Again what branch and unit did you serve with?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Obama to end Don't ask, Don't tell
- Thread starter News Shooter
- Start date
- Status
Again what branch and unit did you serve with?
Gays are allowed to serve.![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Which of course is a good thing. The problem with "don't ask, don't tell" it is inherently discriminatory, based on my understanding of the policy.
As a heterosexual man, can I inform another member of the armed services that I'm a heterosexual?
While folks like you obviously have first hand experience (and we are forever indebted to you) I fail to see the relevancy of one's service (or lack thereof).
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
But if you have to say it, I doubt they'd believe you
For those of you that haven't served, you would not understand the unit cohesion especially in the combat arms fields.
It has to be there.
If you have served you know what it is like, if you haven't you'll never understand.
It has to be there.
If you have served you know what it is like, if you haven't you'll never understand.
Nor will they.
Well...I served with gays, some were overt and some covert in their behaviors...as long as they did their jobs and didn't try to impose their lifestyle on myself or others, frankly I didn't really care one way or the other.
I think the issue boils down to the combat arms as opposed to combat support and combat service support. In my lifetime I saw the US military go from gender segregation to gender integration (no more WACs, WAVES, SPARs etc) into combat support and combat service support. People used to say that things were going to go to hell, and for the first women totally integrated into these type units it was uncomfortable, no doubt, the same for African-Americans when the military racially desegregated back in the late 1940's.I've lived with women out in the field, shared tents and latrine facilities...and you know what? Who gives a rat's patootie? When you are cold, wet, hungry, tired and pissed off (which is a lot of the time out in the field) the last thing on people's minds is trying to get off. So as for we heteros, we are exposed to potential sexual partners most of the time on the job in our combat support and combat service support jobs, and while stuff does happen, most people go about their business, and the UCMJ pretty well covers inappropriate behavior...BUT... I understand how people in the infantry feel and it is gender segregated, and having openly gay members serve in that branch is a different situation and I could see where unit cohesiveness could be affected, and unless you have served, it's a concept that transcends good morale you might have at work or on a sports team. There are no easy answers on this one. The status quo is probably the best way to go for right now and as societal attitudes change towards homosexuality, change will undoubtedly happen, but we are not quite ready for that yet.
To the oposing camp, I would tell you that the British Army has openly gay people serving with it, and apparently with no real problems...but then again, I have not talked to a currently serving British soldier or officer concerning this issue. I only know what their PR folks say.
Mark056
I think the issue boils down to the combat arms as opposed to combat support and combat service support. In my lifetime I saw the US military go from gender segregation to gender integration (no more WACs, WAVES, SPARs etc) into combat support and combat service support. People used to say that things were going to go to hell, and for the first women totally integrated into these type units it was uncomfortable, no doubt, the same for African-Americans when the military racially desegregated back in the late 1940's.I've lived with women out in the field, shared tents and latrine facilities...and you know what? Who gives a rat's patootie? When you are cold, wet, hungry, tired and pissed off (which is a lot of the time out in the field) the last thing on people's minds is trying to get off. So as for we heteros, we are exposed to potential sexual partners most of the time on the job in our combat support and combat service support jobs, and while stuff does happen, most people go about their business, and the UCMJ pretty well covers inappropriate behavior...BUT... I understand how people in the infantry feel and it is gender segregated, and having openly gay members serve in that branch is a different situation and I could see where unit cohesiveness could be affected, and unless you have served, it's a concept that transcends good morale you might have at work or on a sports team. There are no easy answers on this one. The status quo is probably the best way to go for right now and as societal attitudes change towards homosexuality, change will undoubtedly happen, but we are not quite ready for that yet.
To the oposing camp, I would tell you that the British Army has openly gay people serving with it, and apparently with no real problems...but then again, I have not talked to a currently serving British soldier or officer concerning this issue. I only know what their PR folks say.
Mark056
Last edited:
jcetto0351
NES Member
We used to make life hell for anybody who tried to serve "openly"... I actually kind of feel bad about it now... we did some crappy stuff.
I still stand by my opinion that homosexuals have no place in an infantry unit; send them to a supply bn or something.
I still stand by my opinion that homosexuals have no place in an infantry unit; send them to a supply bn or something.
Yeah nothing like being in supply in an MI unit.![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
200 men go out to sea 100 couples come back
Perhaps not, but a penny for your thoughts.
You may have mentioned this in this thread, or another, but is it the "unit cohesion" issue?
Have you ever served in the military? If you're asking I am guessing not.
No matter how we try to tell you for a civilian you wouldn't get it.
What do people think of the following--
And, as a side note, please don't try to disparage me about not understanding the internal workings of military unit cohesion. I can proudly cite on my resume HUNDREDS OF HOURS of watching dvds such as GI Jane, Platoon, Rambo, Band of Brothers, The Guns of Navarone, Flags of Our Fathers, The Patriot, Glory, The Thin Red Line, The Bridge on the River Kwai, and Full Metal Jacket. Okay??![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
And, as a side note, please don't try to disparage me about not understanding the internal workings of military unit cohesion. I can proudly cite on my resume HUNDREDS OF HOURS of watching dvds such as GI Jane, Platoon, Rambo, Band of Brothers, The Guns of Navarone, Flags of Our Fathers, The Patriot, Glory, The Thin Red Line, The Bridge on the River Kwai, and Full Metal Jacket. Okay??
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,980
- Likes
- 2,841
Have you ever served in the military? If you're asking I am guessing not.
So if we said in 1946 that front line units should be integrated and blacks and whites should serve together, we would be wrong if we hadn't served previously? These arguments about unit cohesion where the same ones used by those looking to keep segregated the military 60 years ago. Regulate and punish the behavior, not the being. If a soldier grabs the ass of another one, smack him down and boot him out. What he does off base is a whole other story.
And, as a side note, please don't try to disparage me about not understanding the internal workings of military unit cohesion. I can proudly cite on my resume HUNDREDS OF HOURS of watching dvds such as GI Jane, Platoon, Rambo, Band of Brothers, The Guns of Navarone, Flags of Our Fathers, The Patriot, Glory, The Thin Red Line, The Bridge on the River Kwai, and Full Metal Jacket. Okay??
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
![[rofl2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/035.gif "ROFL2 [rofl2]")
What do people think of the following--
And, as a side note, please don't try to disparage me about not understanding the internal workings of military unit cohesion. I can proudly cite on my resume HUNDREDS OF HOURS of watching dvds such as GI Jane, Platoon, Rambo, Band of Brothers, The Guns of Navarone, Flags of Our Fathers, The Patriot, Glory, The Thin Red Line, The Bridge on the River Kwai, and Full Metal Jacket. Okay??
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
....but I'm pretty sure Thin Red Line is a PBS nature special that's about two hours too long.
They weren't short because of the "don't ask don't tell" policy, it was the cuts Klinton made to specific areas of the defense budget that was a direct result of the understaffed and over worked linguists. I was amazed to hear the difference in staffing and workload at the NSA once the cuts were put in place. Not to mention it doesn't even quantify how many of the 36 were Arabic or Farsi linguists.
That snippet is like blaming gun owners for bank robberies.
That snippet is like blaming gun owners for bank robberies.
So if we said in 1946 that front line units should be integrated and blacks and whites should serve together, we would be wrong if we hadn't served previously? These arguments about unit cohesion where the same ones used by those looking to keep segregated the military 60 years ago. Regulate and punish the behavior, not the being. If a soldier grabs the ass of another one, smack him down and boot him out. What he does off base is a whole other story.
Horrible, horrible example.
Okay, but saying Clinton cut the budget and there are very few resources is more of an argument for NOT dismissing them- here's the only stat I could find breaking down how many were arabic/farsi:
So, my question remains, do people who have been in the service see a difference between serving in a combat role and being an out-gay and serving as an intel person translating arabic intercepts? i.e. should there, for national security reasons, be exceptions to the rule?
And again I stand by my inside knowledge on this stuff, having seen GI Jane at least 11 times. She was in Navy intel and became a SEAL, you know!?
That was the point I and others were trying to make. Infantry units are comprised of guys who for the most part are all Alpha males and want to kill as many bad people as possible. Not all, but a decent amount simply don't tolerate gays. Right or wrong I don't care. I can't force someone to accept a lifestyle they don't agree with. However when you start to sacrifice the effectiveness of a combat platoon because of one guy rather than processing out that one guy that is a huge problem.
The REMF's who aren't out kicking in doors and using a secondary weapon to drop a bad guy are probably a little more tolerant of the gay lifestyle. I don't have a problem with gays serving, but if one person is going to be a chink in the armor because 15 other guys can't stand the fact that he is gay, well then that one person needs to go.
Horrible, horrible example.
Derek,
Why is that a horrible example?
I don't have a dog in this race - I'm not military and I don't see the need to change the policy - ain't broke, don't fix and all that - OTOH, from an outsider's perspective, Terraforma's analogy seems to be apt. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely curious as to your reasoning.
There is two sides to MI. There are those of us that sat in a building with no windows, and there are those linguists and others that DO go out with combat units. Just because one assignment may be at a Field Station(Not that many exist now) and your next assignment may be with a combat unit. So yeah unfortunately the policy needs to be the same.
I didn't have a problem with the E-7 who was my boss that was gay. Like I said what he did outside of the unit and in his own time none of my business. Don't care.
That makes sense. I don't believe in doing social experiments with people in life/death situations. Since I'm not the one who's life would be in put in danger, I don't think I should be telling people who's lives are in danger who they should accept, whether that be women, gays, people with dyslexia, people missing a toe, or people with asthma or allergies, etc.
I'm no homophobe (though I sometimes play one on TV), I have no problem with gays, but I have altered my behavior because of them at the gym before. I worked with 2 guys that were gay and we all worked out at the same gym at lunchtime, it was just weird in the shower. I saw them a few times eying buff guys and giving each other looks, and it was just weird standing naked in front of them. So I changed my workout schedule by 15 minutes, just so I wouldn't have to shower at the same time with them.
Ok, full disclosure- I realize not ALL guys would have this problem with gays in the shower, but I have a unique condition. How to put it? Well, let's just say that I'm genetically "blessed", if you know what I'm saying. I'm not just talking NBA or porn size, I'm talking BIG! I mean it's crazy! So, you see, I have problems that others wouldn't.
- Status
