Gay's in the United States military.

[Eupher]

They are already there...now whether they should serve openly or not is a different story. I'd say the majority are not the type to shout it from the rooftops, they just ant to do their jobs and that's it...But you're gonna get the asshole who  decides to make a "show" outta the fact and screw it up for everyone else.

bingo. Game, set, and match.

Bertram, have you served in the U.S. military? If not, why are you running your yap?

[TexasCop]

I get the impression he was hoping to get an anti-gay thread started.

[Eupher]

I don't believe you'll see many (if any) flamboyant gay men serving.  The military doesn't seem like something feminine men would be interested in.  The gay men I knew when I was in were very type-a dominant men.  You're much more likely to see women who think they're men, but they were there and very obvious before DADT, so I don't see that mattering either. 

I'd disagree with that wholeheartedly. I saw more than a few "flamboyant" types who knew enough to keep their fudgepacking mostly under wraps. This was a side benefit of DADT. Once DADT goes away, the shit-stirrers will come out and wave their faggo-ness in everybody's face and there won't be a damned thing that commanders can do about that. Why? Because the queers and rugmunchers will become the next PC subject of choice.

Sorta like what we saw with Major Hasan. His radical views on Islam were seen to present a "diverse" opinion and while he openly refuted his oath to the Constitution, thereby pissing off his colleagues, Hasan's raters saw no reason to call him on it. PC runs amok in the military and the faggots will seize advantage of this.

[Eupher]

I get the impression he was hoping to get an anti-gay thread started.

Bertie is our resident troll. No substance, no worth, just a shit-stirrer.

[TexasCop]

Hmmm, I dunno, man.  I still think it would be frowned upon by their peers, which would make it work itself out.  In a machismo dominated career field like the military, I still don't believe you'll see that.

[Gina]

I really don't give a shit who someone is attracted to, but what I see a problem with is someone using it as a crutch because they just don't fit in or are too lazy to work. 

[TexasCop]

Gina, the military polices its own when it comes to lazy people.  The entire military functions on a team concept.  When a cog in that machine doesn't want to turn, the other cogs come along and take care of business to get it turning again.  I believe the same would happen if someone gets a little too "flashy".

[Gina]

Gina, the military polices its own when it comes to lazy people.  The entire military functions on a team concept.  When a cog in that machine doesn't want to turn, the other cogs come along and take care of business to get it turning again.  I believe the same would happen if someone gets a little too "flashy".

Yes, I know.  BUT if some gay person screams he/she is being mistreated then is the CO going to just leave that person alone or are they going to make a public fight and screw up their own career?

[NHSparky]

People that say that serving with openly gay people hurts morale or troop cohesion usually didn't serve.  Honestly, being a volunteer only service, we need as many good troops as we can get.

Well, I did serve, and I will say it hurts unit cohesion and morale, especially in front-line units. 

Why, you ask?  I'll give it to you in a very simple phrase: "mission focus".  For the record, I had little tolerance for those people who were straight who let their sexuality (I ****ed X women last weekend!) override their focus on the task at hand.

This isn't a question of being a soldier, sailor, Marine, or airman FIRST, gay (or straight) second.  When one allows their sexuality to override and define them more than being part of the unit, the whole unit suffers.

Bottom line--if you're gay or whatever (and I knew some folks who were), whoop-de-****in-do.  When it gets to the point that your "right" to suck dick is more important that killing the bad guys and breaking shit, hit the ****in road.  There are lots of other standards which need to be met to serve as well.  Drugs, physical fitness, moral character, all are important--so why is it we're changing the requirements?  Oh, wait a second--it's not about gays wanting equal treatment, now is it?  They DO want "special treatment" after all, don't they?

[NHSparky]

Hmmm, I dunno, man.  I still think it would be frowned upon by their peers, which would make it work itself out.  In a machismo dominated career field like the military, I still don't believe you'll see that.

And any attempt at "correction", positive or otherwise, will have the effect of people claiming harassment.

BTDT, bought the t-shirt.

[Freeper]

From my experience in the armed services, rug munchers were more acceptable than cock suckers.

[Rebel]

I know 4 gay people. One is a Lesbian retired CW-3, and a COMSEC SME....not to mention my boss, another is a retired AF E-7, who was one of the top recruiters in the nation which led him to become one of the top heath professions recruiters, and the other two have been together for 20 years. One was in the AF, but didn't last, the other was a corpsman and Desert Storm Vet. I'll get some BS's here, but I have no problem with them serving. The "problem" is that it's gonna be a logistical NIGHTMARE integrating them in as out. Open bays? Open showers? Gone.

[Rebel]

....but those are my personal views, not to reflect on Conservativecave (c) as a whole.

[TexasCop]

I know 4 gay people. One is a Lesbian retired CW-3, and a COMSEC SME....not to mention my boss, another is a retired AF E-7, who was one of the top recruiters in the nation which led him to become one of the top heath professions recruiters, and the other two have been together for 20 years. One was in the AF, but didn't last, the other was a corpsman and Desert Storm Vet. I'll get some BS's here, but I have no problem with them serving. The "problem" is that it's gonna be a logistical NIGHTMARE integrating them in as out. Open bays? Open showers? Gone.

Definite H5.

[Eupher]

Hmmm, I dunno, man.  I still think it would be frowned upon by their peers, which would make it work itself out.  In a machismo dominated career field like the military, I still don't believe you'll see that.

I'm not sure who your comment is directed at, but considering I'm a retired Army musician and that I've seen more than a few rather flamboyant types (never the type that pranced, but certainly had the semi-lisp and faggy diction), one could argue that the music program in the Army isn't necessarily "machismo-dominated". And to that, I could agree though there are a few who consider themselves macho -- like in any other field.

My resistance to openly-serving gays is the PC stigma that will inevitably follow. Hell, it's already there. Edicts from on high have come down, browbeating Soldiers into "accepting diverse and transparent lifestyles" or bullshit to that extent.

I've seen the ****ing memo at Ft. Lost-in-the-Woods and it would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Any person who puts a group other than the military group first in their loyalties will suffer mightily and rightfully so. Goths, hip-hoppers, rednecks, etc etc etc all have a place in a unit but the instant they exalt gothism (?), redneckism, etc above what best makes the unit a viable mechanism of combat they will be ostracized, harrassed and maybe even beaten into conformity. If they refuse to conform they will be cast out.

Any lesser (unwritten) policy unnecessarily risks the lives of the other soldiers and the mission they are assigned. The military is not about proving you have the darkest eyeliner or the biggest brass belt buckle; it is about doing maximized violence to anyone bringing violence to the political structure of the US.

If soldiers who happen to prefer homosexual intercourse over hetero wish to serve they had best realize if they attempt to make a point out of their preferences and demand the society accept them on their terms they will fair no better than any other group attempting to assert itself over the primary mission.

[Eupher]

Any person who puts a group other than the military group first in their loyalties will suffer mightily and rightfully so. Goths, hip-hoppers, rednecks, etc etc etc all have a place in a unit but the instant they exalt gothism (?), redneckism, etc above what best makes the unit a viable mechanism of combat they will be ostracized, harrassed and maybe even beaten into conformity. If they refuse to conform they will be cast out.

Any lesser (unwritten) policy unnecessarily risks the lives of the other soldiers and the mission they are assigned. The military is not about proving you have the darkest eyeliner or the biggest brass belt buckle; it is about doing maximized violence to anyone bringing violence to the political structure of the US.

If soldiers who happen to prefer homosexual intercourse over hetero wish to serve they had best realize if they attempt to make a point out of their preferences and demand the society accept them on their terms they will fair no better than any other group attempting to assert itself over the primary mission.

I dunno, Snugs. I think your point is a great deal of wishful thinking. In a perfect world, you'd be spot on and there would be hell to pay for someone who put their own agenda in front of the unit's own agenda, but I'm not so confident that that would be the case.

I've used the example of Major Hasan, who managed to put his own allegiance to Allah in front of the U.S. Constitution. He was not ostracized officially; indeed, some of his raters actually extolled and lauded his willingness to stand on principle and be the shining example of a Muslim who serves the U.S. military. Had the tragedy at Ft. Hood not occurred, he would still be yapping about Islam and how wonderful it is, all while doing a masterful job of pissing off his contemporaries but being lauded by his superiors. The disconnect between the two entities is startling.

I see the very same type of thing occurring here. A gay who puts his sexual orientation on the street does so as a means of saying "I'm a fudgepacker and I'm proud of it" instead of focusing on the mission and putting that first. To accommodate the diversity angle, the official, expressed policy of the command is to embrace those who are gay at the exclusion of regular types who do their jobs but don't have the gay angle to trumpet.

I've seen this type of thing before. Whether it's race or sex or religous bent or sexual orientation, the official command policy sets the tone. BTDT. I see this happening in the same, exact way.

Some things just don't change.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I dunno, Snugs. I think your point is a great deal of wishful thinking. In a perfect world, you'd be spot on and there would be hell to pay for someone who put their own agenda in front of the unit's own agenda, but I'm not so confident that that would be the case...

I dispute nothing you wrote.

Supposedly males cut their hair short in the military because 1) it is easier to keep clean 2) its harder for parasites to take root 3) it's easier to rid the soldier of parasites and 4) long hair interferes with the proper wear and fit of CBRNE (chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear-environmental, pronounced see-burn-ee, for you civilian pukes) gear.

That being said one wonders how poorly our society regards its female soldiers when they are allowed to avoid those points because to ask them to conform to the same PRAGMATIC standards means they would be "underrepresented" in a supposedly volunteer force. Perhaps if we find ourselves in a protracted war where the females living in priitive conditions are overrepresented with parasites and die choking with spine-snapping convulsions from nerve agents we may re-visit such issues more sensibly.

Don't even get me started on matters of PT and pregnancy.

That being said, our society openly accepts females and their fragility and as such makes excuses for it. Gays/hip-hoppers/rednecks don't share the same pillar. Whatever the muckety-mucks may think the lights go out in the barracks at the same time every night and the E4s and below have their own version of the UCMJ.