Recruiters told they can accept openly gay applicants.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Pretty over-simplified, and I would not say tricked, but I will say that in many "lesser civilized" areas of the world, men and women bathe together. In many areas throughout the world, men, women, and children don't even use bathrooms. If they have to go, they drop trow, and do their thing. No one bats an eye. Actually, humans are the only animals that experience shame for essential bodily functions that everyone participates in. However, this has nothing to do with the topic of homosexuals not having to hide their orientation?

Mac

Well it may have something to do with the issue at hand if the reason is simply because people do not feel comfortable being nude in front of strangers who are known to have a sexual attraction to their gender. Yes you could have the unknown homosexual in the showers with you but since you dont know you do not have this discomfort. That however changes when they are openly homosexual. And unlike the gym comment some have made in which you could choose not to shower when an known homosexual is showering, you dont have the same choice in the military when ordered to shower.

[McAllyn]

Well it may have something to do with the issue at hand if the reason is simply because people do not feel comfortable being nude in front of strangers who are known to have a sexual attraction to their gender. Yes you could have the unknown homosexual in the showers with you but since you dont know you do not have this discomfort. That however changes when they are openly homosexual. And unlike the gym comment some have made in which you could choose not to shower when an known homosexual is showering, you dont have the same choice in the military when ordered to shower.

The greater point is why are you uncomfortable? Take your shower. Move on. No one is there to molest you, regardless whether or not you think you're about to be gang raped. If your ordered to shower, get wet, get clean, and get back to work. It's an irrational fear. You're in the military putting your life on the line against tyranny, and you're afraid Bruce is gonna check out your junk?

Again, the "you's" above are rhetorical.

Mac

[G27]

Oh dude no you didn't! LMFAO

Dayum, son!

He's gonna kill me...

It was worth it...

[strickj]

He's gonna kill me...

It was worth it...

Watch your back!

[McAllyn]

This is a very good topic. Glad I've been a part of it. Gotta log now. I'll check it out tomorrow and see what's come up.

My point throughout this has been, ANYONE with the will, heart, and head to serve the country should be allowed. Anyone who is worried that they are gonna get felt up or hit on is the one with the problem, not the homosexuals. Do your job and come home safe.

Mac

[TNcitizen22]

We Catholics are normally considered pretty right wing, but honestly, this is thread is getting pretty funny.

Gays are people. They have a minority sexual orientation. I really fail to see how this impacts military life.

If people want to be bigots in order to maintain their own values, which are often misguided, that's fine. However, for the rest of us who prefer to see some progressiveness, please bugger off until you see the outcome of this - which I expect you never will (because it will be a non-issue).

As for the gay soldiers themselves, I know quite a few who are tougher, smarter, more efficient, and better shots than their hetro counterparts, and they have the decorations to prove it.

+1 for rationality.

Edited to add:

Anyone wanting a good read should check out this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Gay-Warriors-Documentary-History-Ancient/dp/0814798861

While not really relevant to this topic - at all, it is a very well done and enlightening book.

Edited October 20, 2010 by kpricheson

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

The greater point is why are you uncomfortable? Take your shower. Move on. No one is there to molest you, regardless whether or not you think you're about to be gang raped. If your ordered to shower, get wet, get clean, and get back to work. It's an irrational fear. You're in the military putting your life on the line against tyranny, and you're afraid Bruce is gonna check out your junk?

Again, the "you's" above are rhetorical.

Mac

Irrational or not if the soldiers dont want it I dont think it should be forced on them. Hell why not have the gay men shower with the women and lesbian women shower with the men. That seems like the more logical solution to me

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

We Catholics are normally considered pretty right wing, but honestly, this is thread is getting pretty funny.

Gays are people. They have a minority sexual orientation. I really fail to see how this impacts military life.

If people want to be bigots in order to maintain their own values, which are often misguided, that's fine. However, for the rest of us who prefer to see some progressiveness, please bugger off until you see the outcome of this - which I expect you never will (because it will be a non-issue).

As for the gay soldiers themselves, I know quite a few who are tougher, smarter, more efficient, and better shots than their hetro counterparts, and they have the decorations to prove it.

+1 for rationality.

Edited to add:

Anyone wanting a good read should check out this book.

Amazon.com: Gay Warriors: A Documentary History from the Ancient World to the Present (9780814798867): B. Burg: Books: Reviews, Prices & more

While not really relevant to this topic - at all, it is a very well done and enlightening book.

Note I have not said gays should not be allowed to serve but rather that the current system of shower arrangements and the like maybe should be modified to address the issue of openly homosexual service members.

Oh and lol at the use of the term "bugger"

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

Since we all know that there have been gay people in the military since day one I just dont understand how saying they can now "openly" serve actually serves any purpose.

Just who does this benefit and how?

Since we already have an all volunteer force one would think that their opinions would matter, but those already serving were overwhelmingly against the idea, yet their opinions were just cast aside.

Basically this is just another slap in the face of those who already serve, why did they even bother to ask them what they thought?

There are already gays serving and everyone knows it, just what does "openly" mean anyway?

I only see any benefit being for those who want to serve but also want very much for everyone to know that they are gay, Why is their sexual preference of any importance to anyone except them?

Dont ask, dont tell, it isnt anyones business should be good enough for all.

I simply dont see any purpose in any of it no more than there would be a purpose of a married person to want the whole military to know exactly what they did at night with their spouses.

Just what do these people want more?

Do they simply want to serve their country or do they want the whole military to know what their sexual habits are?

Sadly it seems the whole world knowing what they do at night is the biggest importance to them.....WHY?

Personally I dont give a rats butt what someone does on their own time so long as they do their job. I dont even want to know what a person does with their SO no matter who it is or what it is.

The only people this really benefits is the politicians who want to appease the gay community for their votes. It in no way benefits the military nor even the gay person in the military, it only benefits the politicians.

And while it really should not....it will most likely keep some people from even volunteering to start with and cause good people to leave sooner than they would have.

There is no way this can benefit the military only a possibility that it can hurt the "end strength" in the long run.

What ever happened to "If its not broke dont fix it"?

[Guest GunTroll]

We Catholics are normally considered pretty right wing, but honestly, this is thread is getting pretty funny.

Gays are people. They have a minority sexual orientation. I really fail to see how this impacts military life.

If people want to be bigots in order to maintain their own values, which are often misguided, that's fine. However, for the rest of us who prefer to see some progressiveness, please bugger off until you see the outcome of this - which I expect you never will (because it will be a non-issue).

As for the gay soldiers themselves, I know quite a few who are tougher, smarter, more efficient, and better shots than their hetro counterparts, and they have the decorations to prove it.

+1 for rationality.

Edited to add:

Anyone wanting a good read should check out this book.

Amazon.com: Gay Warriors: A Documentary History from the Ancient World to the Present (9780814798867): B. Burg: Books: Reviews, Prices & more

While not really relevant to this topic - at all, it is a very well done and enlightening book.

WHAT?

And Sgt Joe, very well said sir. Very well said.

Edited October 20, 2010 by GunTroll

[McAllyn]

Since we all know that there have been gay people in the military since day one I just dont understand how saying they can now "openly" serve actually serves any purpose.

Just who does this benefit and how?

Since we already have an all volunteer force one would think that their opinions would matter, but those already serving were overwhelmingly against the idea, yet their opinions were just cast aside.

Basically this is just another slap in the face of those who already serve, why did they even bother to ask them what they thought?

There are already gays serving and everyone knows it, just what does "openly" mean anyway?

I only see any benefit being for those who want to serve but also want very much for everyone to know that they are gay, Why is their sexual preference of any importance to anyone except them?

Dont ask, dont tell, it isnt anyones business should be good enough for all.

I simply dont see any purpose in any of it no more than there would be a purpose of a married person to want the whole military to know exactly what they did at night with their spouses.

Just what do these people want more?

Do they simply want to serve their country or do they want the whole military to know what their sexual habits are?

Sadly it seems the whole world knowing what they do at night is the biggest importance to them.....WHY?

Personally I dont give a rats butt what someone does on their own time so long as they do their job. I dont even want to know what a person does with their SO no matter who it is or what it is.

The only people this really benefits is the politicians who want to appease the gay community for their votes. It in no way benefits the military nor even the gay person in the military, it only benefits the politicians.

And while it really should not....it will most likely keep some people from even volunteering to start with and cause good people to leave sooner than they would have.

There is no way this can benefit the military only a possibility that it can hurt the "end strength" in the long run.

What ever happened to "If its not broke dont fix it"?

From reading the actual article, it seems more geared toward and has examples of people who have served successful military careers, being "found out" and having their careers cut short for no other reason than someone asked or someone told. I see no mention of anyone wanting to wear dresses or sing Gloria Gaynor songs at PT. Openly gay to me means not having to hide, not prancing around like a fairy.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

x3 on Sgt. Joe's post.

[Guest Aces&8s]

I just cannot understand why it makes a difference. I mean, so long as the guy or gal beside you is doing his or her duty, what difference does it make what his or her sexual orientation is? As far as potential problems, I mean, you are showering with a bunch of guys who are not homosexual and maybe one or two who are, what do you think is going to happen? Absolutely nothing, that's what. I have known several gay men, and every one of them has been far more discreet than your average straight guy -- no obvious leering, no wolf whistles, no "D@mn, I'd hit that!" comments. Just because someone is gay does not necessarily make him or her a sex-crazed pervert unable to control him or herself. And just because someone is straight is by no means a guarantee of "moral superiority": as far as I can recall, every alleged offender in the "Tailhook" fiasco was hetero.

Honestly, the brave men and women of our armed forces are putting themselves in harm's way every day, engaging in dangerous maneuvers, getting shot at by the enemy, and we are supposed to believe that something as inconsequential as getting naked in front of someone who may or may not be attracted to them is too much of a burden to bear?

I say, if a man or woman loves this country enough to want to serve, let them serve. Man or woman; black, white, Asian, or Hispanic; Christian, Jew, or atheist; straight or gay -- you honor the uniform, you honor the Flag, you put your life on the line for us, you serve to the best of your ability, and I will be proud to honor you for your service to our country.

Just my opinion... that and $5 will get you something overpriced at Starbucks.

[Daniel]

From reading the actual article, it seems more geared toward and has examples of people who have served successful military careers, being "found out" and having their careers cut short for no other reason than someone asked or someone told. I see no mention of anyone wanting to wear dresses or sing Gloria Gaynor songs at PT. Openly gay to me means not having to hide, not prancing around like a fairy.

Thank you for saying this before I did. It has seemed to me that it is the "old soldiers" and the older people in general that are adamantly against this. The new soldiers coming in and the younger ones do not care. This also mirrors civilian life.

I wonder what people said when they started the first black units. Then when they integrated them. What about letting women in? Integrating them as well. This is just one more step. I have been in since 2001. I have known several soldiers that I believed to be as gay as anyone in San Francisco. Not a one tried to even come on to me. They are there to do a job. I have had to take sworn statements from women after they have been sexually harassed and assaulted by heterosexuals though.

[Erik88]

I say, if a man or woman loves this country enough to want to serve, let them serve. Man or woman; black, white, Asian, or Hispanic; Christian, Jew, or atheist; straight or gay -- you honor the uniform, you honor the Flag, you put your life on the line for us, you serve to the best of your ability, and I will be proud to honor you for your service to our country.

I think this pretty much sums it up. This is a non-issue. In 6 months no one will be talking about it. Probably more like 6 weeks.

[Punisher84]

Thank you for saying this before I did. It has seemed to me that it is the "old soldiers" and the older people in general that are adamantly against this. The new soldiers coming in and the younger ones do not care. This also mirrors civilian life.

I wonder what people said when they started the first black units. Then when they integrated them. What about letting women in? Integrating them as well. This is just one more step. I have been in since 2001. I have known several soldiers that I believed to be as gay as anyone in San Francisco. Not a one tried to even come on to me. They are there to do a job. I have had to take sworn statements from women after they have been sexually harassed and assaulted by heterosexuals though.

I had a nice long statement written up but then my internet crashed and I lost it, but that basically sums it up Daniel. It's a non-issue to most people coming in and already serving.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

I had a nice long statement written up but then my internet crashed and I lost it, but that basically sums it up Daniel. It's a non-issue to most people coming in and already serving.

Just out of curiosity how did you determine it is a non-issue? Has there been extensive polling of soldiers opinions on this matter?

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Just because someone is gay does not necessarily make him or her a sex-crazed pervert unable to control him or herself. .

This can also be said of heterosexuals. Therefore would you support getting rid of the male/female shower system and instead implement unisex showers and barracks?

[Punisher84]

Just out of curiosity how did you determine it is a non-issue? Has there been extensive polling of soldiers opinions on this matter?

I know the people I served with didn't care, I know people who are still in don't care. It seems that only homophobic self-righteous Christians and a few "old-dog soldiers" are the only ones who are up in arms.

I do wonder why are you so against it?

[Punisher84]

This can also be said of heterosexuals. Therefore would you support getting rid of the male/female shower system and instead implement unisex showers and barracks?

Sure why not? Train together, live together, fight together.

[Guest mosinon]

from what I can tell this is all about showers. So I guess the issue can be resolved by having everyone take a bath instead.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

I know the people I served with didn't care, I know people who are still in don't care. It seems that only homophobic self-righteous Christians and a few "old-dog soldiers" are the only ones who are up in arms.

I do wonder why are you so against it?

Personally I think it should be up to the soldiers. I just havent seen anything yet that says this is what the soldiers want beyond a few peoples personal accounts of what they think the soldiers want. If the soldiers are all for it then be my guest. However if they are against it in light of the sacrifice they are making and the already tremendous stress level associated with active combat I dont think we should add one more worry to the situation.

I thought the point here was a good debate so I am making one case and you another. No reason to try and get too personal

[Punisher84]

Personally I think it should be up to the soldiers. I just havent seen anything yet that says this is what the soldiers want beyond a few peoples personal accounts of what they think the soldiers want. If the soldiers are all for it then be my guest. However if they are against it in light of the sacrifice they are making and the already tremendous stress level associated with active combat I dont think we should add one more worry to the situation.

I thought the point here was a good debate so I am making one case and you another. No reason to try and get too personal

Not getting personal at all, I just know that no one debates on a view unless they have a reason for or against it unless they are a troll. You're obviously not trolling, I just wondered what you're experiences are or world views to make you against it.

I'm for it because I've dealt with the situation and it was a complete non-issue for the guys in my platoon in basic. I'm certain there are people who have issues with it, but there are always going to be those people on every issue.

[Mike.357]

to clarify, I have no problem with people being queer, does not really bother me at all.

I do think the military is better off with don't ask don't tell.

[R1100R]

I am serving on active duty now. There has been a survey going on at DOD for months on this subject that just ended. It seems the

majority wants to keep the don't ask don't tell policy.