Thoughts On Don't Ask Don't Tell?

[Jim in CT]

I'm not sure if Obama has told Spence what to think on this issue yet, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

I have no huge problem with homosexuality. My guess is it's not a choice, but something you're born with (not many people would voluntarily choose a path thatr's so challenging and difficult). When I look at my wife, an involuntary biochemical reaction takes place. I can't help it, and I didn't choose it. It just is.

i want homosexuals to enjoy every happiness and opportunity they can.

I've also been in combat. And as an officer, I've had to order my guys to do some very dangerous things. When an officer is deciding who goes first through a door to clear a house, his men better not have reason to believe that the officer's decisions about who does what, are influenced by feelings of affection. If that happens, even if the men think it's happening, the unit cannot operrate in combat. It just can't. If my wife was under my command (let's say we were secretly married), there is simply no way I could be expected to order her into harm's way.

I was never a fan of DADT, I thought that was too tolerant. In my opinion, military combat units are not good places for politically correct social engineering. You can't do anything that disrupts the chain of command, you just can't. If an officer orders a private to take a hill, that private has the right to know that his selection was not even remotely based upon sexual affection, regardless of whether the affection is heterosexual or homosexual in nature.

[RIJIMMY]

Jim,
I've never been in combat or the military so I really cant say. From an outsiders view, I dont think we should stop people from serving their country based on their sexual affiliation. Any issues that arise could be handled the same way that issues with woman serving would be handled. Their should be strict rules of conduct and they should be enforced.

[scottw]

I heard this argument yesterday, what if the gay guy/gal refuses to take the hill because he/she thinks they're singled out for swiss cheese duty simply because they're gay.....but anyone could make the same case for virtually anything...."you're sending ME because I'm the only white, black, hispanic, married, single, left-handed, Jewish soldier in the platoon"....not sure that really holds up but if you "don't ask don't tell"...then.....at least one minority would be tougher to single out for swiss cheese duty

btw, I know plenty of very happy gay people...also know some that had a tough time growing up and are resentful for the way that they've been treated as a result of being gay, but this is not something that is unique to being gay....I knew a combat pilot who was gay and happy and very successful....

[american spirit]

does that stuff really come up when your in basic training or under fire in the field. seems like it shouldn't be a big deal. i mean, all our armed forces are out there doing a job, not talking about their personal lives. maybe the military is filled with homophobes, i don't know. pretty lame stuff....if someone can do the job there should be no problem regardless of their background.

[scottw]

btw.....got a call from someone heading up 24 out of Fall River this morning and they were in awe of the dozens and dozens of State Troopers streaking south and every overpass filled with fire engines and ambulances waiting to salute the return of the body of PFC Ethan Goncalo of Fall River......gives you a chill...very sad that he is gone and very good to see the community displaying such enormous respect..

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by american spirit

does that stuff really come up when your in basic training or under fire in the field. seems like it shouldn't be a big deal. i mean, all our armed forces are out there doing a job, not talking about their personal lives. maybe the military is filled with homophobes, i don't know. pretty lame stuff....if someone can do the job there should be no problem regardless of their background.

"all our armed forces are out there doing a job, not talking about their personal lives"

I couldn't disagree more. In the service, I got to know my boys better, in a shorter period of time, then anyone else I ever met. You get to know each other in a very deep way.

"does that stuff really come up when your in basic training or under fire in the field"

Yes it does. I did have first-hand knowledge of an officer who had some kind of relationship with the wife of a guy under his command. As a result, the officer had no moral authority whatsoever to order that guy into harm's way (because maybe the officer wanted to get the guy killed so he could be with his wife), and it basically ended the officer's career as a combat commander, because none of his men respected his authority to give them dangerous orders. It's hard to explain, the fact that nothing works unless everyone has absolute, 100% confidence in the orders you get from above. One chink in that armor, and it falls apart.

"if someone can do the job there should be no problem"

I agree 100% with that. I just think that when sexuality is brought into this unique situation of combat, one's ability to "do their job" is potentially severely compromised.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;
"I agree 100% with that. I just think that when sexuality is brought into this unique situation of combat, one's ability to "do their job" is potentially severely compromised.[/QUOTE]

as much as gays may suffer with a certain stereotype and how it may translate to performance military combat in many minds..... the vast majority of us forming opinions on this have absolutely no idea what it is like to actually be in combat...I'm trying to understand exactly how, in combat, would someone's sexual orientation affect their job or ability to do their job, I'm not talking about the affair between the superior and subordinate, just...soldier open about the fact that he's gay(we're generally talking about men since we're talking combat) and how would that affect the situation of combat...I'm just curious, not trying to be a wise guy...I could see that in a situation where you are dealing with the jacked up pack killer mentality needed to go out and do what these guys do, it might be very difficult for an openly gay soldier to fit in, be welcomed and earn the confidence of his peers depending on the individual and various biases that might exist and if you are infact forcing a social experiment and demanding acceptance and punishing for intolerance his peers, it could potentially be a very bad situation

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Jim,
I've never been in combat or the military so I really cant say. From an outsiders view, I dont think we should stop people from serving their country based on their sexual affiliation. Any issues that arise could be handled the same way that issues with woman serving would be handled. Their should be strict rules of conduct and they should be enforced.

Exactly my opinion.

[Nebe]

in 4 years there will be a brigade of highly skilled Killers. They will be all 250 lb bull dyke lesbians in tank tops and mullets and they will avenge all of the womens rights violations in Afghanistan.

in all seriousness, people were saying the same things when they integrated blacks into the military.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

in 4 years there will be a brigade of highly skilled Killers. They will be all 250 lb bull dyke lesbians in tank tops and mullets and they will avenge all of the womens rights violations in Afghanistan.

already in the works..in book and soon to be at the movies at least....something tells me these gals will look more like Baywatch beauties than.... well...what you described...

The Athena Project by Brad Thor

Description
The world's most elite counterterrorism unit has just taken its game to an entirely new level. And not a moment too soon . . .

From behind the rows of razor wire, a new breed of counterterrorism operator has emerged.

Just as skilled, just as fearsome, and just as deadly as their colleagues, Delta Force's newest members have only one thing setting them apart—their gender. Part of a top-secret, all-female program code named The Athena Project, four of Delta's best and brightest women are about to undertake one of the nation's deadliest assignments.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If an officer orders a private to take a hill, that private has the right to know that his selection was not even remotely based upon sexual affection, regardless of whether the affection is heterosexual or homosexual in nature.

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

[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 !

[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....

[fishbones]

I'm with these guys. If someone is going to put their life on the line to protect me and my family, I don't care if their gay, straight, bi, bi-curious, etc... I appreciate that they are doing it. They also have had the best training available to them and hoepfully aren't thinking about other soldiers' junk while in combat. If a straight soldier is worried about serving with gays, they need to get over themselves.

[Saltheart]

As long as they fight like a tiger , I don't care who or how they get their rocks off with.

I just don't understand why people have to even mention their sexual preference. I don't see how its part of the job or why anyone else even cares. Man or woman , keep your hands to yourself and be a soldier. I guess I just don't get it!

[scottw]

gay soldiers may be a bit victimized by the general protrayal of gays in popular media and culture and then trying to translate that somehow to fighting on the battlefield....would you watch a gay pride parade and then relate that to "fighting like tigers"?...or any gay characters on televsion, movies etc.....unfortunate but if the prevailing stereotype particularly gay men is not necessarily lending itself to the macho fighting machine image...was there a soldier in the Village People?

[Nebe]

Janet Reno and Ellen are gonna wipe out the Taliban.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Just because they repealed DADT doesn't mean that all of a sudden there are going to be gays in the military...they've always been there....they've always fought side by side, showered w/ you, kicked back a few beers w/ you. Never had any issues before...but now that we aren't going to kick them out...its all of a sudden an issue.

As long as they are capable at doing the job they are tasked w/....its a non-issue.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Just because they repealed DADT doesn't mean that all of a sudden there are going to be gays in the military...they've always been there....they've always fought side by side, showered w/ you, kicked back a few beers w/ you. Never had any issues before...but now that we aren't going to kick them out...its all of a sudden an issue.

As long as they are capable at doing the job they are tasked w/....its a non-issue.

Very well put TDF. I seriously doubt that there are going to be hundreds of Carson Kressley types lining up at the local recruiting office to enlist because they can now openly serve.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Very well put TDF. I seriously doubt that there are going to be hundreds of Carson Kressley types lining up at the local recruiting office to enlist because they can now openly serve.

If your point was valid, and it's not, then why bother repealing DADT? Every single argument I've eber heard in support of repealing DADT centered around the fact that openly gay folks can't serve. Remove that barrier, and please tell me why we won't see more gays enlisting. Please don't just say "no more gays will enlist", please tell me WHY more won't enlist.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Just because they repealed DADT doesn't mean that all of a sudden there are going to be gays in the military...they've always been there....they've always fought side by side, showered w/ you, kicked back a few beers w/ you. Never had any issues before...but now that we aren't going to kick them out...its all of a sudden an issue.

As long as they are capable at doing the job they are tasked w/....its a non-issue.

(1) Under DADT, gays had to choose between coming out, or serving in the military. They could not do both. By repealing dadt, gays can come out and serve, so it stands to reason (to me) that more will enlist. Furthermore, today, if a soldier comes out, they are discharged. After dadt is repealed, coming out won't be grounds for discharge. Given those realities, how can we NOT expect more gays in the military.

(2) as far as changing the current reality. Under dadt, gays in the military cannot come out. Therefore, no one knows they are gay, and they cannot act gay, so all of the hypothetical problems I proposed are eliminated. Without dadt, gays can "be gay", and therefore all of my hypotheticals become more relevent.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Without dadt, gays can "be gay", and therefore all of my hypotheticals become more relevent.

how come I keep picturing Corporal Klinger in my head?