Military Continues to Discharge Gay Linguists

[BuckNaked]

Just a bit of perspective from a military member...

1) When I came into the military, I was asked during recruitment if I was a homosexual. Had I answered yes, the interview would have ended, and I would not have been permitted to join.

2) "Don't ask, don't tell" changed that, only in that recruits are no longer asked. If a homosexual is serving in the military and doesn't let it be known that he or she is gay, then the service member is allowed to serve.

3) Agree with the law or not, it is the law and the military must abide by it. They don't get to choose which gay people will stay and which will be discharged based on career field.

4) Having said all of that, I disagree with the policy. It has nothing to with social engineering, and everything to do with allowing able people that want to serve their country to join the military.

5) IMO, all military members should be given the same speech that members were given in 1947 when the services were integrated, which basically amounted to "If you can't deal with the changes, then good-bye, and thank you for your service".

6) I believe that the current policy actually causes security risks. Any secret that a military member feels could ruin a career poses a potential blackmail risk, and being a gay military member is a huge secret to keep. Better to have it out in the open.

JMO

 

[LukenDC]

Here is another article, this one from 2005, discussing the discharge of gay linguists. The case referred to in my original posting was not an anomaly.


Report: More Gay Linguists Discharged than First Thought
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6824206/

 

[RickinNYC]

I think they are acting on what they know, not merely what they assume would happen.

I'm confident that the issue has reared it's head many times over the course of our militarys' history.

What didn't start out as being "open" has certainly come to be "open" a number of times, and thus, had to be dealt with.

What, exactly, do they "know"? Do you know something about being gay that we don't?

Anyway, I digress. I think that, with the "don't ask don't tell" policy, that allows gay soldiers to remain secretive. When they go off to war, they can all jump out and go boogah! boogah! at the enemy. I think, given the warped teachings that al quaeda follows, it'd make them stop dead in their tracks and fall prostrate with fear. War over!

Gay servicemen and women... the REAL secret weapon.

How's that for a catchy recruitment phrase?

 

[eclectics]

Just a bit of perspective from a military member...

1) When I came into the military, I was asked during recruitment if I was a homosexual. Had I answered yes, the interview would have ended, and I would not have been permitted to join.

2) "Don't ask, don't tell" changed that, only in that recruits are no longer asked. If a homosexual is serving in the military and doesn't let it be known that he or she is gay, then the service member is allowed to serve.

3) Agree with the law or not, it is the law and the military must abide by it. They don't get to choose which gay people will stay and which will be discharged based on career field.

4) Having said all of that, I disagree with the policy. It has nothing to with social engineering, and everything to do with allowing able people that want to serve their country to join the military.

5) IMO, all military members should be given the same speech that members were given in 1947 when the services were integrated, which basically amounted to "If you can't deal with the changes, then good-bye, and thank you for your service".

6) I believe that the current policy actually causes security risks. Any secret that a military member feels could ruin a career poses a potential blackmail risk, and being a gay military member is a huge secret to keep. Better to have it out in the open.

JMO

Excellent post. You are so correct about number 6, especially for a career officer.

 

[BuckNaked]

Gay servicemen and women... the REAL secret weapon.

How's that for a catchy recruitment phrase?

Awfully reminiscent of "the other white meat" - not sure it would fly...

 

[RickinNYC]

Just a bit of perspective from a military member...

1) When I came into the military, I was asked during recruitment if I was a homosexual. Had I answered yes, the interview would have ended, and I would not have been permitted to join.

2) "Don't ask, don't tell" changed that, only in that recruits are no longer asked. If a homosexual is serving in the military and doesn't let it be known that he or she is gay, then the service member is allowed to serve.

3) Agree with the law or not, it is the law and the military must abide by it. They don't get to choose which gay people will stay and which will be discharged based on career field.

4) Having said all of that, I disagree with the policy. It has nothing to with social engineering, and everything to do with allowing able people that want to serve their country to join the military.

5) IMO, all military members should be given the same speech that members were given in 1947 when the services were integrated, which basically amounted to "If you can't deal with the changes, then good-bye, and thank you for your service".

6) I believe that the current policy actually causes security risks. Any secret that a military member feels could ruin a career poses a potential blackmail risk, and being a gay military member is a huge secret to keep. Better to have it out in the open.

JMO

Holy moly Brenda, you were just channeling my Dad!

Thanks for the post, your opinion is so in line with my own!

 

[eclectics]

Awfully reminiscent of "the other white meat" - not sure it would fly...

 

[LK03]

The other problems associated with don't ask, don't tell is the men and women who have partners always have to be in secret and can't get housing money nor health insurance for them. Most individuals have to get approval to live off post and they are allowed a housing chunk but once you get married you get even more money and don't have to ask. That's not fair

 

[TCPluto]

Do you know something about being gay that we don't?

I doubt it.



I think the sexual orientation of everyone, including hetero males, should be protected.

Should we quarter male and female soldiers together in the same Baracks? Of course not.

Should we quarter straight males and gay males in the same barracks? And if the answer is to quarter them seperately, does that cause logistic problems on a battlefield?

Do we adopt different standards for different job classifications, re: combat vs staff? Wouldn't this become overwhelmingly cumbersome to administer?

 

[BuckNaked]

I think the sexual orientation of everyone, including hetero males, should be protected.

What about hetero females? Do we merit protection as well?

Should we quarter male and female soldiers together in the same Baracks? Of course not.

Best write a letter to your Congressman and Senators. Men and women have been living in the same dormitories ever since I came in nearly 20 years ago. In fact, men and women often share the same bathroom (2 rooms to a bathroom).

Should we quarter straight males and gay males in the same barracks?

Why not? Men and women are.

Do we adopt different standards for different job classifications, re: combat vs staff?

OK, you've totally lost me here - why in the world would you need different job standards for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Either the service member can do the job or not. It really isn't complicated.

 

[DawnCt1]

I think the policy regulating openly homosexual behavior by military personnel is based on articulable evidence and, therfore, the right call. Based on the opinions of military leaders (and other military members) who have been in a position to manage these troops in combat and staff situations, it's fair and just.

Well put and I agree. I think that any situation which creates sexual tension, whether heterosexual or homosexual is detrimental to the structure and discipline of the military. DH, as commander has had more than his share of disciplinary actions to deal with between men and women. It is a major problem. One particular Navy ship had several pregnant women that had to return to port. They didn't leave pregnant. I think once you introduce "men and men" and "women and women" into the mix, it becomes problematic. That doesn't even address how the other enlistees would respond to the situation. The military is the way it is for a reason. The discipline and structure obviously serves them well. Recruitment and relistment has met and exceeded the goals and according to DH, morale has never been higher and he has an almost 30 year history with the Army.

 

[shrubber]

The military discriminates against all sorts of people. It discriminates against the young and the not-quite-as-young
the army recently increased the maximum age of new recruits to 39, for example. Given height/weight standards that military members have to meet, the military discriminates against the fat. It discriminates against the handicapped--you can't enlist if you're missing certain body parts.

 

[RickinNYC]

Well put and I agree. I think that any situation which creates sexual tension, whether heterosexual or homosexual is detrimental to the structure and discipline of the military. DH, as commander has had more than his share of disciplinary actions to deal with between men and women. It is a major problem. One particular Navy ship had several pregnant women that had to return to port. They didn't leave pregnant. I think once you introduce "men and men" and "women and women" into the mix, it becomes problematic. That doesn't even address how the other enlistees would respond to the situation. The military is the way it is for a reason. The discipline and structure obviously serves them well. Recruitment and relistment has met and exceeded the goals and according to DH, morale has never been higher and he has an almost 30 year history with the Army.

Here's a tip. Gay men and lesbians don't get pregnant unless they try REALLY hard.

 

[cardaway]

One particular Navy ship had several pregnant women that had to return to port. They didn't leave pregnant.

That has nothing to do with homosexuals, but sicne you brought it up, are you in favor of not having women serve in the military?

 

[DawnCt1]

Here's a tip. Gay men and lesbians don't get pregnant unless they try REALLY hard.

And how does that have anything to do with what I said? I am pointing out to you that fraternization between troops has always been a problem that must be dealt with in a consistant manner. Evidence that sexual activity exists are the resultant pregnancies. Adding another group that would violate that prohibition would only be more problematic.

 

[Keli]

I haven't read all the replies here but to the OP this seems simple to me. We have a 'don't ask, don't tell" policy. If this person wanted to remain in the military they should have kept their behavior within those perimeters.

 

[RickinNYC]

And how does that have anything to do with what I said? I am pointing out to you that fraternization between troops has always been a problem that must be dealt with in a consistant manner. Evidence that sexual activity exists are the resultant pregnancies. Adding another group that would violate that prohibition would only be more problematic.

It's called a sense of humor, adding levity, having fun.

 

[BuckNaked]

Well put and I agree. I think that any situation which creates sexual tension, whether heterosexual or homosexual is detrimental to the structure and discipline of the military. DH, as commander has had more than his share of disciplinary actions to deal with between men and women. It is a major problem. One particular Navy ship had several pregnant women that had to return to port. They didn't leave pregnant. I think once you introduce "men and men" and "women and women" into the mix, it becomes problematic. That doesn't even address how the other enlistees would respond to the situation. The military is the way it is for a reason. The discipline and structure obviously serves them well. Recruitment and relistment has met and exceeded the goals and according to DH, morale has never been higher and he has an almost 30 year history with the Army.

Seems to me that there is plenty of sex happening the military with just the heterosexuals - how much worse could the homosexuals be?

 

[BuckNaked]

I am pointing out to you that fraternization between troops has always been a problem that must be dealt with in a consistant manner.

Oh give me a freakin' break.

First of all, not all sexual activity constitutes fraternization, as I'm sure you know. Second, there is no reason that homosexual fraternization couldn't be handled in the same way as heterosexual fraternization.

Adding another group that would violate that prohibition would only be more problematic.

How so? The rules would be the exact same as they are now.

 

[LukenDC]

I haven't read all the replies here but to the OP this seems simple to me. We have a 'don't ask, don't tell" policy. If this person wanted to remain in the military they should have kept their behavior within those perimeters.

What's more important to you? Preventing an al Qaeda visit to your community or a gay Arabic linguist in the military having a sex life?

Besides, the case mentioned in the OP involved a man who said that he was "outed" by anonymous e-mails and did not tell his superiors about his sexual orientation.