Lab Rat Soldiers

Regardless of what anyone's individual opinions about gay rights may be. Do we really, as an American nation, believe that it is appropriate to to use the US Military to conduct a social experiment in the midst of warfare?
I think the fact that Don't Ask Don't Tell has been repealed and that this social experiment has been undertaken reveals several things.
First of all it shows an overall lack of respect for the men and women of the US Military. That the current administration would decide to make such a drastic change to the Uniformed Military Code of Justice during a time of war is a spit in the face of every servicemen.
Second this shows a point in the overall gay rights movement that this isn't about civil rights, this is about civil acceptance. There is no statistical reason that DNDT caused a major fallout of required personnel. Between the years of 1997 and 2004 the Army alone last over 26,000 soldiers to desertion (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/desertionrates.htm) while the total number of servicemen in any branch discharged from service from 1993 onward numbers only a little over 13,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell#cite_note-132). Clearly than, this not a move that champions civil rights but an attempt to force civil acceptance onto one of the most conservative demographics in the country - US Servicemen.

 

A friend of mine got back from Iraq a year ago, he's gay. Did quite a job over there. People are acting like ginger drag queens are going to flood the recuriting offices. Come on, you'd never know most of them are gay.

The worst that will happen is one or two of the hangouts/bars around a military base will be "reserved" as the "gay" place.

 

It's not an "experiment". Gay people have been in the U.S. Military since we called it that.

Beyond that, you're just on some bigoted rant which signifies nothing.

This is NOT a drastic change, it is actually an overdue change. The men/women serving today, aren't the men and women of the 1950's or 1960's.

I'm serving NOW with Active Duty military folks... and even though I've seen GAY people serving since I came in 30+ years ago... I've never seen a problem. The greatest problem I ever witnessed, was able-minded and able-bodied troops being dismissed, for nothing other than their sexual-orientation.

It primarily reveals that we've come to our senses as a nation, for one thing.

That's just stupid; really. As a soldier who has know GAY men and women fighting for your right to say the absurd things above... I have to say in response that you are being highly offensive overall (so far).

No. The "current administration" (and HIGHEST OFFICIALS within the Armed Forces) did the PROPER and OVERDUE thing; they stopped persecuting good soldiers, just because of their sexual-orientation.

How long do you think America should entertain its NEUROSIS of fearing, hating and dehumanizing homosexual people? Do you realize that the LONGER that goes on, the worse our problems as a nation will be?

You talk like a lot of CLUELESS racists I've heard, who foolishly imagine that evil directed at certain individuals has no consequences.

What's "DNDT"; do you mean DADT? Well, if the Military to its HIGHEST LEVELS determined that the policy should be repealed, then one can be reasonably certain they saw 'benefit' in doing so. The military is a relatively "Conservative" component of this nation... but they aren't stupid; that's for sure.

And this PROVES what (really)?

You know what? "Conservative" is truly no license to be ignorant, narrow-minded, homophobic or bigoted. I know that some people use it as their 'excuse' (justification) for the same... but they are surely wrong in doing so.

Conservative as it is, the U.S. Military got this one right; and I'm glad to be a part of it!!

 

What is all this talk of gays in the military being a 'social experiment'? Gays have always been in the military, so it was a social experiment since the beginning, right?

Besides, the only people who don't like the idea of gay people serving are the heterosexual homophobes - and there seem to be a lot of those in the military - and those who haven't served at all.

 

Speak for yourself, please... if you're serving that is. I haven't one issue with it.

 

The whole repeal campaign was always about politics. It was never about what was best for the soldiers. It was just about forcing political correctness on the one place where it didn't exist.

 

Thanks Johnny-C for pointing out some typos in my post. I will try to do a better job of previewing my post for errors in the future. But what's posted is posted and all I can do is clarify. Yes, it's DADT. That is most definitely what I mean.
Second, I'll resubmit my statistics and the reasons for posting those statistics with some expanded numbers that may make my point more effectively.
From the years 1997 to 2004, an eight year period, the military lost an estimated amount of nearly 50,000 servicemen to desertion (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/desertionrates.htm).
From the onset of DADT (I still can't believe I made the mistake, lol) in numbers reflected from 1994 to 2010, a 16 year period, the total amount of servicemen discharge for homosexuality numbers at around 13,500 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell#cite_note-132). These numbers average out to over 6,000 servicemen lost to desertion every year and around 850 servicemen lost to homosexual discharge ever year.
The point I am making with these numbers is that statistics do not show that there is a significant number of homosexuals serving in the military (despite all the claims to the contrary). And that the discharge of homosexuals has not led to a significant amount of servicemen lost when compared to only one other statistic. Other factors to be looked at could be suicide due to PTSD (i got that one right hope) and other factors, and legal malfeasance.
What I'm saying is that i feel that the United States citizens have been misled by assertions about the number of servicemen that are currently homosexual and how many servicemen have been denied the ability to serve due to homosexuality.
What i am saying is that the numbers are not there to support your claims.

 

No, you read it wrong. It most often takes POLITICAL action to change a law that is 'wrong'. And it seems you (and some others) have that confused with the notion that a "political action" apparently sprung up out of society, spontaneously. That wasn't what happened and most Americans realize that.

As many have already known and said... gay people have been within the military from the beginning; it is no strange thing that the 'natural' course of this society and others, would be to ultimately see fit to allow homosexuals to serve (openly) as who/what they are.

 

You don't get it. And you don't want to get it. Because society's acceptance of homosexuality is exponentially more important to you than the safety and the lives of our soldiers. If you gave two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about the well-being of the brave men and women defending our country (INCLUDING THE GAY ONES ALREADY SERVING QUIETLY), you would not be so insistent about ramming through a PC policy without first making absolutely certain that it would not have any negative consequences. But there was no concern at all for potential consequences. Because it was all about "fairness."

 

You're welcome; but I just wanted to be certain we were talking about the same thing.

What do those stats and your interpretation of them, have to do with doing what's right and treating others fairly? It seems to me, that you would rather prefer to allow the continued exclusion of homosexual people from military service. While we've had a LONG national debate (based upon many stats and learned opinions and polls to include military members).

Sorry, but that is completely irrelevant at this point. What I mention above supports soundly my assertion.

That is interesting, but makes little difference at this point. Really.

Maybe you are leaving out the fact that even MORE gay people will ultimately serve in the military. In any case, the numbers and other factors were sufficient to cause this NATION to consider a repeal and to carry it out. I suppose you may disagree, but it is clear we all have opinions about many things.

It isn't simply about 'numbers', though it is no secret that all those numbers AND multiple other factors were considered over the last 15+ years.

 

Pretending as if there was no such process won't make your claims valid.

 

Isn't it interesting how servicemen's political condition is taken advantage of. As a military entity a soldier, sailor, marine, or airmen is restricted in what he/she is allowed to speak out against politically. Orders are to be followed and the joint-chief of staff and the former secretary of defense did not want to have a poll from the servicemen on whether they felt DADT was bad policy. They felt that polices in the military cannot be voted on in the military, that that would destroy the structure of military order. The only poll put forward to the servicemen was whether or not they feel the army could cope with a change to DADT. American Servicemen follow orders and have a long history of overcoming dire situations, such as being shot at. So the fact that the servicemen say, "Yeah we could cope if we had to," doesn't really prove anything except that servicemen follow orders, like they always have.
The point here, as it often is with the gay rights movement, is that compromise is not enough for these people. DADT was a compromise between people like me that feel political correctness and social experiment have no place in military order and those who feel homosexuals should be able to serve openly. The policy said that the army could not ask the question and those who were homosexuals could not tell their sexual orientation. This compromise was not enough. Excusing and discrediting the idea that open homosexuality in the armed forces could create friction and destroy unit cohesion and moving towards the idea that, "it's wrong to force someone to hide who they are," is not a compromise it is a shift from the middle ground and the destroying of compromise.
Why is compromise not good enough? Why instead of seeing if the old system needed revision do we throw everything out the window and start experimenting, yes experimenting, with a a whole new system.
Why is it an experiment/ Because we do not know what will happen. Combat units won't be incorporated into the new policy until it's tried on the non-combat units. Sound like an experiment. We don't know what to do about housing, will it work to continue to put all males and females in their own barracks regardless of sexual orientation or should each sexual orientation have their own barracks? We don't know, because it's never been done before, therefore it is an experiment. The military is now having to use valuable resources, including man power, to create policies and solve disputes and be in accordance with a whole new policy while dealing with a two front war and the threat of terrorism worldwide at the same time that its budget has been decreased to the point where the lack of funds alone may cripple the effectiveness of the US Armed Forces as a fighting force.
What is happening now in the US Military has never been done before therefore it can and should be defined as the experiment it is. The bottom line for me is that social experimentation should not be taking place in the US Military period and especially not during a time of war.

 

Oh yes, I DO "get" it. In fact, I AM "it"; an ACTIVE, 30+ year, GAY military vet with multiple wars to my credit. This isn't something I casually opine about; it is the life/death and well being of my troops I'm considering with every stroke of my keyboard. I can assure ANYONE, that the military did the proper thing in doing away with DADT.

Foolish talk, IMO.

Sorry sir, you are completely misled in all of this. You don't really know.

Why don't you sign-up, and serve 'quietly' yourself as a straight guy. Come on, I dare you to go through what I've been through, STRAIGHT GUY. Even so, the point is that it isn't even close to good/right that a gay person must HIDE as they lay their life on the line of YOUR freedoms.

You really don't know what you're talking about. I understand, and I'll continue to fight for your right to believe/say what is completely WRONG.

 

This is all assertion, if you are a gay military vet who has served in multiple wars, than thank you for your service. But the truth of the matter is that on this forum can you really use these assertions to assure anybody? There is no proof that what you say is true, there is no way of showing me your military record.
Maybe I'm in the army, maybe I'm not. If I was I wouldn't use that as an assertion to back up my opinions, because i have no proof. Anybody can got on this forum and say, "I'm a vet so listen to what I have to say."

I am in no way discrediting your service, I'm simply saying that these assertions will not change anybody's opinions because they are unprovable.

Also, the fact that you claim that you yourself are gay in the military discredits any assertions you may have about how a straight member of the military may have or feels about this subject. You are emotionally biased, and your military experience is biased. And if you care about and understand "your soldiers" (I sure hope your an NCO because officers come and go and the soldiers belong to the NCOs who often protect the soldiers from officers stupid decisions) than you should understand the realities on the ground - You cannot put a type A soldier who pisses Napalm and #$!!s cluster bombs into a foxhole with a homosexual and expect them to get along, let alone the close quarters of barracks life and, heaven help the JAGs who are about to busy with a lot of cases, the open bay showers. That's the reality on the ground, that's the problem with this experiment. It ignores realities on the ground and focuses on political correctness and the victories and agenda of a gay rights movement whose goals are not civil rights but civil acceptance.

 

Again, you are not properly informed. Our very training states that people CAN express their view of homosexuality being right/wrong; there is no prohibition on people expressing their values. They cannot verbally assail the members in their units or the military in general, but they don't have to accept homosexuality as being "right".

The polls were available AND anonymous; it was in my own email.

You are assuming that gay people aren't already accepted in MANY military units (they are, and I've known many personally). And I don't even have the time to go into the bi-sexual folks I've met.

How long did you expect homosexual people to HIDE out in the military, which protecting YOUR freedoms? Don't be ludicrous.

Our very U.S. Constitution contains massive amounts of "compromise". Are you American or what?

Wrong, there was a LOT more to it than that; you don't know what your saying here. One could be easily "found-out" and dismissed, by no fault of their own... and that happened numerous times.

Wrong.

I've watched closely over the years and since DADT was repealed; gays in the military aren't the problem many have hyped it to be. Typical human problems will occur from time to time, but it's nothing so significant as some like yourself imagine it to be.

If you knew what DADT meant, you'd NOT ask that question. Get educated about the reality that gay and straight military member faced. A lot of terrible compromise that you know nothing of, was the reality of DADT being in force.

Did you follow anything the DOD was talking about?! Are you aware that they've been looking at the things you are talking about for MANY years? (I bet you aren't.)

We aren't the first nation to do this, and we already know that MOST of our soldiers accept homosexuality in others. They didn't 'guess' about doing what they did, but you seem to want to show that they did. LOL!

Who told you that GAY military member aren't in combat units at this very moment? You are severely misinformed.

The military can take facts, figures and trends... then extrapolate outcomes (as they have always done). The process took into consideration virtually every concern you've so ignorantly claim they did not.

... on the usual things. Not to mention saving MASSIVE amounts of money NOT chasing down and prosecuting homosexual soldiers. WINNING!!

And thank goodness they FINALLY DID IT. But be certain and assured, they figured out how to make it work. And even I didn't expect it to be as SMOOTH as it has been. It is simply wonderful and amazing... at the same time.

The bottom line is that is was the RIGHT thing to do. And it overcomes a lot of purely MENTAL hurdles which should never have been erected in the first place.

Welcome to the 21st century.

 

Hey Bro', it's a done-deal. If the kinds of problems you imagine begin to happen... then something will be done about it.

In my view (experience), getting rid of DADT was a good thing.

 

Then I guess we'll see what happens. I recognize that nothing can be done about it now. In my experience I've never met a homosexual soldier, at least no one who has told me, in fact the biggest thing I hear from soldiers is that they've lost half the material for their jokes. But seriously, I recognize that my own experience distorts my own views as well, because everyone has different experiences.
I'm just trying to point out that this may have been an inappropriate thing to do this at this time (and possibly at any time), and that the process of study determining whether this implementation is really a smart thing to do was muddled by political exigency (Pres. Obama promised Gay Rights activist he would do this and he wasn't gonna have their support in 2012 if he didn't do it). I'm worried by the fact that nearly all the key players at the top levels who made this decision are no longer at those same posts (SecDef, joint-chiefs). And I also think that Americans are having the wool put over their eyes as to what this is really about. If this is really about changing policy to reflect what is already in existence, than give me numbers and studies which show that it already is in existence. From the numbers and studies I've seen, this isn't about policy reflecting reality, this is about a systematic approach by the Gay Rights movement to force acceptance of their sexual practices upon society at large. I feel it wrong that the US military would be a tool towards that end.
But in the end your right, its a done deal, for now. Neither of us can draw up conclusions and realities of the implement of the policy this early in the game.
I'll watch for the next year, and you can watch for the next year. Than I'll see ya in November.

 

And for now, it is my JOB to do just that.

 

On the contrary, DADT showed a lack of respect for the men and women of the US military. As are you, quite frankly.

The plain fact is that there are people - both gay and straight - who are not fit for military service.

Do you believe that gay people are unfit for military service and should be disqualified on the basis of their orientation alone?

The idea that a gay person is only fit for military service if they mentally neuter themselves, pretending to have no orientation or identity connected to it, is beyond insulting. It's pure bigotry.

The code of military justice still applies. The gay people serving are not going to make the stupid decision to create a problem for themselves with their fellow service members by ignoring that code just because DADT is history. If some individual does, then it's questionable whether they were fit for service in the first place. But to characterize this as a social experiment and to opine that gay people are going to cause wholesale disruption and damage to military cohesion shows considerable ignorance.

 

Why not?

The point is, we already do and it hasn't been a problem. You think that's suddenly going to change if soldier A knows that soldier B is gay? It's likely the furthest thing from either one's mind in that kind of situation. And don't be so sure that the gay soldier doesn't (*)(*)(*)(*) Napalm and #$!! cluster bombs themselves.

Just a continuing display of your prejudice and ignorance.

 

....but spooning with a gay man while in a foxhole will bother me.

 

Why would you spoon with a gay man in a fox hole?

Secondly, I would be a little more worried about...oh the bullets flying every which way, than who the guy next to me likes to bang in a situation like that.

Whether you like to believe it or not, there were gays in the military long before DADT was put in place, there were gays in the military while it was in place, and now that it's gone there will still be gays in the military.

Simple as that.

 

Well, you can continue the practice OUTSIDE of 'foxholes', if that makes you more 'comfortable'. (Your statement above, is IDIOTIC and bigoted.)

 

When you are in a foxhole for 2-3 days in 40 degree and lower weather, you would do almost anything to stay warm.

Trust me, been there, done that.

 

If it's about survival, it ain't gonna' be about sex. Gay guys have always been in those situations; they'll get along today as well.