, though, if she did get out of hand I know I could probably take her (well at least my chances are a lot better with her than with a guy).
To be honest, I don't want to be writing up reports of people fighting over inappropriate looks, no matter how lopsided or fair the fight might be. So I really don't think whether or not you or anyone else can take on the "aggressor" is relevant.

There is a degree of homophobia involved, but I think that the real issue is you cannot have people who can potentially be attracted to one another working and sleeping just inches apart.
 

The Chief

Retired
Contributor
As a female, I would be very uncomfortable if there were a straight guy in my stateroom ...

A bit of leviety to this morbid thread - But the reason I have no problems with male homosexuals but female homsexuals I do - what a travesty. The end result being that the pool is expanded in the first case and reduced in the second.:eek::eek:
 
To be honest, I don't want to be writing up reports of people fighting over inappropriate looks, no matter how lopsided or fair the fight might be. So I really don't think whether or not you or anyone else can take on the "aggressor" is relevant.

There is a degree of homophobia involved, but I think that the real issue is you cannot have people who can potentially be attracted to one another working and sleeping just inches apart.

I'm not talking about fighting over inappropriate looks. I agree that would be ridiculous. I'm talking about defending myself against being raped. I agree this shouldn't be an issue, it was an example of one reason why someone would be uncomfortable in such a situation. Like I said, not all of these fears are rational.

As to the second point, if that's the case then shouldn't homosexuals be banned from the military altogether until separate berthing spaces are made? Without accounting for homophobia, what's the difference between them sleeping inches apart while not admitting their sexuality and doing so while being open about it?
 
A bit of leviety to this morbid thread - But the reason I have no problems with male homosexuals but female homsexuals I do - what a travesty. The end result being that the pool is expanded in the first case and reduced in the second.:eek::eek:

Edit: I get it now.
 

CommodoreMid

Whateva! I do what I want!
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I never heard anything of the kind, and I would doubt it. While General Colin Powell was critical in pushing the compromise we now have, I did not hear much about the other JCS members.

Ditto. DADT was a result of a bipartisan congressional response to both Clinton and some military leaders who wanted full integration. People on both sides of the aisle didn't want it, so DADT was the result.

It always pisses me off when schools/people protest the military, recruiters, etc, because gays can't serve openly. Yeah, I too believe DADT should go and homosexuals should be able to serve openly, but the military is just following the law! If you want the policy changed, go talk to your congressman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top