Forums | MacLife

jeremiah256 wrote:

I don't see gays joining the military just because they will be able to serve openly.

I have strongly considered joining the military as a lawyer but I would not do so, on principle, until the rule is changed.



Many others join anyway and are later kicked out, at a cost to taxpayers.  How much would actually change, anyway?  I would imagine the environment is such that many homosexuals (especially those in positions requiring them to bunk and shower with others) wouldn't want to identify their sexuality, anyway.

Ra wrote:

Perhaps civilians would accept the idea, but I doubt that military members will. Keep in mind that I have been out of the military for over ten years, so I could wrong (I don't think I am, though).

I was talking to a buddy about this about ten years ago.  This man had served in the 60's in Germany.  When I asked him about it, he chuckled and said "oh, gays have been serving in the military for a long time."

All this would mean is that they can come out of the closet.

jeremiah256 wrote:

Until society makes it illegal to discriminate against gays in civilian society, I don't see it changing in the military.

It, more or less, is already illegal to discriminate against gays in civilian society. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I know it's not uncommon for bigots to drive into the SF Castro for an evening of gay-bashing. I've known people who have -recently- been threatened, beaten, and murdered as a result of that. That said, it's not like you can blatantly fire someone for being gay, lesbian, transgender, or bisexual.

Odds are sexual orientation will no longer be grounds for discharge or denied recruitment. No doubt, many openly gay people will probably be subject to harassment in the military. It unfortunately still happens with women.  

This stuff doesn't change over night. It takes decades. Yet, I have no doubt that the rules on the books will change before the bigots die off.

Getting rid of don't ask don't tell won't change dynamics of the military much at all. I doubt there'll be drag shows and go-go boys at the USO and such. Gay people will still keep quiet about their orientation wherever they think it'll cause major problems.

The only difference is that opportunities for blackmail will be greatly reduced, it would stop the ridiculous cases of qualified people getting outed and fired, and it would pave the way for greater acceptance of gays in the future.

The proof that don't ask don't tell is a pointless policy is that it's enforced the least during war time, the very time where "troop cohesion" is supposed to matter the most. If gays really hurt cohesion so much the military would obviously ramp up efforts to kick gays out of the military when there's a war going on.

The military does the opposite, so if anything, gays HELP troop cohesion.

Last edited by after-life (2006-11-21 4:26 pm)

after-life wrote:

Aqua OS X wrote:

It, more or less, is already illegal to discriminate against gays in civilian society.

Uh, no it's not.

That's why there's still a gay rights movement.

I should've phrased that better. There are definitely outstanding battles with marriage, adoption. That said, in most places in the first world, it's not like you can legally deny someone housing, employment, etc because of their sexual orientation or gender.  Not that smurf like that doesn't happen... it does. It's just not legal.

Tallgeese wrote:

jeremiah256 wrote:

Not impossible, but too much of a risk for anyone to take on.  I don't see gays joining the military just because they will be able to serve openly.  Any civilian, regardless, has much more freedom than a military member.  But you would lose service members and you would create costs in trying to solve the issue.  Plus, while it is illegal to discriminate in civilian and military society against blacks, jews or women, it is legal to tell races that certain cultural dress is not authorized, jews not to display religious symbols while serving in certain countries, or women they can't serve in certain units.  And you can dislike all the above, you just can't show or act on it.

Until society makes it illegal to discriminate against gays in civilian society, I don't see it changing in the military.

The military ended racial discrimination ahead of the civilian world.

Actually the military walked hand in hand with the civilian world with regard to racial discrimination.  Although it was theoretically ended by Truman, separate but equal facilities was still in place up until the early 60's...just like in the public.  It was a series of steps that had to be pushed from the outside in.  Women have only in the last 10 years or so be given the ability to compete directly in the armed forces and with laws on the book about women in combat zones, ensures you'll never have a woman reach the pinnacles of power in the Pentagon.

Don't get me wrong, it is ten times better in terms of people getting along in military.  If you're stationed in San Diego and see a group of kids who are white, black, hispanic and asian hanging out, they're probably in the military.  But that's because the military by nature bonds people better than just sitting next to someone in a cubicle.

Edit:  Since the mid 1990's, women have served on ships and in squadrons and therefore can go into combat areas.  We are now starting to see women Commanding Officers and higher levels of enlisted leadership (Fleet Master Chief level) for females.  So it will not be long before females from the Navy surface and air forces make it into higher combatant positions in the Navy.  Females are still barred from the submarine force due in no small part to berthing considerations.

Last edited by jeremiah256 (2006-11-21 7:00 pm)

Aqua OS X wrote:

after-life wrote:

Aqua OS X wrote:

It, more or less, is already illegal to discriminate against gays in civilian society.

Uh, no it's not.

That's why there's still a gay rights movement.

I should've phrased that better. There are definitely outstanding battles with marriage, adoption. That said, in most places in the first world, it's not like you can legally deny someone housing, employment, etc because of their sexual orientation or gender.  Not that smurf like that doesn't happen... it does. It's just not legal.

We're not talking about the first world here, we're talking about the United States.

In a lot of states and counties, those things are legal. Look it up. Several states still banned gay sex just a few years ago.

bratboy wrote:

jeremiah256 wrote:

I was talking more about laws.  Gays can't marry, they (if I'm not mistaken) are being blocked from adoptions, anti-sodomy laws still on the books, etc.  As long as the military can point to legal issues in the public, it ain't gonna happen.

Again, you're insisting that homosexuals must have completely equal rights in every area of the country before "the military" would accept this change.  That isn't how changed tracked with regards to racial minorities and women, is it?

Even if the military could say "not all government institutions treat them equally so why should we"...is it even their choice?

Certainly it will bother some people.  Is it too callous for me to say "tough smurf?"  I thought we were supposed to have a military made up of "professionals"...

I'm not saying they should, I'm telling you that with this issue, that's the way it's going to have to be.  Also, you're discounting the military's input.  This is not a one way discussion where they have no input.  The military is obligated by law to tell the President and the Congress what impact changes will have.  Their is no way the Pentagon is going to let don't ask, don't tell go to the wayside without letting both know exactly what they think.  As for their being professional, they are.  The average military recruit today is well trained.  So well trained that in some Navy ratings, reenlistment bonuses have to reach $60,000 or more so we can keep these people in. 

An another important bottom line is money.  No one really knows what effect allowing gays to openly serve in the military would have.  It is a very macho institute and even a drop in recruitment or retention by even 1% would have a profound on the military.  It takes big money and time to create a tech, an engineer, a nuke, an air controller, etc.  Again, this is from my view of the Navy, I'm less knowledgeable about the other services.  The berthing issue alone is crazy.  The military at this time, even during wartime is downsizing.  It has to because it's budget is fixed and they are trading bodies for weapons systems.  No way this happens.

The sooner gays can serve in the military, the sooner people will realize its not a big deal and won't care about it.

bratboy wrote:

I just have a difficult time believing that the fact that gays will no longer be booted out of the military for serving openly would weigh more on the minds of those considering joining up than would the fact that they're going to be running around in Iraq getting shot at.

Are there that many people who honestly believe there are currently no homosexuals serving?

Again, one problem is that no one really knows what the outcome would be; the military is macho and there could be consequences that would cost the military serious concerns.  I'm sure there are plenty of gay NFL players but you don't see active players coming out either.  And again, berthing on ships would create more problems than can be fixed...however, if Congress does want to try it out, they could do something like is done in the Navy.  Females can serve in surface and air forces but are restricted from submarines.  The same could be done by military service.  I'd like to volunteer the Air Force as first up....

jeremiah256 wrote:

Again, one problem is that no one really knows what the outcome would be; the military is macho and there could be consequences that would cost the military serious concerns.  I'm sure there are plenty of gay NFL players but you don't see active players coming out either.

How is that an equal comparison?  Does the NFL boot out openly gay players?  Does any professional sports league?

And again, berthing on ships would create more problems than can be fixed...

You've said this a few times, and I'm puzzled by exactly what you referring to.  Are you suggesting that there is an inherent issue that prevents homosexual and heterosexual men from living in the same quarters, or are you simply suggesting that in some cases prejudices would be difficult to overcome?

however, if Congress does want to try it out, they could do something like is done in the Navy.  Females can serve in surface and air forces but are restricted from submarines.  The same could be done by military service.  I'd like to volunteer the Air Force as first up....

Do you really think that homosexual members of the military would behave in a drastically different manner were the rule to be changed?  I would imagine many would still prefer to keep their sexual preference private.

This is not to mention the fact that it seems like the military excludes ANY openly gay members, whether berthing or other similar "issues" exist or not.

after-life wrote:

Getting rid of don't ask don't tell won't force every gay troop to come out of the closet.

Agree but just because there is a don't ask don't tell rule doesn't mean that gays are hiding in fear.  Many sailors are KNOWN to be gay.  If anyone complains, you use the excuse that unless they just come out and tell you they're gay, you can't ask them their sexual orientation so deal that person has to deal with it.  No one knows what would happen if it was open in terms of acceptance.  People are (no pun intended) sleeping on top of each other onboard.  Maybe the privacy issue can be challenged (I don't know if there is an corresponding situation in the civilian world that deals with this issue).

after-life wrote:

You mentioned the NFL. They don't have any anti-gay rule on the books. Yet they still manage to operate as a "macho" institution.

Again, I'm just saying I can't name one gay NFL player.

after-life wrote:

No one is saying that homophobia is going to go away immediately in the military. They're just saying it shouldn't be officially sanctioned.

Agreed.  But just wanted you to hear some of the reasons it is resisted by the military brass; they know our force reflects the general public and is a voluntary force with all that that implies about recruitment and retention.  Congress will not push the issue while the war is on.

The macho angle I find the least justifiable.
If you're a big tough asskickin soldier you hardly fear an advance from a gay guy.