Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military

[RickSp]

Retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili has second thoughts regarding gays in the military. He thinks that it might not be such a bad idea after all.

Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military

The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. Much evidence suggests that it has. Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers. This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems. I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.

[Jack]

An intelligent and thoughtful approach to the issue. This is a good thing.
The debate has never really been about allowing gays into the military. Gays have served honorably for decades. The real issue has always been acknowledgment. Do we allow them to serve openly, as the people they are, or will we continue to demand that they pretend to be straight to avoid punishment. We achieve no good result from demanding pretense. I hope the Joint Chiefs consider this carefully and decide to change current policies.

[RickSp]

Given the new recruiting goals, it strikes me that "warm body" is the new minimum criteria. Accepting recruits with arrest records for drugs and minor crimes yet rejecting qualified gay men and women seems to be complete lunacy.

Then again, we are talking about the military ....

I am just impressed that someone with Shalikashvili's credentials is willing to speak up.

[Jack]

I am too. Unless he's saying it to pave the way to enlist even more cannon fodder for the comedian in chief. No one, gay or straight, should have to be sent to die over such a poorly planned and executed conflict as Iraq.

[Paleface2500]

I have nothing against Gays wanting to serve in the military or any homosexual for that matter however, I’m still not sure if it is a great idea.

Mainly for the same reason that women should not be allowed to serve onboard combat vessels, it detracts from the mission. Women and men just like gay women and men will get themselves into relationships. Sexual relationships in the military are never good.

With that being said, if you are gay and want to serve you will. People lie about it all the time so; they might as well lift the restriction.


I know this sounds like unfair double standards and you are most likely right but, I know of no other way to fix it.

[GHook93]

Its a no brainer Gays should be allowed to serve in the military open and honestly.

[Fonceai]

Actually, the military stance on gays derives from its stance on heteros.

If you are a military member, there are actual rules against public displays of affection. They are little known, but the military derives the, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy from there.

In fact, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy basically makes it pretty clear that your personal life is your own business. If you choose the advertise, the military boots you.

Consider that in many "closed world" situations, like most naval vessels, there is no co-ed operations.

A gay man in an environment of men is the same as a woman in that environment.

That's the second basis for the concept.

This is the explanation I was given when I asked a question along lines similar to this thread.

[Jack]

So we can trust these guys not to take the arms we give them and train them to use and turn them on their fellow soldiers, but we won't trust them to be able to keep their hands to themselves?

[Fonceai]

That question is right up there with being able to vote and die for your country before you are allowed to drink.

It's a rhetorical question, at best, because it makes obvious such an amazing flaw in the "old military" rationalization.

Nice quote in your signature, by the way.

[Paleface2500]

Quote by: Isherwood So we can trust these guys not to take the arms we give them and train them to use and turn them on their fellow soldiers, but we won't trust them to be able to keep their hands to themselves?

Yep that’s correct. But! It’s not just the homosexual, but the heterosexual as well. Some people locked on a ship and out to sea for months at a time, just can’t seem to keep there hands off each other. I say this out of first hand experience.

Every time we go underway we catch somebody in a sexual act, every time. Mostly the straight but, we have caught homosexuals too.

How can you expect to work when you are constantly trying to get some? Maybe not you or I but, that’s 2 out of 3,000.

I’m sure some of you have seen it at the office. “Boy I would sure like to tap that” so on and so forth. Well, when you are trapped on a ship and not going home at the end of the day, THAT becomes a real possibility.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: RickSp Retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili has second thoughts regarding gays in the military. He thinks that it might not be such a bad idea after all. Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military

Excuse me, but just talking to a bunch of homosexuals and relying on some poll is not EVIDENCE!

Until the military decides to require men and women to share sleeping and showering facilities, it has no business allowing homosexuals to serve at all since it is unfair to heterosexuals to let homosexuals share sleeping and showering facilities with the sex to which they're attracted while prohibiting heterosexuals from doing so.

This whole debate has nothing to do with whether individual homosexuals are capable of performing military duties (they are). It has nothing to do with whether homosexuals - by being homosexuals - disrupt "good order and discipline" (they don't). It all comes down to one thing: sharing sleeping and showering facilities with the sex to which one is attracted. There is no valid basis for allowing homosexuals to share sleeping and showering facilities with the sex to which they're attracted if you're not also going to allow heterosexuals to do the same.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Isherwood So we can trust these guys not to take the arms we give them and train them to use and turn them on their fellow soldiers, but we won't trust them to be able to keep their hands to themselves?

We don't trust heterosexuals to keep their hands to themselves, why should homosexuals be any different?