Thoughts On Don't Ask Don't Tell?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Personally don't care....If a person wants to serve so be it.

Those same choices can be made if its your drinking buddy, or the guy that tapped your wife when you were on duty. As an officer you need to make your decision on whats best at that moment. You are picking the guy because you're a homophobe then its your issue...if the guy is blaming you because he thinks you're singling him out for whatever reason...then he's the one with the issue.

Bottom line is if you can both perform your duties while disregarding everything but the mission...then all is good

I am using "You" as figuratively....not saying you Jim in CT

Dad, I didn't make my point well I don't think. I'm not saying the problem is if I order a homosexual guy into harm's way because I'm a bigot, although that would obviously be a problem. I was saying, if I'm an officer and I'm gay, and I have involuntary feelings of affection for one of my men, even if I'm not hooking up with the guy, I'm still more likely to put others at risk to protect the guy I like. I can't think of anything that would render a unit inefefctive as fast as that would.

I also reject the comparison of homosexuality to blacks. One's race is not a lifestyle choice.

Also Dad, there are rules in the military against going after someone else's wife. The rationale for that rule is exactly the same as my rationale for supporting the prohibition of gays from serving incombat units, it creates an environment that lends itself to bias.

There are also rules that prevent officers from being drinking buddies with men that you may have to order into harm's way. Those rules also serve the same purpose as my opinion.

If I'm in a firefight, I want the best soldier next to me, regardless of his personal choices. But in order for combat units to function day to day, guys need to have absolute trust in the chain of command. When you introduce sexual tension into that mix (whether it's homosexual or heterosexual), it opens the door to some very serious issues.

I'm glad it's not my problem to solve...

[scottw]

would you rather be in a foxhole with Barney Frank or Major Hasan? I know it's a tough one

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

would you rather be in a foxhole with Barney Frank or Major Hasan? I know it's a tough one

I'd rather be by myself...

As I said, in the throws of a firefight, the orientattion of the guy next to you doesn't matter.

But in terms of the day-to-day functionality of a forward serving combat unit, I think it matters. Unless you had a unit that was composed of nothing but homosexuals (and boy does that image lend itself to some immature jokes) I can see major problems.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Also Dad, there are rules in the military against going after someone else's wife. ...

Then Things have changed since I was in....because the minute a ship left port...that night the E.M. Club was loaded w/ wives looking to hook up....and plenty of Sailors more than willing to oblige

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There are also rules that prevent officers from being drinking buddies with men that you may have to order into harm's way. Those rules also serve the same purpose as my opinion.
...

Also remember My Division Officer whipping out his AMEX Gold card and treating some of the Guys in our Division to some of the "Joys" of Amsterdam"

Just because there are rules doesn't mean they are always followed to the "T"....there we always rules against fraternization....didn't matter, If the Officer was cool we would drink together.

[nightfighter]

Off topic, but there are a great number of our servicewomen who are suffering at the hands of our own servicemen in country....A lot of rapes and unwarranted advances being kept from the public. Happens within military personnel stationed here at home as well, but the numbers skyrockets when on deployment. This was one of the concerns about women in the military from the beginning. Sex plays a part in any and all societies. It just complicates things in a theater of battle. No way we should go back to not having women in a warzone, as they have repeatedly proven themselves. But maybe there are correlations and lessons to be learned....

[Raider Ronnie]

I have a handful of friends I grew up with who are gay (all females)

That being said we are put on this planet for 1 purpose,
REPRODUCTION !

[Backbeach Jake]

It's none of my business what someone's sexual preference is unless they tell me. The gay men and women that I've had the priviledge to work with were all stellar in their performance and good company , too. I really do not understand why this is an issue other than fear.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Backbeach Jake

It's none of my business what someone's sexual preference is unless they tell me. The gay men and women that I've had the priviledge to work with were all stellar in their performance and good company , too. I really do not understand why this is an issue other than fear.

Backbeach, I can only assume you didn't read any of my posts. I am not afraid of homosexuals.

Combat command is a little different than working in an office. You simply cannot be an effective combat commander if there is any sense among your men that decisions might be based on sexual attraction. If I was gay when I was in the USMC, and I had a crush on one of my privates, I might be inclined to consistently select others for dangerous assignments. Once my men suspect that, I'm done as an effective commander.

It has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with fair, especially when life and death are on the line. If I tell a private that he has to kick down a door and secure a house, he has the right to know for certain that I'm not picking him because I want to protect the other guy in the squad that I have a crush on. It would be difficult for me to imagine that a leader could send someone into harm's way that they had feelings for. That sexual chemistry makes objectivity harder to come by. It might not make objecticity impossible, but it makes it harder. Combat is hard enough without needlessly making it harder, just for the sake of political correctness.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

That being said we are put on this planet for 1 purpose,
REPRODUCTION !

with eating and fishing closely following

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Then Things have changed since I was in....because the minute a ship left port...that night the E.M. Club was loaded w/ wives looking to hook up....and plenty of Sailors more than willing to oblige




Also remember My Division Officer whipping out his AMEX Gold card and treating some of the Guys in our Division to some of the "Joys" of Amsterdam"

Just because there are rules doesn't mean they are always followed to the "T"....there we always rules against fraternization....didn't matter, If the Officer was cool we would drink together.

"Then Things have changed since I was in."

Article 134 of the Uniform Code OF Military Justice has been used to prosecute adultery. I don't know when yuo served, or how long that article has been in there. Also, there's a difference between the letter of the law, and how it's enforced, differences by branch, etc...

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I was saying, if I'm an officer and I'm gay, and I have involuntary feelings of affection for one of my men, even if I'm not hooking up with the guy, I'm still more likely to put others at risk to protect the guy I like. I can't think of anything that would render a unit inefefctive as fast as that would.

Couldn't the same be said if your best buddy was one of your subordinates?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

also reject the comparison of homosexuality to blacks. One's race is not a lifestyle choice.

And many would reject that it is a 'lifestyle choice'

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Couldn't the same be said if your best buddy was one of your subordinates?




And many would reject that it is a 'lifestyle choice'

"Couldn't the same be said if your best buddy was one of your subordinates? "

Yes, the same could be said. And that's PRECISELY why there are guidelines that suggest that folks who decide who goes in harm's way, shouldn't be too friendly with those they'd send into harm's way. I've known officres who were removed from combat command specifically because they were too chummy with the enlisted guys. If being friendly with enlisted men inhibits one's ability to lead in combat, then certainly being sexually attracted to enlisted men is even more serious.

"And many would reject that it is a 'lifestyle choice'"

True. But I've heard an awful lot of blacks say they resent that comparison. Being born homosexual may not be a choice. Acting on those impulses is a choice. Being born black involves no choice whatsoever. That's not my argument, by the way, but many people make that argument, and I think there's validity to it.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, the same could be said. And that's PRECISELY why there are guidelines that suggest that folks who decide who goes in harm's way, shouldn't be too friendly with those they'd send into harm's way.

OK, thats what I thought. However I see a scenario I presented being more likely then some unrequited love story you presented....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

OK, thats what I thought. However I see a scenario I presented being more likely then some unrequited love story you presented....

right...if I was a heterosexual....wait, I am a heterosexual...and I found myself in my early 20's in combat(or anywhere else for that matter) in a women only platoon and my sexual orientation oriented me toward....women.... I'm sure I'd not develop any unrequited affection for these women, I certainly wouldn't sneak any peaks and they definitely woudn't be a distraction...even if they were all lesbians......

seems like the same people that will tell you to give your kids birth control becuase they are going to do it any way and can't control their impulses will also tell you that 18-20 something soldiers can serve together even in the most difficult situations and their "impulses" can easily be controlled and will not affect their performance...which can mean life and death

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

right...if I was a heterosexual....wait, I am a heterosexual...and I found myself in my early 20's in combat(or anywhere else for that matter) in a women only platoon and my sexual orientation oriented me toward....women.... I'm sure I'd not develop any unrequited affection for these women, I certainly wouldn't sneak any peaks and they definitely woudn't be a distraction...even if they were all lesbians......

seems like the same people that will tell you to give your kids birth control becuase they are going to do it any way and can't control their impulses will also tell you that 18-20 something soldiers can serve together even in the most difficult situations and their "impulses" can easily be controlled and will not affect their performance...which can mean life and death

This is a great post Sc ott, and gets to the heart of why I say liberalism is a mental disorder. Liberals will say that abstinence doesn't work, you can't stop people from having sex. Those same folks will then say, 5 minutes later, that having homosexuals in the military won't necessarily have any consequences, because those people can just put their sexuality aside. For a whole year, while living in close quarters with those you are attracted to, and under very trying, often lonely, circumstances. Right.

There is no debating these people, because their platform has no foundation of logic. Amazingly, they see no incostincies in those arguments.

I was an average combat commander, no better, no worse. I was very very glad I never had any girls under my command. I had enough problems to deal with.

[scottw]

JohnR summed it up very nicely

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and gets to the heart of why I say liberalism is a mental disorder.

Jim: small nit to pick.

I enjoy discussion with you, and find it respectful and you have a good perspective having served... BUT... can you please stop saying that "I Say liberalism.." this... it is a Michael Savage Quote (and book title). I said it before, if you used this in public forums before him, sue that whack-job and get rich!



As far as the perspective of the inability to control ones sexuality.

Were you married when you were deployed? Did you manage to control your sexual impulses for a year and not have an affair with a female soldier? Hooker? I assume no as you seem like a stand-up guy.

I think assuming a gay soldier is going to be more prone to rape or assault another soldier is shaky ground.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

OK, thats what I thought. However I see a scenario I presented being more likely then some unrequited love story you presented....

RIROCKHOUND, maybe you're right that male bonding is more likely to be a problem that sexual attrac tion. But the sexual component DOES NOT HELP, it can only hurt, the only question is how much will it hurt.

And I also feel that if you are on a 13 month combat tour, living in close proximity to those you are attracted to, it's not that crazy to assume that things will happen. Look at all the stories of rape and harassment with women. If integrating women into the military has been one problem afetr another, why is letting gays in going to be any different?

[JohnR]

Interesting conversation going on. While I don't have an issue with the basic premise of Gays / Lesbians serving there are going to be some real bad issues to resolve that will be done for reasons of equality or diversity and not for the effectiveness of a fighthing force - BTW the reason we have a military.

Even worse than the issues that are going to need be solved - we have significant forces engaged around the world that could use these resources - we will now how have yet another layer of bureaucracy to provide counceling to, opportunity for, and protection from.

From what I've read, the upper levels of the military are incapable of (or hindered from) focusing on what makes a military tick: people, leadership, gas, guns, and bullets but having to spend considerable time and effort on equality and diversity training. I'm all for equality and diversity, but we have ships and planes that don't get required maintenance becuase the personnel that would be performing that are conducting or receiving the diversity training. Now we're going to add more layer to that?

And now, the backlash will begin (has begun). People that were asked to provide their honest, professional, military opinion and did not support repeal will be labeled as homophobes, unfit or unworthy of the uniform. They will be the next boogeymen steamrolled by the diversity squads that thing that diversity in the military is far more important than the effectiveness of a military.

I don't care what race you are or if you are gay or straight. If you want to server your country, fine. If I were in the military and you were gay, I might sit down and have a beer with you and not have a problem with it, I probably wouldn't want to shower with you. I don't think that makes me homophobic.

DADT might have been the easier way to do this and might have been sufficient until there was some level of peace to work out the kinks.

Ehh, don't think I explained myself well enough, but I have to go to work...