Question, Gays in the Military

NB4 "why do all straight people think homosexuals are lusting after them?"

That is not the issue, as there are currently 'gender' seperation, should orientation seperation also be approached to prevent any issues between the orientations as a precaution.
Just as having males and females in seperate facilities, should not the 'gay' individuals be seperate to prevent any sexual harrasement or intimidation issues either direction.

Just as the gay service member needs to be 'protected' from harrasment should the straight service member also be 'protected'.

Regulations and the UCMJ does not have current updates to address issues between the orientations, that in itself can be a potential issue in 'Good order, and Morale'.

Edited by oldsoldier - 20 October 2010 at 11:11am

Considering that service members are housed with people of a comparable rank, that wouldn't be an issue.  As far as sexual harassment is concerned, it would be dealt with the same way that it is now, no need to change anything.  Just because it is now legal to be gay, doesn't mean it is now legal to sexually harass people.  

3) Having showered in groups before (drum corps) - including a time where we shared a gym shower with another group's color guard (at least 30 people, pretty much all gay) - I can speak from experience on the matter. Anyone who's showered in a group, given enough instances (10 being the worst case I've seen), will get used to it. Same thing goes for showering with the other gender. Same thing goes for showering with gay people. Even the most homophobic people realize eventually that it's no big deal, people remain respectful, and the awkwardness fades fast. 

Edited by Tolgak - 20 October 2010 at 11:38am

oldpbnoob wrote: NB4 "why do all straight people think homosexuals are lusting after them?"

Because everyone lusts after me . . .





. . . I'm Mack.

Serious Edit:  This is a valid question.  I can't speak for the other services but in AF dorms suitemates (those that share kitchen/bathroom facilities tend to be of the same gender.  (Unless things have changed in the last five years; I'm curious so if anyone I still know is around I may have to check.)  The AF does however have both genders sharing rooms/suites off of the same hallway; however, this is much different from the potential of walking into a suitemate who makes one uncomfortable in the narrow shared hall that leads to the bathroom facilities in some dorms.

Yes, whichever member has the discomfort should grow up and get over it unless there is a good reason (i.e. actions on the part of the other) for it.  However, this is not the answer.  Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right.  The military openly "discriminates" against quite a few groups.  Women can't serve in certain positions, the handicapped are generally not allowed to participate and neither are those with certain medical conditions.  When it comes down to it, the issue does not need to be decided on some judges interpretation of "fairness," it needs to be decided by weighing the pros/cons as they affect morale, order and discipline and the overall affect all of these will have on mission accomplishment.  The military does not exist to as a test bed for new liberal ideas of what a society should be like nor does it exist as a bastion of more conservative values; it exists to accomplish a mission.*  Both sides of the debate need to remember this.

My personal opinion is that integrating homosexual members will cause some difficulties.  But, I think these can be overcome just like the problems from fully integrating African Americans were.

*Which can best be described as killing people and breaking their stuff.


Edited by Mack - 20 October 2010 at 11:44am

OS brings up a good question.

I think the answer is somewhere between looking at what other countries who allow open homosexuals to serve in the military do about the situation, and then understanding cultural differences in the attitude of homosexuality in America, and making necessary changes based on that.

I'd like to think we could just pretend the problem doesn't exist and that everything would be fine on the current setup, or that the military would deal with it the same way they dealt with racial integration – as in, the military isn't a democracy, if we say you fight along side black soldiers, you do it.

But, I also think that is wishful thinking. Changes will need to be made most likely, but I have faith in the military to get those changes done, if only because of collective understanding — the people in the military right now want to be there for one reason or another.

stratoaxe wrote: I'm putting all this out there as a question, and +100 internets to the first one of you guys that explains this to me (and by that I mean those of you defending this position) without the old standby of "We're all mature adults". Because we're not. I disagree. People get mature about this very quickly. More so than most people would like to believe. Doing drum corps, you hit the showers in a group every day for a period of months. There are gay people among you and you know who they are. The people who make a big stink about it generally have bigger camaraderie issues - and they still get over it quickly. Sure, they may moan about it outside the shower, but they NEVER show an ounce of discomfort on their faces after multiple rounds. I can tell you of a fact that if you stick me in a shower full of attractive women, it's going to be very uncomfortable for at least a couple of us. Am I mature enough to deal with it without making an ass of myself? Sure. But it's going to mighty uncomfortable, and the sooner I get out of that situation the better.   Why wouldn't the same apply to gay men? Is the sexual attraction of a gay man so different than the attraction of each one of us to the opposite sex? Mixing genders is a lot worse than mixing preferences. A gay guy in a group of men wont be seeing anything he doesn't see on a regular basis. For a straight guy among girls, it it's like a kid in a candy shop. He's not always surrounded by candy so it's a big deal to walk in. But if he goes in day after day, it becomes routine. The kid who runs around grabbing candy from every aisle is a problem, but I can say with a lot of confidence it's not the candy that's to blame for his personality. A soldier that would go around harassing female soldiers in their shower will only be exposing his flaws - which I guarantee affect his interactions negatively in unrelated situations.   I'd also like to entertain that sometimes there's not a solution to every problem. If you put gay men in the women's group, at least forty straight men (myself included) are going to start volunteering as homosexual to get in the female showers. And I just went over what's wrong with gay / straight interaction.   You are correct, and if we want to regulate morality in our military, a case could be made for not allowing them in the military either. Also, a second bonus question that could make this whole argument null and void-is the whole system of separating men and women in society outdated? Are we ready for coed everything? Obviously if the answer to either of those is yes, there's a good chance this argument becomes completely different. U.S. culture isn't ready for it, but there are co-ed organizations and cultures that deal with such encounters and they know how to address the issues. We can learn a lot from them.

My one response is to Tolgak. If showering with women gets routine for you.....urdoinitrong!!

My thoughts having been in are as follows. Seperate barracks accomidations are essential, in that the social pressures as well as individual morale issues will arise if gay and straight service members are sharing a billets rooms. Seperate shower and latrine facilities in garrison will be required again for the same reasoning as gender seperation currently in use.

Combat issues are simular in nature to current gender seperation issues. Combat arms MOS's have to address issues such as emergency medical care, current issues of wounded females being treated by male field medics has had a few issues, such as undressing females for medical emergency medical care in front of male contemporaries. There have been a few cases where the female soldier has claimed sexual issues while being treated for combat woundings in the field and under combat conditions.
There are still far too many issues the American military faces when it comes to gender issues, to throw in another potential set of problems with orientation issues.

Combat has a totally differant set of stress and other issues to address, I personally prefer that females do not serve in front line service due to expieriances in combat, gay men are not a problem for me serving in front line service, if they and others in the unit know and understand the 'unwritten' rules governing living and fighting in a combat area. Many gays have served under these 'unwritten' rules with little or no problem, but there has to be a line for orientation as well as gender issues.
Doc X the gay medic I refered to earlier created some issues with several less the co-operative individuals within the unit, and that was addressed. We all knew as I stated, and accepted Doc, but the few had the potential of making life more interesting, and the comraderie of the unit ensured issues did not arise as long as everyone observed the 'rules'. I had no problem with Doc, he knew the 'rules' and we enforced the rules on others in the unit, he served honorably and ETS'd and I hope he has done well for himself.

Just as Truman intergrated the Military, issues came to light initially that were unforseen when the order was issued. Same will happen here and the adjustment will not be overnight. Too many want this to be an instant fix, it will not due to issues on both sides. There is too much that can go wrong if this is ham handedly forced on the military, time to adjust and address both the morale and legal issues that can arise must be addressed accordingly.

The joke on the sharing of a 'foxhole' in combat is not a joke when it is for real and bullets flying, the same issues that confront male and female sharing the foxhole can and will apply to the differant orientations sharing a foxhole. Doc X chose to keep his own foxhole for he knew the effect he could have had on his fellow soldier is they shared a foxhole, other than the few no one would have objected to his sharing a foxhole, but Doc knew what issues could have arisen to effect morale and his fellow soldier.

I'm not sure why, but find myself less opposed to women serving in front line troops and as combat pilots these days. Seems the older I get, the less I really care. If they are physically capable and willing to do it, let em. I've seen some women serving that I assure you would be better combat troops than myself. I wonder if the relaxing of open homosexuality in the military would open more doors for the possiblity of women in combat positions if they so chose?