[Landos Mustache]

"The Pentagon has said there were 726 military members discharged under the policy last year -- up 11 percent from the year before -- but did not publicly release base-specific information."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/14/mil....ap/index.html

Pretty shocking. These men have all willingly signed up for the military while other "straight" men desert their country and run to canada because they don't want to fight.

The military is also trying very hard to recruit new men because of the war yet is throwing other out under the suspicion of being gay.

[davesimondotcom]

While I agree with the general point of your post - that gay people should be able to serve their country, I don't understand this line:

Pretty shocking. These men have all willingly signed up for the military while other "straight" men desert their country and run to canada because they don't want to fight.

I you trying to say that straight men are cowards? Or are you changing your position on those who desert to Canada?

The really sad think about kicking out gays is that we're losing the talents of these people based on something that has nothing to do with how they perform their jobs.

If a gay man can speak Arabic and be the one who translates the conversation that opens up a terror investigation and saves thousands of lives, who the hell cares who he goes home to at night?

[wallinbl]

If the military is truly in a numbers crisis, then arguably they have to make the decision that best increases numbers. If there are more straight men that would quit the army over having to bunk with or shower with a gay man than there are gay men wanting to sign up, then it makes sense to kick out the gay men to improve your numbers.

I'm not giving any merit to one side or the other - I'm simply pointing out that you don't have enough data to support your numbers argument.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

If a gay man can speak Arabic and be the one who translates the conversation that opens up a terror investigation and saves thousands of lives, who the hell cares who he goes home to at night?

The guy he has to shower with. I'm not saying that's right or wrong - I'm just saying it happens. I went to college around 10 years ago. Several guys in the dorm were known to be gay, and a number of the straight guys in the dorm were paranoid to shower at the same time (large community shower - no stalls or anything).

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I you trying to say that straight men are cowards? Or are you changing your position on those who desert to Canada?

That is not what I am saying.

It relates to this thread:
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/304794/us-military-deserters-running-to-canada/

I said I think it is SICK that gay men who willingly want to be in the Army are getting thrown out when some non-gay men in the army are running to hide in Canada because they don't want to fight... which Pachead considers an act of war.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

That is not what I am saying.

It relates to this thread:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=304794

I said I think it is SICK that gay men who willingly want to be in the Army are getting thrown out when some non-gay men in the army are running to hide in Canada because they don't want to fight... which Pachead considers an act of war.

I think it's wrong that gays can't fight for their country, too. At least not those who are openly gay.

And Pachead considers Canada's harboring of the deserters an act of war, not their desertion.

[Sky Captain]

I think it's stupid not allowing gays in the military.
One of the meanest sonufabitchez I knew in the USAF was homosexual.
Everyone knew it but didn't mention it.
He was my loadmaster on a couple of flights.
It was funny hearing about him threaten to toss some whiney momma's boy out the back of the Herc.

I'd have 10 of him over 100 whiney momma's boys.

[spacefreak]

How many straight members were kicked out of the military in 2005?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

He was my loadmaster

Uhh...

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

How many straight members were kicked out of the military in 2005?

For what? Being straight? Zero.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

For what? Being straight? Zero.

No, how many were kicked-out without publicly released base-specific information?

[spacefreak]

Who instituted this "Don't ask, don't tell" policy anyways?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

How many straight members were kicked out of the military in 2005?

Unless they were discharged due to sexual orientation, what does that have to do with this thread?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by itai195

Unless they were discharged due to sexual orientation, what does that have to do with this thread?

Please, show me where the article states these folks were booted for simply being gay.

These folks weren't kicked out because they were gay. They were booted because they violated military regulations. When a soldier gets busted for harrassing a female member, he doesn't get booted for being straight.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Who instituted this "Don't ask, don't tell" policy anyways?

Wasn't it Clinton?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Please, show me where the article states these folks were booted for simply being gay.

Read the first sentence in this thread.

These folks weren't kicked out because they were gay. They were booted because they violated military regulations.

Yes, they violated a military regulation against being gay and in the military.

[spacefreak]

It says they violated a policy. That policy doesn't forbid gays from serving. It forbids them from openly flaunting their gayness, at least AFAIK.

We have a prominent member here who is gay and served under this same policy. I'd be curious to hear what his take is on this, and how exactly this policy or regulation is patrolled. Surely I would think that 2 guys having sex in the barracks would be a violation.

I may be wrong... would love more contributions here. I'd also like to know specifically what infractions these discharged soldiers were involved when violating the policy.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

It says they violated a policy. That policy doesn't forbid gays from serving.

Yes it does. You can act "straight" all you want but if you tell them you are gay you are out.

Or are you saying they have a policy against snappy dressers with lisps?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

It says they violated a policy. That policy doesn't forbid gays from serving. It forbids them from openly flaunting their gayness.

Openly flaunting? What constitutes openly flaunting? Have you talked with many people who were discharged under this policy?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by itai195

Openly flaunting? What constitutes openly flaunting? Have you talked with many people who were discharged under this policy?

No, I haven't. That's why I was asking for some contributions.

Have you talked to many people discharged under this policy? If so, please tell me more.

[Landos Mustache]

"Under the Pentagon's policy, the military is prohibited from inquiring about the sex lives of service members, but those who openly acknowledge being gay must be discharged. There were 726 military members discharged under the policy during the year that ended last Sept. 30.
"I have a problem where you have a military that says you can't discriminate based on race; in all but very minimal ways you can't discriminate based on gender, and you can't discriminate based on religion or lack of religion. The only people not getting a fair shake were homosexuals," said Raggio, who is from Muncie, Ind., and describes himself as "about the straightest guy you can imagine."

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleA...ointthesis.php

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

We have a prominent member here who is gay and served under this same policy. I'd be curious to hear what his take is on this, and how exactly this policy or regulation is patrolled. Surely I would think that 2 guys having sex in the barracks would be a violation.

Where has that Limey been lately? I haven't seen him post in a while.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

"I have a problem where you have a military that says you can't discriminate based on race; in all but very minimal ways you can't discriminate based on gender, and you can't discriminate based on religion or lack of religion. The only people not getting a fair shake were homosexuals," said Raggio, who is from Muncie, Ind., and describes himself as "about the straightest guy you can imagine."

I still want to know what the intial disclosure scenario was - and I'd like to hear both sides, not just the side of the person discharged. Why is it so hard to find out what the circumstances of the infraction were?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Where has that Limey been lately? I haven't seen him post in a while.

Hopefully, he's just too busy to deal with the clowns in here. I'd hate to think something was wrong.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

I still want to know what the intial disclosure scenario was - and I'd like to hear both sides, not just the side of the person discharged. Why is it so hard to find out what the circumstances of the infraction were?

How does that change the written policy of NO GAYS?!

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

How does that change the written policy of NO GAYS?!

""Don't Ask, Don't tell" is the common term for the U.S. military policy which implements Public Law 103-160, codified at 10 U.S.C. � 654. The policy prohibits anyone who has sexual bodily contact with a person of the same sex from serving in the armed forces of the United States, and prohibits any homosexual or bisexual from disclosing his or her sexual orientation, or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. On the other hand, the policy requires that as long as gay or bisexual men and women in the military hide their sexual orientation, commanders will not try to investigate their sexuality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dont_ask%2C_dont_tell

It's not quite "NO GAYS". More like "No open gayness", at least as I understand it.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

No, I haven't. That's why I was asking for some contributions.

Have you talked to many people discharged under this policy? If so, please tell me more.

I have known a few. I wouldn't say any of them were flaunting their sexuality. The worst case was one who was discharged because an angry, non-military former partner of his decided to get 'revenge' by outing him to the military. Sad part is that he had planned to spend his career in the military.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

"It's not quite "NO GAYS". More like "No open gayness", at least as I understand it.

No the policy is they can't put on the application form "Are you gay" but if you walk in and say "I am gay, can I have a form?" they say NO.

It has nothing to do with getting caught having sex or acting gay.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Hopefully, he's just too busy to deal with the clowns in here. I'd hate to think something was wrong.

I'm sure he is just busy learning and practicing the law.

[RAILhead]

I chalk this up along side the farce that the customer is always right. For example, I'm a firm believer that I ought to be able to refuse service to anyone I want in any store I own. If I don't want to serve people shorter than 5'8", I should have that right. If I don't want to assist customers that wear their pants so you can see their underwear and butt crack, I ought to have that right.

So it is with the military, as far as I'm concerned. They can screen any way they like -- and if someone doesn't like it, get over it.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

So it is with the military, as far as I'm concerned. They can screen any way they like -- and if someone doesn't like it, get over it.

Nobody is saying the Army doesn't have a "right" the point is they are discriminating and you are supposed to be a country of "freedom" not a "backwards" society such as the ones you are at war with.

Remember, your enemies hate you because of your freedom yet you don't extend that freedom to people in your own country that want to defend the nation that discriminates against them.

[RAILhead]

It's not about freedom. "Rights?" "Freedom?" There's n o built-in association. It's a "free country" and we all have certain inalienable rights, but that doesn't mean that what you think should be a right -- or what I think should be a right -- should be, simply because we live in a free country.

You seem to make an association between freedoms and rights that doesn't exist, thus your problem.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Nobody is saying the Army doesn't have a "right" the point is they are discriminating and you are supposed to be a country of "freedom" not a "backwards" society such as the ones you are at war with.

It's our war fighting machine. If experts agree that blatant and openly practiced homosexuality within combat units hurts that unit's ability to operate in any way, then so be it.

I am not an expert about the phyche of unit members as it pertains to combat, so in this case I defer to those who are.

Did you serve? And if so, what studies did you perform or analyze (with regards to openly gay soldiers serving in combat units) to reach your conclusion?

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

It's our war fighting machine. If experts agree that blatant and openly practiced homosexuality within combat units hurts that unit's ability to operate in any way, then so be it.

I am not an expert about the phyche of unit members as it pertains to combat, so in this case I defer to those who are.

Did you serve? And if so, what studies did you perform or analyze (with regards to openly gay soldiers serving in combat units) to reach your conclusion?

What part are you not understanding. It is not discriminating against "blatant and openly practiced homosexuality" it is discriminating on the simple fact of being gay alone even if you act "Normal" and don't have sex with other men while in the army.

I did not serve but the same question goes to you. What studies did the us government perform to come to this conclusion?

Luckily Canada at least does a study on it AND has found it has no negative impact. It is also legal since 1992 for gays to serve in the Canadian Military:

http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/Pres...press_rel1.htm

Not only that but it seemed to have a positive effect:
"The percent of military women who experienced sexual harassment dropped 46% after the ban was lifted."

[Macrobat]

You make the fundamental mistake of thinking that because the country is a Democracy, the military is, too. It's not. You sign away MANY of your rights when you enlist or become a Commissioned Officer - that happens to be one of them. When it is specifically stated policy that no openly-gay members will be allowed in uniform and a person misrepresents that fact, they are in violation of the UCMJ and actually subject to dishonorable discharge and even court-martial.

It's just a fact. All the handwringing, bishing, and whining about it will NOT change that policy.

The plani fact of the matter has already been stated in this thread. The majority of straight members of the military do not feel comfortable in personal situations with the openly gay. It may not be right, it may also not be wrong, but what it is, is fact.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

What part are you not understanding. It is not discriminating against "blatant and openly practiced homosexuality" it is discriminating on the simple fact of being gay alone even if you act "Normal" and don't have sex with other men while in the army.

Read the policy. Being gay alone is not an infraction. Being openly gay, flaunting it, and/or having gay sex is.

{quote]I did not serve but the same question goes to you. What studies did the us government perform to come to this conclusion?[/QUOTE]I just told you, I did not serve, nor do I have expertise. That's why I defer to the experts.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Read the policy. Being gay alone is not an infraction. Being openly gay, flaunting it, and/or having gay sex is.

Sooo once again.. openly gay means telling them you are gay which leads back to the discriminating based on sexual orientation.

Unless you think openly gay means wearing a dress.

As for the study, read my last post.

[RAILhead]

Dude, what's your problem with comprehension? IT'S THEIR POLICY, it's their RIGHT to refuse enlistment. END OF STORY. Don't like it? NO ONE REALLY CARES.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

The plani fact of the matter has already been stated in this thread. The majority of straight members of the military do not feel comfortable in personal situations with the openly gay. It may not be right, it may also not be wrong, but what it is, is fact.

OK so what if military members have problems from serving with blacks? Mexicans? Asians? Should that be accommodated too and not be called right or wrong?

"Before Canada lifted its gay ban, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said that they would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. After the ban was lifted, follow-up studies found no increase in disciplinary, performance, recruitment, sexual misconduct, or resignation problems."

In other words, shut up and deal with it. You sign up to shoot people you better be able to deal with someone showering with you.

[RAILhead]

It's up to the military. ^^^

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Dude, what's your problem with comprehension? IT'S THEIR POLICY, it's their RIGHT to refuse enlistment. END OF STORY. Don't like it? NO ONE REALLY CARES.

Actually I can mention at least 726 people that really care.

Are you saying that if they did not allow blacks your attitude would be "IT'S THEIR POLICY"?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Dude, what's your problem with comprehension? IT'S THEIR POLICY, it's their RIGHT to refuse enlistment. END OF STORY. Don't like it? NO ONE REALLY CARES.

Because he read a article is his gay links that told him America wasn't letting gays in the military and he though "This would be perfect for my little gay rant, esp since it gives me time to American bash too!"

So the facts don't matter to him. He doesn't care.

He has a one track mind.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Actually I can mention at least 726 people that really care.

Are you saying that if they did not allow blacks your attitude would be "IT'S THEIR POLICY"?

YES. Welcome to the free world.

[Kevin]

And sorry SWG, sexual preference and you skin color aren't the same thing. If I was a black man I'd slap the taste out of your mouth for making such a comparison.

Not to mention the fact that these little outbursts of yours can hardly be taken seriously. You preach tolerance and acceptance when it suits your agenda. When it does not, you put your bigot mask on.

It seems you only care when you think gays are getting the wrong end of the deal.

Screw everyone else!

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

OK so what if military members have problems from serving with blacks? Mexicans? Asians? Should that be accommodated too and not be called right or wrong?

"Before Canada lifted its gay ban, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said that they would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. After the ban was lifted, follow-up studies found no increase in disciplinary, performance, recruitment, sexual misconduct, or resignation problems."

In other words, shut up and deal with it. You sign up to shoot people you better be able to deal with someone showering with you.

Except that your premise is fatally flawed. A comparison to race is specious. It would be more like forcing female service members to shower with male service members, since it is a question of sexual, and not racial motivation.

Sorry, but your argument is toothless.

[ghporter]

There are three ways to be discharged for being gay. One is to demonstrate homosexual behavior that is undeniably beyond "friendly." Being caught "in the act" is typically how this sort of situation begins. A second is to engage in what's called "homosexual marriage," which has little to do with the gay marriage debate, but relates to establishing a public commitment. The other is to go to your commander and say "Sir, I'm gay," and then insist on this being the truth over a period of time.

Here's the rub: you don't have to "prove" you're gay to "admit" you're gay. Lando, while I agree that it's a crying shame that people who want to serve their country are discharged for something that has little to do with their ability, but I think that there are a fair number of people who claim to be gay just to get out. What they don't know is that being discharged for being homosexual is the ONLY non-disciplinary discharge that includes the reason in the discharge itself. Being a screw up, being unable to adapt to military life, being just too darn stupid to be worth keeping-those all can get you discharged. But the discharge will NOT say "discharged because he's dumber than dirt." Instead it will say "discharged for the convenience of the service." A discharge for being gay actually says "homosexual conduct" in the narrative on the DD 214. Dodgers that use this as a means to escape combat are usually rudely awakened.

I would like to see a breakdown of how many people were discharged for the first two reasons (being "caught" and homosexual marriage) and how many were discharged because they said they were gay. It would be illuminating, to say the least. I'll bet the last reason is becoming far more common.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Except that your premise is fatally flawed. A comparison to race is specious. It would be more like forcing female service members to shower with male service members, since it is a question of sexual, and not racial motivation.

Sorry, but your argument is toothless.

That makes zero sense.

Sorry.

[spacefreak]

Here we go... looks like the military doesn't like gay soldiers looking for pickups on myspace

Sites like MySpace.com are routinely visited by service members and military officials, and service members who identify themselves as gay or lesbian on the Internet risk expulsion under the policy

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Here we go... looks like the military doesn't like gay soldiers looking for pickups on myspace

Sites like MySpace.com are routinely visited by service members and military officials, and service members who identify themselves as gay or lesbian on the Internet risk expulsion under the policy

That seems rather pro-active of them.

[davesimondotcom]

As much as I think that gay Americans should be able to serve their country, I would like to point out something.

This is a policy that the military is simply enforcing. If the policy were changed, they would cease to enforce it and follow the other policy.

It was Congress who set the policy and President Clinton (who had promised to repeal the ban on gays in the military entirely) who signed it into law. Clinton saw this as a step in the right direction. And it probably was, at least partially.

For those who keep claiming it's the showers and such that are the reason the military banned gays in the first place (before Don't Ask Don't Tell), you aren't understanding the real reason. Sex in the shower would very likely be inappropriate, gay or not, don't you think? And what's with the assumption that every gay person is just waiting for a straight guy to get naked (any straight guy) to jump on?

The real reason has always been "security." The opinion has been that gays, because of the stigma of their lifestyle, could be coerced by the enemy to release secret information.

The irony here is that anyone doing anything they don't want people to find out about could be looked at that way. And while the military can court martial someone for something like adultery, they very rarely do.