Man takin' care o' business . . .

[Brian Dugger]

Man takin' care o' business is entitled to his say regardless of policy as long as he doesn't foolishly rule on it and remains empirical regarding decisions.
Here's three different slants on it, ya'll decide.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1511411.ece

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/15/EDGC7N7B8D1.DTL

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6449199.stm

[Ramirez]

Hey where would the 300 Spartans have been except for homosexuality? In the words of Monty Python "they're Greeks, they invented the stuff!"

I don't know, just as there are no atheists in fox holes, I doubt there are homophobes as long as the homosexual is a good soldier who can save your a$$. I think the "don't ask, don't tell" rule is a good one...the military is no place for your personal preferences.

[David Craik]

It's also not the place for practicing homosexuals, at least in the US. Homosexual acts of intercourse are specifically prohibited under Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in addition to other acts deemed "unnatural". 'Don't ask, don't tell' is an odd sort of wishy-washy loophole by which one can legally be a celibate, closet homosexual.

Adultery is also punishable under the UCMJ so the General is technically absolutely correct, the UCMJ considers these acts immoral and a detriment to good order and discipline.

Shame the man holding the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States is held to a lower standard than a Private though.

[Gordon Nore]

Thank you for the articles, Brian. I caught the story on CNN the other night, in which the anchor reported that -- according to their numbers -- fifty percent of Amercians agree that homosexual acts are immoral. So the General's commentary barely qualifies as controversial in itself. An out-an-out apology from him would probably do him more damage than good: (1) no one would believe it; (2) that's probably the last thing the Bush administration would want.

However, the General is in the chain of command. "Don't ask, don't tell..." is essentially a policy in that command. Unless George Bush decides to change it, "Don't ask, don't tell..." is the President's orders. It is not appropriate for anyone in the chain of command to publicly comment on the President's orders.

The policy itself speaks to behaviour, not orientation or preference. As long as a gay or lesbian service person abstains from acts deemed inappropriate by the UCMJ, there really shouldn't be any problem. However, people are going to break the rules. I'll bet the adultery rule gets broken all the time, and violators are subject to consequences if caught.

[Patrick Hayes]

Adultery is also punishable under the UCMJ so the General is technically absolutely correct, the UCMJ considers these acts immoral and a detriment to good order and discipline.
Is this standard of moral conduct just for the Marine Corps, or does it apply to all branches of the military? I don't know many Marines, but of the many Army, Navy, and Air Force servicemen I've known, adultery is always winked at and dismissed, especially when it takes place overseas. It seems incredibly hypocritical to say that adultery and homosexuality are equally immoral, but only homosexuality will be punished.


"All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."

[Dennis Monk]

I applaud the general for standing up for both his own moral principles as well as the military's standards of conduct.

[Jay Bell]

Not sure how far spread the news got, but up in Payson, AZ a man and his girlfriend were charged and convicted of Adultry the week-before-last.

She ended up with a $700 fine, he a $500. It came about when the wife called the police after the girlfriend showed up at the house and caused a scene.

[AndrewSimonsen]

The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) applies to all military branches.

[Patrick Hayes]

Not sure how far spread the news got, but up in Payson, AZ a man and his girlfriend were charged and convicted of Adultry the week-before-last.

She ended up with a $700 fine, he a $500. It came about when the wife called the police after the girlfriend showed up at the house and caused a scene.
That's interesting, I didn't know that adultery was considered a criminal matter. I just read that the crime of adultery is punishable by a whopping $10 fine in Maryland :laugh:

Still, it does kind of raise the question: adultery is a crime even for civilians, so it's hardly surprising that it's also punishable under military law. But "sodomy" laws were all struck down by the Supreme Court as a result of Lawrence v. Texas, so not only is homosexual conduct explicitly NOT illegal in the U.S. but the mere state of being homosexual is also not illegal. So I'm still kind of wondering why homosexuality is such a huge breach in the military.

"Moral" (adj.) is defined as:
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.

(emphasis mine)

Most of the definitions above are highly subjective, as it is impossible for anyone to determine what is truly "right" or "wrong." Therefore, if the military is bent on declaring consensual sexual activity between two adults to be immoral because of the gender issues, there is no way to definitively gainsay them. But the two definitions in bold I found kind of interesting: both sides, pro- and anti-gays in the military, can be said to be standing up for what they know to be right in the face of oppostion from legalities, enactment, or custom. And as for being virtuous and chaste in sexual matters, well, I highly doubt that all the heterosexual servicemen and women are virginal innocents in chastity belts. Is homosexuality worse than sexual promiscuity? Who can say? (Well, I'm sure that at least two of you will say that it is).

I know, the world's not fair. But this whole thing still strikes me as really, really unfair. There are some things that the government just doesn't need to be involved in.

[Gordon Nore]

I know, the world's not fair. But this whole thing still strikes me as really, really unfair. There are some things that the government just doesn't need to be involved in.

Excellent post.

[David Craik]

OK, here goes. First, as I understand it from the second article the General was actually defending the 'don't ask, don't tell policy' when he mentioned that he was brought up to believe that homosexuality is immoral. Regardless, the "DADT" policy doesn't presume to dictate whether being gay is "moral" or not, so General Pace saying he believes that it is immoral is not a comment on a government policy or the President's orders, it is his personal belief, which he is quite entitled to and echoes the sentiments of the vast majority of Marines - and the UCMJ, which predates Clinton by many decades.

I have verbally (or digitally) defended gay rights quite a bit over the years. I even had an article republished by a Canadian gay website (at their request), defending the idea that they should be allowed to marry. However, being a member of the military for the past 20 years I don't believe they should be allowed to join the military, as it was when I joined. This is not due to their supposed bravery or lack thereof, or on any moral judgement, but due to the fact that we are sharing bathrooms, showers, and cramped berthing/tents where we dress and undress together, often with inches between us. No, I don't really care personally, but I can understand why someone would. It is no different from all facilities being coed, and while I would not have a problem showering with a bevy of ladies they may have something to say about that. There are situations where the makeup of a frontline unit is all male..not exactly conducive to mission accomplishment when some of them are boffing each other while others pine for their girl or wife at home. And whether they "tell" or not, once it gets out - right or wrong - it can totally destroy unit cohesiveness. It isn't a question of fair...but is it "fair" for a heterosexual to have his genitalia ogled by a homosexual because he has no choice but to shower communally? We don't stay in private rooms in Iraq or Korea, doncha know. Not to mention the fact that damn little is "fair" in the military anyway, what matters is mission accomplishment. Any situation which threatens the cohesiveness of a unit endangers that unit when it can no longer function as a team of brothers. The very same reason adultery is a crime - it can destroy a unit because it quite understandably engenders enmity. Enmity may be fine between Staples' employees, but it doesn't work for men they may be holding each others lives in their hands.

The UCMJ applies to all branches.

Whether authorities turn a blind eye toward certain acts does not negate the fact that it is illegal. That's what the thing says so thats what we abide by.

[Patrick Hayes]

but due to the fact that we are sharing bathrooms, showers, and cramped berthing/tents where we dress and undress together, often with inches between us.
But wouldn't this also apply to professional athletes who share locker rooms, showers, and hotel rooms? Tim Hardaway spoke out against homosexuals and was called a hatemonger. Gen. Pace expresses a similar sentiment (albeit in a much less inflammatory manner) and is considered some sort of hero for standing up for his "moral principles?" What kind of sense does that make?


Whether authorities turn a blind eye toward certain acts does not negate the fact that it is illegal. That's what the thing says so thats what we abide by.
Nonetheless, I'd wager that it makes quite a bit of difference to homosexual soldiers who are dishonorably discharged while serving alongside heterosexual adulterers who either don't get caught or who have a blind eye turned toward their activities.

[Abbax8]

Is homosexuality worse than sexual promiscuity? Who can say? (Well, I'm sure that at least two of you will say that it is).

I know, the world's not fair. But this whole thing still strikes me as really, really unfair. There are some things that the government just doesn't need to be involved in.

Am I one of the two?

In what I have been taught and believe, homosexual inclinations are not wrong. Homosexual acts are wrong. By the same token, heterosexual tendencies are not wrong, but heterosexual acts outside of marriage are wrong. Also adultary is wrong.

From what I have read, this is pretty much the context of UCMJ.

I am not in favor of locking up homosexuals or heterosexuals for that matter, I am talking about consensual relationships between adults. I am in favor of speaking out against what has become a culture of casual sex, with all the ills that come with it.

Peace

Dennis

[David Craik]

But wouldn't this also apply to professional athletes who share locker rooms, showers, and hotel rooms? Tim Hardaway spoke out against homosexuals and was called a hatemonger. Gen. Pace expresses a similar sentiment (albeit in a much less inflammatory manner) and is considered some sort of hero for standing up for his "moral principles?" What kind of sense does that make?

Have no idea, I'm not a professional athlete, nor do I care about such things. What such people are called or do has nothing to do with me or the Marine Corps. I don't even know who the hell Tim Hardaway is, but with the money they make, I'd shower with the entire cast of 'The Bird Cage'. I will point out that professional athletes lose a game or get tackled if the guy who is supposed to be guarding him does not do so due to finding out he's a homosexual. Marines wind up wearing brains and skull fragments. Athletes don't shower or live every single day for 7 months or a year nuts-to-butt with 10, 12, or 50 other guys in a cramped open tent or berthing area either. An athlete could quite easily hold off on the shower until they got back to their hotel, or home. They have that option. If we wait until we get home to shower in privacy our skin will have long since rotted off. When the Cowboys have a successful and scandal-fee season showering and living in platonic fashion with their cheerleaders in a quonset hut then I will reconsider.


Nonetheless, I'd wager that it makes quite a bit of difference to homosexual soldiers who are dishonorably discharged while serving alongside heterosexual adulterers who either don't get caught or who have a blind eye turned toward their activities.

It probably makes a difference to the guy who gets a ticket for going 10m.p.h. over the speed limit that another guy only got a warning for going 20 over from a different cop. It probably makes a difference to an armed robber sentenced by Judge Ellen Morphonios to over 1,000 years in jail that another dude got only 20 years for murder. Just because everyone does not enforce a standard does not mean that the standard should be disregarded. People get away with things every day, should all rules and laws be thus dispensed with?

FWIW, I know of numerous people in my career that were discharged or otherwise punished for adultery, but not a single one for homosexuality.

[Dennis Monk]

Am I one of the two?

Yes, am I am the other one I guess.

[CannibalCrowley]

Is this really a time when our military can easily absorb the needless loss of thousands of servicemen, including Arabic linguists?


Shame the man holding the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States is held to a lower standard than a Private though.

I agree, we should lock up the President the next time he gets a BJ; even if it's from his wife.


I will point out that professional athletes lose a game or get tackled if the guy who is supposed to be guarding him does not do so due to finding out he's a homosexual. Marines wind up wearing brains and skull fragments.

So you're saying that they shouldn't be allowed to serve partially because their fellow servicemen might be bigots?


but is it "fair" for a heterosexual to have his genitalia ogled by a homosexual because he has no choice but to shower communally?

You'd have a point if DADT in any way prevented this; but it doesn't. Currently, a homosexual is allowed to serve until he either admits that he's gay or someone can provide evidence that he is.

[Ramirez]

I agree, we should lock up the President the next time he gets a BJ; even if it's from his wife.



:laugh: point taken...who decides what is immoral. And if we are to hold presidents to some incredibly virtuous standard we would likely get a bunch of pansies.

I believe it was Patton who said "a man that won't f**k, won't fight"

[starkjudo]

Yes, am I am the other one I guess.

I must not be able to count, are maybe there are just more of us.

[David Craik]

I agree, we should lock up the President the next time he gets a BJ; even if it's from his wife.

Never said anything about locking up anyone there, Alistair. The CINC should hold himself to the highest standard, just as I'm expected to hold myself to a higher standard than I expect of my troops.


And if we are to hold presidents to some incredibly virtuous standard we would likely get a bunch of pansies.

I don't see how being faithful to your wife is "incredibly virtuous", or how it makes one a "pansy". Guess I'm a pansy, and will continue to be so.


So you're saying that they shouldn't be allowed to serve partially because their fellow servicemen might be bigots?

No, I'm saying that there is a vast situational difference between athletes and servicemembers. I would also prefer to not have a bunch of dudes doing the hunka-chunka in my tent.


You'd have a point if DADT in any way prevented this; but it doesn't. Currently, a homosexual is allowed to serve until he either admits that he's gay or someone can provide evidence that he is.

So is a felon, a necrophiliac, a drug dealer, or a child molester. A person who hides what he is through either omission or lying can serve indefinately. I never said anything about DADT in that post, because it's a ludicrous policy. It is absurd to expect a person to remain celibate (not so much as a kiss or holding hands) their entire enlistment. It is corrupt to make an official policy stating that "X is illegal, unless we don't catch you." Something is either right or it's wrong.

None of this has anything to do with having to shower and live in potentially compromising conditions with a person who for all intents and purposes may as well be of the opposite gender.

At any rate, I'm done with this thread. I have neither the desire nor the inclination to defend my views on military policy to folks who were in elementary school when I graduated boot camp. Have a pleasant day.

[CannibalCrowley]

I don't see how being faithful to your wife is "incredibly virtuous", or how it makes one a "pansy". Guess I'm a pansy, and will continue to be so.

Not violating the UCMJ would require more than just being faithful to one's wife. I picked the President getting a BJ from his wife for my comment specifically because it's against the UCMJ.


At any rate, I'm done with this thread. I have neither the desire nor the inclination to defend my views on military policy to folks who were in elementary school when I graduated boot camp.

An ad hominem attack, and from a "Super Moderator" no less.

[Ramirez]

Consider some of the great military men and politicians in history. Napoleon - adulterer , Churchill - alcoholic, FDR - adulterer ..I could give more examples, but I think to be successful at such high stakes means a level of ruthlessness, meaning they likely can also find ways to rationalize some of their baser instincts.

It is no surprise to me that successful politicians like JFK, LBJ , Nixon and Clinton (not saying they were good presidents, that is a whole other argument) also have fairly lax moral standards that wouldn't meet the military code of conduct .

I don't have the specifics right now but I don't think MacArthur and Patton would meet the UCMJ code of conduct either.

[Webmaster]

An ad hominem attack, and from a "Super Moderator" no less.
Gawd, you're an obnoxious child Dewey. :rolleyes:

Goodbye Dewey. This is a long time coming and I am not in the mood to further deal with your BS.

[Dennis Monk]

Oh darn Dewey is gone...
and I had so much respect for him ever since

I guess it's good for those who like to blare their own horn though..

[Musubi Dojo]

Spring cleaning has offically begun.......:D

[Jeff C.]

To get back on track, the MCM (Manual of Court-Martial) clearly does not hold adultery to the same standard as sodomy. There is a WHOLE lot of wiggle-room to get out of an adultery charge:

c. Explanation.
(1) Nature of offense. Adultery is clearly unacceptable
conduct, and it reflects adversely on the
service record of the military member.
(2) Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline
or of a nature to bring discredit upon the
armed forces. To constitute an offense under the
U C M J , t h e a d u l t e r o u s c o n d u c t m u s t e i t h e r b e
directly prejudicial to good order and discipline or
s e r v i c e d i s c r e d i t i n g . A d u l t e r o u s c o n d u c t t h a t i s
directly prejudicial includes conduct that has an obvious,
and measurably divisive effect on unit or organization
d i s c i p l i n e , m o r a l e , o r c o h e s i o n , o r i s
clearly detrimental to the authority or stature of or
respect toward a servicemember. Adultery may also
be service discrediting, even though the conduct is
only indirectly or remotely prejudicial to good order
and discipline. Discredit means to injure the reputation
of the armed forces and includes adulterous
conduct that has a tendency, because of its open or
notorious nature, to bring the service into disrepute,
make it subject to public ridicule, or lower it in
public esteem. While adulterous conduct that is private
and discreet in nature may not be service discrediting
by this standard, under the circumstances,
it may be determined to be conduct prejudicial to
good order and discipline. Commanders should consider
all relevant circumstances, including but not
limited to the following factors, when determining
whether adulterous acts are prejudicial to good order
and discipline or are of a nature to bring discredit
upon the armed forces:
(a) The accused’s marital status, military rank,
grade, or position;
(b) The co-actor’s marital status, military rank,
grade, and position, or relationship to the armed
forces;
(c) The military status of the accused’s spouse
or the spouse of co-actor, or their relationship to the
armed forces;
(d) The impact, if any, of the adulterous relationship
on the ability of the accused, the co-actor,
or the spouse of either to perform their duties in
support of the armed forces;
(e) The misuse, if any, of government time and
r e s o u r c e s t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e
conduct;
(f) Whether the conduct persisted despite counseling
or orders to desist; the flagrancy of the conduct,
such as whether any notoriety ensued; and
w h e t h e r t h e a d u l t e r o u s a c t w a s a c c o m p a n i e d b y
other violations of the UCMJ;
(g) The negative impact of the conduct on the
units or organizations of the accused, the co-actor or
the spouse of either of them, such as a detrimental
effect on unit or organization morale, teamwork, and
efficiency;
(h) Whether the accused or co-actor was legally
separated; and
(i) Whether the adulterous misconduct involves
an ongoing or recent relationship or is remote in
time.
(3) Marriage. A marriage exists until it is dissolved
in accordance with the laws of a competent
state or foreign jurisdiction.
(4) Mistake of fact. A defense of mistake of fact
exists if the accused had an honest and reasonable
belief either that the accused and the co-actor were
both unmarried, or that they were lawfully married
to each other. If this defense is raised by the evidence,
then the burden of proof is upon the United
States to establish that the accused’s belief was unreasonable
or not honest.

Jeff Cook

[Jeff C.]

Sorry for the long and somewhat garbled post above; it is a cut-and-paste from an Adobe Acrobat version of the MCM.

The excerpt above is only a partial cut of the entire article that addresses adultery. It is about five times as long as the ENTIRE sodomy article, which has no wiggle-room whatsoever.

So one must ask, why does the military offer so many loopholes to escape from an adultery charge, but not from a sodomy charge?

I understand and respect David's stance on gays in the military. I share his opinion for the most part. However, other militaries have not had the dire problems allowing gays to openly serve, that we predict we would have here. Good leadership and organization can alleviate any close-living issues that may come up.

Jeff Cook

[Patrick Hayes]

I understand and respect David's stance on gays in the military. I share his opinion for the most part. However, other militaries have not had the dire problems allowing gays to openly serve, that we predict we would have here. Good leadership and organization can alleviate any close-living issues that may come up.

My sentiments exactly. My posts were not directed against David, he was just the most informed and articulate person representing the no-gays-in-the-military side of the debate.

I'm also wondering how separation of the sexes works when military units are away from their base? How would women be kept separate from men? Does the close contact between the sexes have any inherent difficulties that would not be present when heterosexuals and homosexuals serve together?

[Gordon Nore]

...other militaries have not had the dire problems allowing gays to openly serve, that we predict we would have here. Good leadership and organization can alleviate any close-living issues that may come up.

Any examples, Jeff? Out of curiosity I did a couple of searches on Canadian military policy and came up with the following:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/14/militarygaywedding0614.html


Airbase hosts 1st military gay wedding
Last Updated: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 | 1:43 PM ET
CBC News
Two men were married in the chapel at Nova Scotia's Greenwood airbase in May, in what's being called the Canadian military's first gay wedding.
Lt.-Cmdr. David Greenwood, the base's head chaplain, said a sergeant and a warrant officer were married May 3 in front of about 45 guests.

http://www.times10.org/pro1119117.htm
I cribbed a few items from this article to put together a timeline.


The Canadian Parliament decriminalized homosexual behaviour and same-sex relations between consenting adults in 1968.

The parallel discriminatory military policy, however, remained in effect until 1992.

The Canadian Forces officially announced that joining or serving in the military would no longer be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation (News Release/Communiqué, 1992).

For instance, it was not until 1996 that the Canadian military extended benefits to members in same-sex relationships, which were previously available to heterosexual couples (CANFORGEN 094/96; Poulin, 2001).

In 1999, partners of lesbian and gay soldiers gained the right to receive military pension survival benefits (Belkin & McNichol, 2000).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada


Same-sex marriage was legalized across Canada by the Civil Marriage Act enacted on July 20, 2005. Court decisions, starting in 2003, had already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in these areas.[1] Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.

The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Paul Martin's Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day.

[Jeff C.]

Gordon, I am not sure what you are asking for. I said that other countries have not had problems with gays in the military. Do you want me to provide examples of...countries that do not have problems? I am a little confused. It seems that your examples do not highlight any problems.

Jeff Cook

[Jeff C.]

Patrick, we have quite a few females in my unit. When deployed to the field, we have tents for the females and tents for the males for the larger mixed-gender sections. For my Sentinel teams of mixed gender, males and females sleep in their individual hooches at their emplacements, side by side. In cantonment, the females have a barracks and the males have a barracks. On "special" deployments in urban environments without infrastructure, when we have buildings available, the females will use one room, males another. If all are in a very large enclosure, females sleep on one side, males on the other.

If only one shower facility is available, the females have it for a block of time, then the males have it for another block of time.

We segregate all of the time for sleeping and personal hygiene. Even if it is a small mixed-gender team out in the woods or desert, each team member respects the other's privacy; if one needs to go behind the nearest bush to relieve him or herself, others will not follow to watch - that is unprofessional. And if one is pulling guard while the other one tends to personal needs, his or her eyes better be searching and scanning for threats rather than watching what's going on at the cat-hole.

If homosexuals are open about their sexuality, we can simply extend the same right of privacy to them in the same manner that our mixed gender units have been functioning for years. If they are not open about their sexuality, then no one knows and it is irrelevant anyway.

Jeff Cook

[Patrick Hayes]

Patrick, we have quite a few females in my unit. When deployed to the field, we have tents for the females and tents for the males for the larger mixed-gender sections. For my Sentinel teams of mixed gender, males and females sleep in their individual hooches at their emplacements, side by side. In cantonment, the females have a barracks and the males have a barracks. On "special" deployments in urban environments without infrastructure, when we have buildings available, the females will use one room, males another. If all are in a very large enclosure, females sleep on one side, males on the other.

If only one shower facility is available, the females have it for a block of time, then the males have it for another block of time.

We segregate all of the time for sleeping and personal hygiene. Even if it is a small mixed-gender team out in the woods or desert, each team member respects the other's privacy; if one needs to go behind the nearest bush to relieve him or herself, others will not follow to watch - that is unprofessional. And if one is pulling guard while the other one tends to personal needs, his or her eyes better be searching and scanning for threats rather than watching what's going on at the cat-hole.

If homosexuals are open about their sexuality, we can simply extend the same right of privacy to them in the same manner that our mixed gender units have been functioning for years. If they are not open about their sexuality, then no one knows and it is irrelevant anyway.

Jeff Cook

Thanks for the informative post, I've wondered about that for years.

I guess it's all a moot point anyway. Every "minority group" seems to face its own struggle for equality, and usually perseveres. Women's rights reached a climax in the 1920's, Civil rights for non-whites reached its climax in the 1960's. I guess homosexuals were just due for theirs.

Historically, non-whites weren't allowed to join the military, but that was reversed and I think most Americans would agree that it was an enlightened, progressive change. Women were also not allowed to join the military, but that decision was also reversed. That one's still generating some controversy, but I haven't heard too many people lately saying that women have no place in the military. I'm sure that homosexuals will be accepted in the fullness of time as well. It seems pretty inevitable.

[Gordon Nore]

Gordon, I am not sure what you are asking for. I said that other countries have not had problems with gays in the military. Do you want me to provide examples of...countries that do not have problems? I am a little confused. It seems that your examples do not highlight any problems.

Jeff Cook

No, I just meant examples of other militaries that had integrated gays into their ranks. What countries have done this? I figured you would have a pretty good read on what problems, if any, resulted. It would be interesting to know what the experience of other countries has been.

[Jeff C.]

Gordon, I am no more well-read than the average Budoseeker. Frankly, I have not had the need to research the "gays in the military" thing.

But since you want examples, here you go: http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/PressCenter/coverage2_10_01.htm

Here's another good one that I read in US Today: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/03/post_31.html

Notably, 23 of the 26 NATO countries allow gays in their militaries. A quote from the above article: "In Britain, senior officers predicted dire consequences when its gay ban was lifted in 2000. Several officers resigned in protest. So what happened? The experience has been so successful that the British military now recruits gays and offers partner benefits."

I will admit that I was totally against the idea a few years ago, for the reasons David mentions. Now I am not. I too do not want to see any rump-wranglers in the tent; but then again, I don't want to see one of my male and one of my female troops getting it on in the tent either.

Jeff Cook

[Gordon Nore]

...I too do not want to see any rump-wranglers in the tent; but then again, I don't want to see one of my male and one of my female troops getting it on in the tent either.

Agreed. Thanks for the links.

[David Craik]

Now that Can o' balls is gone, and since Jeff is responding, a few thoughts:

A front-line infantry unit is the worst place to have a breakdown in unit cohesion. We hardly need hanky-panky or lover's quarrels on the front, the "Dear Johns" are bad enough. As there are no women in such units, there is little danger of hetero action going on.

To have completely separate facilities, or even separate times for a field shower would be logistically unworkable, at least as things stand now. Are we going to have tents for straight men, tents for homosexual men, tents for heterosexual women, and still more tents for lesbians? The Army might have the scratch for such mammoth facilities but we sure don't in the USMC. I've been on deployments where there weren't even adeqate tents for just the guys, period, and we would up cramming in there like sardines. Same goes for the ship, there simply are not enough berthing areas to separate by sexual preference, let alone by sexual preference and rank. You're already stacked up like cordwood. We won't even get into submarines, which would be submerging with 100 men and resurfacing with 50 couples due to the neccesity of 'hot-racking'.

The UCMJ does contain a lot of silliness. I would re-vamp the whole thing. We're talking about a document ratified in 1949 that still has an article against duelling (?!?). However, there it is in all of it's obsolete glory. Whether right, wrong, or indifferent nobody cares about the elements of the sodomy article as long as they're perfomed with a member of the opposite sex. The only way I could see a prosecutor bringing it into play against a heterosexual is as a adjunct to an adultery charge; in order to get a stiffer (no pun intended) penalty for the accused.

I think it is difficult for civilians to understand some of the things we do and the need for various regulations. My wife still doesn't get a lot of it, and she's been with me for 17 years.

It is interesting that the British Army openly allows gays though, I have a helluva lot of time for the Brits. I agree with Patrick that they probably will be accepted in the U.S. military in time too. The difference between this issue and the 'nonwhite' thing of years ago is that being of a particular race is not an activity. Being nonwhite does not threaten a disruption of critical operations due to fraternization.

The most workable thing I heard during the hoopla about instituting DADT years ago came from a comedian - possibly George Carlin. He said "Why not just make the Navy the gay branch?" :D

[Jeff C.]

Sorry Gunny, but I can't resist - the USMC IS a branch of the Navy, is it not??? :D

We don't allow females in the infantry, but females are allowed in the Army. I agree with your reasoning, but I still don't see that as a prohibitive factor for gays in the military.

Jeff Cook

[Brian Dugger]

Now I understand with all this code and policy. Even though this guy is Joint Cheif, by the book he is to remain "in uniform" which is to include contrary views and comments, right? It even addresses certain proclivities as well as discretionary behavior all the way to the Commander and Cheif, right? I was reading into Dewey's stab, the conclusion I drew was reeling me back to the Clinton impeachment "hearing" and wondering if besides perjury, Clinton was guilty also of the uniform code?

[David Craik]

We don't allow females in the infantry, but females are allowed in the Army. I agree with your reasoning, but I still don't see that as a prohibitive factor for gays in the military.

Well, Jeff, it may well work for the Army because you folks don't normally serve aboard ships - though I don't think allowing gays to serve but restricting them to non-combat fields would be very well received by the civilian populace either. The USAF would probably be able to handle the most seamless integration, they all live in condos far from any action anyway.


Sorry Gunny, but I can't resist - the USMC IS a branch of the Navy, is it not???

Actually we are a department of the Navy. The men's department. ;)

[TonyU]

Actually we are a department of the Navy. The men's department. ;)
:laugh::notworthy:

[Jeff C.]

David, read my links in one of my previous posts. One of the links is about a Brit in the Navy, and how remarkably well-received he is by his shipmates. No problems in the British navy.

The second link has polls of our military personnel and our US citizens about the topic of this discussion. Although I know polls can certainly be skewed, the results are still interesting. The results do not support your suppositions. I am curious if any other polls have been taken (I hate using the word "poll" in this thread, for some reason.....:D)

Jeff Cook

[David Craik]

I'll take a look at the links, Jeff. As I mentioned I find the integration in British forces very interesting. Of course, polls are one thing and the numerous instances of idiot servicemembers beating up or killing homosexuals is another.
I'm not saying that bigotry is a reason why they should not be admitted, as Cannoloni suggested, but I think we have to look at the reality of perception here.

Perhaps you're right, maybe their would be no problems at all, maybe there would be no problems if men and women all showered together either. But I doubt it.

[Dennis Monk]

Perhaps you're right, maybe their would be no problems at all, maybe there would be no problems if men and women all showered together either. But I doubt it.
It did make for one of the better scenes in Starship Troopers. :D

[David Craik]

Very interesting links, though I must point out that the first website is obviously going to be somewhat skewed. Most "Centers for the Study of.." have an agenda from the get go, not to mention that it's at a liberal California university that probably despises the military anyway and doesn't know the first damn thing about it. Suggest that one of their 'studiers' climb down from their academic tower and become an infantry officer to get some first-hand knowledge and see how wildly they balk. And the second is an op-ed piece that is free to quote the polls that support the position presented.

I would be quite happy if homosexuals were openly integrated into the military and nobody cared, and no danger to mission accomplishment and cohesion occurred. I have no problem with them whatsoever, as it isn't my place to dictate what is moral and what is not. But, the breakdown of unit morale and cohesion that I fear gets people killed. And I'll be the most unfair, draconian, and un-PC S.O.B. imaginable if it will keep Marines alive.

Unfortunately those Generals which remain warriors that speak their mind - like Lewis Puller - instead of becoming politicians that say what their superiors and the public wants to hear, tend to have stunted careers and attract a lot of ire from people who don't know what it is to throw on a helmet. It has always been thus. While I may not neccesarily agree with General Petraeus, I applaud him for speaking frankly on what he believes. We need more men like this and fewer fawning yes-men in positions of power.

But, I'm a dinosaur with one foot in the tarpit and the other on a banana peel. 26 days! :D: