world

Top U.S. Army, Air Force warn against lifting gay ban too quickly

56 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

56 Comments
Login to comment

Wow, touchy subject (no pun intended) I think that a gay person should have the right to defend his/her country by being in the military. The problem I have is that, when I'm worrying about the enemy that is in front of me, I don't want to be worried about what's behind me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bunch of homophobes. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bunch of homophobes

Not necessarily, unit cohesion is a legitimate concern. I personally think that the impact is negligible at best and that any person who desires to serve their country should be allowed to do so. However it's a bit rash to say that anybody opposed to the immediate repeal is homophobic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well from someone who has served with gays in the military, let me say that they caused no problems in our unit and were professionals. But that's just personal experience with the topic. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't want to be worried about what's behind me.

So a female soldier has to worry about her fellow soldier behind her while trying to fight the enemy in front of her? If that is true, then the US military has much bigger problems.

And who thinks about sex in the heat of battle?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lift the ban... there's already a bunch there anyway. As long as they don't flaunt it, there shouldn't be a problem. However, if allowed to get married and have a gay spouse living in base housing, that could pose a problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong

if allowed to get married and have a gay spouse living in base housing, that could pose a problem.

What problems? Would it be two men or two women causing problems? Just curious what problems you foresaw. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just curious what problems you foresaw.

Maybe something like the other soldiers would be jealous at the fact that the gay married couple can share uniforms?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah that might cause problems in base housing. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Hehehoho... I never said what a female has to worry about behind her while trying to fight the enemy in front of her. I said, "The problem 'I' have..." It's a personal opinion. Maybe not an opinion that all will agree with, but it's a personal opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream: You said it!

How is knowing someone's sexual orientation going to 'hurt the services' exactly? As usual, they mask their homophobia by stating other vague and senseless reasons.

My theory is that most men in the military are the very masculine types so they fear anything or anyone that seems to threaten their masculine image. When they think about a gay man, the first thing that comes to their mind is butt sex! Why would any straight man be thinking of anal sex in the midst of battle anyway?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've always said that gays should be allowed to serve. I personally will not under any circumstance fight in any war unless it is a war on U.S. soil and I am defending myself, my family and my friends. If a person who is a homosexual wants to go to some hellhole and risk death, they should have the right to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As long as we're talking the macho type gay guys I think there's no problem. The queeny types can be a problem in battle - they get too hysterical....on the other hand they usually look better in their uniforms and tend to keep their quarters quite clean...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But, this could also hinder those that want to get out.... you ever watch that Korean War tv show back in the 80's, and some guy wanting to get out would tell everyone he's gay... now they'll have to find a different way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this could also hinder those that want to get out.... you ever watch that Korean War tv show back in the 80's, and some guy wanting to get out would tell everyone he's gay

Well as far as I remember he was in every episode, so I reckon his ploy didn't work.....

I don't see what sexual orientation has to do with being a soldier - or indeed any other line of business with the possible exception of mizushobai. What people get up to in private is their own business. If their sexual activities get in the way of them doing their job properly - whatever their orientation - then, and only then, should it be made a problem. And the problem is how it affects the job, not the grisly details of what goes on under the sheets and whether people whose business it isn't are offended or upset.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Served in the (Australian) army for about 15 years as an infantry officer, including 2 years and 4 months on exchange to the US Army (was actually supposed to be a lot shorter but I got dragged off to the Gulf War). Back then (the 80s and the 90s), I don't really remember what the official policy was regarding gays. At the same time, however, people around me used to turn a blind eye to the private lives of their comrades. Furthermore, during my time in the US, one of the senior NCOs under my command was halfway out the cupboard in terms of his sexuality. My attitude was basically one of non-interest. The chap in question was a very good soldier, and that was good enough for me (and the officer to whom I reported). Specifically, soldiers are soldiers, and as long as they maintain good order and discipline there is no reason that they should be discriminated against based on their sexual preferences, their beliefs, etc. Furthermore, the issue of unit cohesion is a bit of a red herring. Being in close proximity to female soldiers can cause just as much of a headache as if you have low-profile gays in a unit. Indeed, as long as soldiers are able to separate out their personal/professional lives, I don't see any reason why sexuality should be an issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As usual, a whole lot of out of date and homophobic tools in the military. Gays are already there, fighting and dying for their flag, but having to hide their sexual orientation because of a bunch of old codgers.

Give it up already. Let them be who they are, and be proud of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I never said what a female has to worry about behind her while trying to fight the enemy in front of her. I said, "The problem 'I' have..." It's a personal opinion.

I never said that you said.... I was making an analogous connection between your worrying about some homo behind you when fighting and what a female soldier must worry about if soldiers indeed worry about sex on the battlefield.

Yes I know this is your opinion, most of what is written on these boards is opinion. I have written my opinion - to state the obvious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, who would have thought that the Navy would be more open-minded and progressive than the Army or Air Force, especially the Air Force...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Junnama ever serve in the military?

As long as we're talking the macho type gay guys I think there's no problem. The queeny types can be a problem in battle - they get too hysterical....on the other hand they usually look better in their uniforms and tend to keep their quarters quite clean...

Talk about stereotyping people. The queeny types...

You know there are shy or weak people of every type. Those people who are not up to serving will be weeded out during basic training. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually, yes I did. I'm just being snarky. There's been gays in the military as long as there's been a miltary. I served with several I knew of and many I'm sure I didn't. Anyway, did you know the military has lots of homoerotic traditions?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyway, did you know the military has lots of homoerotic traditions?

Enlighten me. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hehe, I was RA so I only heard. Soldiers were playful about it I thought. Sailors are over the top.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just who brought this subject up? I'll bet his initials are BO (Barack Obama)

Can't the Democrats leave well enough alone?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I went into the USMC in 1970. Not allowing gays in the military was wrong then and it's wrong now.

Trying to make it a bad thing because Obama is trying to fix it is silly. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've always wondered how openly allowing gays in would play out, since they've always been there. I think most people just ignored it in my day. Several guys I knew were fairly open about it. Of course drug use was common too... Ah, I don't know...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think a lot of people think about seeing a gay pride parade and the acting out that some people do and they envision this going on in the military, also.

In the military there is a simple rule. No open public displays of attention. Pretty simple rule. It's just not going to happen.

Also, within a unit is the peer pressure of comrades. If you have something that is distasteful going on, you wouldn't believe how fast you tell each other, "that not proper". It normally stops.

At the end of the day, there are straight and gay people that shouldn't be in the military. And there are straights and gays that thrive and do the highest quality service for their country. No matter which group, the bad apples get weeded out. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just who brought this subject up? I'll bet his initials are BO (Barack Obama)

Ummm I think it was the gays themselves that brought it up almost since day one.

I hope you didn't bet the house.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Correction:

Should Not have posted - public displays of attention

Should be - public displays of affection < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Archaic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't ask, don't tell works. Aside from this, the generals can't lift the ban, nor can Obama, it would take an act of congress to do so. Something that many would oppose, on both sides of the aisle. I'm not seeing this happening any time soon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir said:

Don't ask, don't tell works. Aside from this, the generals can't lift the ban, nor can Obama, it would take an act of congress to do so. Something that many would oppose, on both sides of the aisle. I'm not seeing this happening any time soon.

It does not work. It is discrimination. Everyone can see that except the homophobes. Dick Cheney endorses a repeal of DADT. Molenir wants to force his religion on everybody else. So because of these people with archaic thought processes gays in the military have to worry about being harassed and endangered of being separated from their service to our country.

When Dick Cheney supports gays in the military it is time to make it the law of the land. I want to see him use his influence for good for a change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It does not work. It is discrimination. Everyone can see that except the homophobes.

Yes, yes, yes, we're all racist, sexist, homophobes. When you start throwing out this crap, it makes anything else you might have said, not worth reading. I read this, and everything after this point was, blah, blah, blah, gooddonkey is a moron, blah, blah. Try again, this time without referring to someone who has a different viewpoint, by some pathetic perjorative.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir, if a man or woman who is gay wishes to serve their country it is the same as a heteresexual. Someone who cannot understand taht everyone is the same is pathetic blah, blah, blah.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir, if a man or woman who is gay wishes to serve their country it is the same as a heteresexual. Someone who cannot understand taht everyone is the same is pathetic blah, blah, blah.

See there you go, this I can respond to. I agree to an extent. However don't ask, don't tell has worked. Informing homosexuals that if they want to serve, they have to keep their sexuality to themselves, and that its no one elses business, is that really so discriminatory? They can serve, so long as they don't shove their business into other peoples face. While they may not like not being able to come out, but it allows them to serve, it keeps those who prefer not to associate with open homosexuals happy, while those who don't care don't really mind as well. Its a good balancing act for all concerned. Thats why its worked. Thats why it shouldn't be repealed.

All this aside, discriminatory or not, its the law, and until congress acts, its not going to change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir, Why must gays keep their sexuality to themselves? Heterosexuals don't keep it to themselves. We brag about the night before or an expected date. Maybe not everybody, but a lot do and it's okay. Why is it okay for heterosexual to be open and not a gays? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir said:

is that really so discriminatory? They can serve, so long as they don't shove their business into other peoples face.

Gays are currently not allowed to have any gay sex if they are in the U.S. military. Heterosexuals are allowed to have sex. That is blatant discrimination and that is what I was talking about.

Here is the actual law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

It is not simply not talking about being a homosexual or homosexual acts they were involved in as Molenir tried to portray it. When Molenir states, "They can serve, so long as they don't shove their business into other peoples face" he is wrong as seems to be commonplace on these boards. A gay person may be doing their best to hide any activity and never mention it to a soul and they can be dishonorably discharged.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A gay person may be doing their best to hide any activity and never mention it to a soul and they can be dishonorably discharged.

should read

A gay person may be doing their best to hide any gay activity and never mention it to a soul or never mention they are gay to anyone and they can be dishonorably discharged.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would also like to add my voice to the others who have served in the military that I served with people I knew were gay. I am an Air Force veteran. Gays were never a problem when I was serving with them.

Molenir, were you in the military?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A gay person may be doing their best to hide any gay activity and never mention it to a soul or never mention they are gay to anyone and they can be dishonorably discharged."

Still? I heard that happened in the 80's, but I didn't see it when I was in. don't forget, you can say your gay and let out with an honorable discharge too...

Well, once these goes through what next? married siblings, mom-son married types (Yup, I've seen one), under-age spouses (yup, there are a few) and polygamists? Just asking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are hermaphrodites and transgender types banned?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now that you mentioned it skipthesong why not allow hermaphrodites and transgenders? The hermaphrodites were born that way and the transgenders just feel better in other skin. They'd still kill for America. If they speak fluent Arabic or any other middle eastern language, are American and herd sheep; I don't care. He can enlist.

There you go, always the one to bring up the married siblings, mom-son married types (Yup, I've seen one), under-age spouses (yup, there are a few) and polygamists. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

aday: you aren't against married siblings or mom-son relationships are you? There are countries that allow such marriages, they immmigrate to the US. Polygamists are already in the US and needless to say there are cultures and nations that allow under-age girls to get married. They too immigrate and the US law respects that marriage. Can't they enlist too?

As for transgender.... you'll be ok with them wearing skirts?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong, you have so many phobias. You also want to take this conversation to an extreme that even if someday those fetishes were legalized in the US, my grand children will be dead before the military considers allowing them in. I just don't concern myself with that right now.

As for polygamists, I'd like to have another wife. But that's just me. < :-)

Moderator: All readers back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they are American and they prove themselves in training, I have no problem with anybody serving. They take up arms and protect my and your way of life, I have no problem with it. I'm more for getting Americans fighting to protect ourselves. They are fluent in middle eastern languages and are American, they can walk on their elbows. They are fighting for the same cause as I did. America

So lifting the ban on gays is nothing. It's just the natural order of things. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It really doesn't make much sense how someone, millions of Americans, can refuse to join the military but are so concerned about who is protecting them.

How millions of Americans refuse to serve their country as a serviceman and then get picky as to who might die for them.

How a person who has the skills and the training to do a very important mission in the service of their country and is refused that right because they don't want to kiss women and prefer men. Like that will have anything to do with it at the end of the day. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It really doesn't make much sense how someone, millions of Americans, can refuse to join the military but are so concerned about who is protecting them." I agree. How millions of Americans refuse to serve their country as a serviceman and then get picky as to who might die for them.:" I agree How a person who has the skills and the training to do a very important mission in the service of their country and is refused that right because they don't want to kiss women and prefer men. Like that will have anything to do with it at the end of the day." I agree

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't ask, don't tell works.

It works perfectly . . . if you're straight.

Aside from this, the generals can't lift the ban, nor can Obama, it would take an act of congress to do so. Something that many would oppose, on both sides of the aisle. I'm not seeing this happening any time soon.

The administration can order an end to discharges under the policy until the law is repealed. Despite the wishes of even the most vocal bigots, this discrimination will soon come to an end.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Homosexuals shouldn't serve in the military. Why should they have to put their lives on the line for a country that won't even allow them to marry the person they love?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well you have a point MrUSA, but some people feel a need to help their country no matter how they are looked at by some. Their patriotism is bigger then some bigots. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Army'Camp"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in the military then they will require separate facilities just as is the case currently for men and women. Or else put gays in the womens facilities and lesbians with the men. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to keep men and women separate either. There should be no separation what-so-ever. No mens and womens bathrooms, no separate bathrooms and showers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack said:

If gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in the military then they will require separate facilities just as is the case currently for men and women. Or else put gays in the womens facilities and lesbians with the men. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to keep men and women separate either. There should be no separation what-so-ever. No mens and womens bathrooms, no separate bathrooms and showers.

Talk about dumb ideas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

stick your rifle deep in there soldier. gonna be late night jokes till the end of time

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With all of the various opinions about the matter, few ask about how this might affect the rank-and-file. Military service is not a right and the military is not some sort of social club. Good order and discipline are essential to operations, particularly in the face of the enemy. While there will always be the "bottom 10%" (not literal) that behave in a manner unbecoming, the last thing we need is for politicians (both in and out of uniform) to decide to submerge the military in some social experiment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Old Geezer:

With all of the various opinions about the matter, few ask about how this might affect the rank-and-file.

That's because the feelings of a few homophobes here and there (I assume these are the 10% of personnel behaving in an "unbecoming manner" you mentioned) are not of any concern.

Military service is not a right

Correct. Military service is not a right; those that can't deal with their prejudices don't have the right to serve.

the military is not some sort of social club.

Correct again. It is not some social club that can openly discriminate against members based on their sexual orientation--not for long, anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites