can a gay man serve honorably in the US military?

[AdminAssistant]

When did I say one branch was greater than the other?

And where did I mention segregation?

You have repeatedly mocked the Army, specifically Rangers, and the Marines in posts that I have read. However, that has potential to derail the thread, so I would like to apologize and move on.

Requiring separate barracks for gay soldiers, or distinguishing them in any way, amounts to segregation. Allow them to serve openly and honestly. If you're going to kick anybody out, kick out the homophobes that would not be able to do their duty just because a gay man or woman was serving next to them.

[Ghel]

I have a question: what does sexual orientation have to do with job performance, in the military or otherwise? Especially if we have a mixed-gender group working together, what difference does it make if the group is also mixed orientation?

[Hobbs]

You have repeatedly mocked the Army, specifically Rangers, and the Marines in posts that I have read. However, that has potential to derail the thread, so I would like to apologize and move on.

Requiring separate barracks for gay soldiers, or distinguishing them in any way, amounts to segregation. Allow them to serve openly and honestly. If you're going to kick anybody out, kick out the homophobes that would not be able to do their duty just because a gay man or woman was serving next to them.

Apparently, someone doesn't understand good, old-fashioned branch-teasing. They make fun of us, we make fun of them. I have great respect for each branch of service. Plus, I did not say anything against the Rangers. You insinuated that from my post, in which you enticed me to make fun of them.

I never mentioned segregated barracks. Someone else did. Don't blame me or put words in my mouth from another poster.

Ghel, I'm not even going to humor you with a response. Nothing I said is about job performance.

[Ree]

Ghel, I'm not even going to humor you with a response. Nothing I said is about job performance.

But Ghel has a point.

Why should sexual orientation matter?

Does it change a person's ability to function based on who they prefer to sleep with?

If it's not about job performance, then what's the real issue?

[Hobbs]

The issue is the continued good order and discipline of the Armed Forces. No offense, but not every unit is like Jackfaire's. I know several people in my own detachment who are clearly homophobic and do not want to serve knowing a member of their unit is homosexual.

I agree that it's wrong to think so, but I also want to emphasize that the military is focused more on the "big picture." If 1/10 people is gay, then only 10% of the total population pool for armed service are affected by DADT. That leaves us with 90% still capable of serving. As it is, fewer than 1% of the US population serves in the military (there are also accounts that a large amount of the population is uneligible to serve).

I do think that something should be done to assuage people's bias and to make it a welcome environment for gay men and women to serve, but I also think that we need to accept that not everyone in the service is as open-minded. To kick them out would be just as bad as kicking out someone for their sexuality; and it's actually illegal to dismiss someone due to their beliefs.

I think I had something more to say, but I can't remember right now. Maybe I'll remember it later and post it up.

[jackfaire]

I wasn't speaking on a low-unit level. I was speaking operationally.

Meaning the official stance of the miltary rather than the individual officers I knew who felt it was horse shit correct?

[Boozy]

To kick them out would be just as bad as kicking out someone for their sexuality; and it's actually illegal to dismiss someone due to their beliefs.

We aren't talking about forcing people to change their beliefs. They can continue to harbour homophobic thoughts all they want. Ending DADT would simply require them to act professionally towards to their fellow servicemen and women who happen to be gay.

Besides, the same ridiculous arguments could be made to keep minorities out of the military. Most of the US is white. Less than 15% of the US population is black. Should we prohibit blacks from serving in order that we not offend the delicate sensibilities of some racist sons-of-bitches?

To hell with that.

The military is renowned for its discipline. All that's required is a policy, enforced from the top down, that requires openly homosexual service people to be treated without prejudice and with respect.

Many service people are routinely ordered to put their lives in extreme jeopardy. They do it, because the chain of command demands it. That's remarkable, since we all have an instinct for self-preservation. Do you mean to tell me that this same revered chain of command can't demand that it's service people treat each other with respect? Is that not far less to ask?

The fact is that the military can handle openly homosexual service people. They just don't want to.

[Hobbs]

Who said we don't want to? Right now we're reviewing DADT and the policy has even been changed. Thanks for taking one snippet of my argument and completely changing what my argument was over.

Someone posited the issue of kicking out homophobes in the military, why I said that. The rest of my point is valid. As you can read from the entirety of my argument, I said it should be changed.

[jackfaire]

Isn't the decission though ultimatly up to Congress as they are the ones that have to vote to repeal it or not.

[Hobbs]

Isn't the decission though ultimatly up to Congress as they are the ones that have to vote to repeal it or not.

Yes, you are correct. All of our policies come from the Congress and our Commander in Chief.

[Green_Fairy]

I never mentioned segregated barracks. Someone else did. Don't blame me or put words in my mouth from another poster.

that was me. segregated barracks might be used just like women have separate barracks. maybe. it came up when i was discussing this topic with The Boy a while back. he mentioned that with the people his base, they might at first try separate barracks just to keep possible violence at a minimum. personally, i think it would probably cause more problems. "hey let's go burn down the faggety barracks!" oi...that would end swimmingly.
there's another school of thought that if you put a whole bunch of gay men in the same room, a huge orgy will break out and everyone will get aids, so hey. two sides of an argument there.

i was just throwing out some thoughts. personally, i think the military would be just fine with openly gay men. hell, i've met some soldiers who i'd be extremely surprised if they were straight.

[Hobbs]

Breaking news: House and Senate repeal DADT

[HYHYBT]

So: barring any unexpected twists, by this time next year the answer to the title question will unquestionably be YES.

Mom's cousin Harold will be furious

[jackfaire]

Mom's cousin Harold will be furious

Tell him I am blowing him a kiss

[smileyeagle1021]

Breaking news: House and Senate repeal DADT

House and Senate?
I thought it was only the House that had passed it and the Senate sub-committee and that it still had to go for a full vote, that was the last update I got on Friday morning... if they truly have done a full senate vote already I will say that is the quickest passing of a controversial bill ever.