Interview with a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army Reserve about DADT

1. “The military is not in the business of pleasing the personel first”

   So those, who have a problem serving with their fellow Americans, who have a different sexual orientation, should shut the fuck up. Right? I mean if the military isn’t in the business of pleasing the personnel first, than the opinions of those serving, who oppose homosexuality are irrelevant.

   Or did you just mean that the opinions of those who want everyone to serve openly and freely without having to lie about who they are are irrelevant? Isn’t that awfully closed-minded of you?

2. So what we’ve established here is that Chris84 isn’t professional enough to cope with working with gay guys?

3. @chris_84 I served for six years in the military and the amount of fraternization going on was incredible. In basic training, advanced, permanent duty stations, PLDC, and in the field, there was a whole lot of shenanigans going on at all levels. Yes, it’s supposed to be against the rules, but none of it was enforced. The military has a real habit of only enforcing the rules when it suits them.

   I speak from experience because I married a fellow soldier in my training unit and the same year there were close to 20 similar marriages (yes, I went to the Defense Love Institute where we teach languages, including the international one). The straights are going at it left and right with no consequences, but the gays can lose their jobs for holding hands in public miles away from base. It makes me sick how we waste resources.

4. I don’t want to have to come up with living quarters for straight men, gay men, gay women, and straight women.

   I guess Chris would like separate water fountains for those gawdam, uppity homos, too.

   Newsflash Chris: There are already homos in the military and they don’t need segregationist, separate anything.

   Duuuuuuuhhhh!

5. Chris:

   Stop for a second. You’re railing against people for not knowing anything about the world you live in, and then baselessly accusing everyone who disagrees with you as being a Capitol Hill-living “ignorant, close-minded, idiotic, tree-hugging liberal”. You don’t know anything about the people you’re arguing with, either, so don’t throw stones. Unless, of course, they identify themselves as gay service-members, in which case you just ignore them.

   And in any case, you haven’t presented some set of “facts” that nobody knows about, you’re just making predictions and relaying anecdotes. Predictions like “there will be four sets of barracks,” which you are just making up out of thin air, and anecdotes like “someone I know got hit on once,” which isn’t a legit way to argue for policy.

6. Chris – I think you seem to be operating from the assumption that once gays will no longer be fired if someone finds out they’re gay, they will be out and proud and hitting on anything that moves. But, that’s a pretty big assumption (both the “out and proud” part and the “hitting on other servicemen/women” part).

   For the first part, I would suggest that most gay men and women will probably figure out relatively quickly that if everyone in their unit hates gays, they should probably keep a low profile about their homosexuality, if they want to be liked and accepted as a part of their unit (and, in order to not impede their careers). Sucks for the gay folks, but that’s probably how it’s going to be for awhile. Until people in the military are more accepting, gays will probably be relatively quiet about it. The only difference is, they won’t be able to be fired if someone discovers they are gay.

   On the second part (hitting on other servicemen/women), for one thing, gay people generally find that hitting on straight people doesn’t get them very far. More importantly, almost everyone, gay or straight, knows that there are lots of potential problems with coming on to a co-worker or even expressing any indication that you are attracted to them. I would think that would be multiplied by a factor of ten in the military. Gay servicemen/women do not want to destroy their unit’s cohesion. Really. They don’t. If there are issues with romantic relationships (gay or straight) or people hitting on other servicemen/women (gay or straight), then deal with THAT problem.

   I honestly don’t see what the problem is with working with or living with someone who is attracted to your gender (not to YOU, specifically). Do you not work with female soldiers every day? Are you not around them almost all of your waking hours? Does even the possibility that one of them might be attracted to you make you uncomfortable? Let’s say it’s an ugly woman (i.e., someone who there’s no chance you would ever be interested in them, maybe you would even find their attraction completely repulsive). Do you not ever want to spend time around her because there’s a chance that she might be attracted to you (mind you, she hasn’t shown any attraction yet and you have no idea whether she’s actually attracted to you or not)? Would having an ugly woman around destroy unit cohesion?

   I find it tough to buy that sleeping six feet away from a gay person is any scarier than working with one all day. Maybe, if gay people make you uncomfortable, you have to walk around naked a little less? Is that really such a big sacrifice for ending discrimination and making sure our country has more of the people it needs serving (soldiers, translators, etc.)?

7. You guys are all missing the point. Gays in the military can serve they just can “act gay” as the bigots would say or “serve while out” as we liberals would say. There is an important distinction to be made here. The bigots are afraid that gay men who are allowed to be “out” would be a distraction. My good friend is back from Iraq on his second tour for a vacation and I asked him about this recently. He said this absolutely would cause moral issues for bigots. He is not a bigot but he pointed out that not everyone grew up in Seattle and lived on Capitol Hill before shipping out. You might not like the fact that bigots exist in the military but they have a mission that takes precedence over the rights of the soldiers.

   Ending DADT is the right thing to do right now. However you have to consider this is a poor strategic move for liberals to be pushing for it at the moment. I think the best way to move forward is to continue to support ending DADT but to take the time and resources spent fighting it and put those towards gay marriage. Once gay marriage is more common it will pull the rug out from under the bigots. Once their neighbors are out and proud gays they won’t have such a hard time going to war with them at their side. This has less to do with the war going on overseas and more to do with the culture war going on at home. Win here first and the military won’t resist.

8. Chris, you seem to be missing the point that we “stuck-up western washington liberals” get: the gays are already there in your barracks — and yes, in your showers too. Your arguments about fraternization are stupid and illogical, have absolutely nothing to do with military readiness, and everything to do with irrational fear.

   I say this with nothing but the greatest respect for your service to our country, as I am a military brat myself with plenty of friends (both gay and straight) in the armed forces.

   Grow up.

9. So only people with the guts to join the military can weigh in? I did enroll/join up, did the duck walk, and couldn’t get in at the end because of a medical technicality that I couldn’t complete a waiver on. I had the guts, determination, and will to do it–Air Force, for me–at 19, but the military decided I wasn’t needed. Fine. Do I get to weigh in?

   I think it’s a bullshit practice. If so many other standing armies can do fine with gays serving, why is the US military so special that we can’t manage?

   Does Colin Powell get to weigh in?

   He said to get rid of DADT too.

10. Yeah, Chris, romance has no place in the military– that’s why all you soldiers rape the female soldiers. If they’re not available, you rape the afghanis or iraqis.

    Wait, what’s that you say? You’re calling me an ignorant lout who castigates an entire group of honorable men on the basis of a few bad apples?

    You’re right. I am. And if you are angry w/ that, then your entire post should be ignored & discounted, because that’s your entire attitude. You think in absolutes, which is what makes you a bigot. Therefore your opinion is worthless.

    Does the SLOG want to offer up any other member of the military, maybe someone capable of critical thinking? Or do we have to sit through more of CF’s secret woody for his bro?

11. Yeah, gonna take the opinion of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff over some fucking butter bar.

12. Oh my God a homo saw my tweeter in the shower!

    Mr. Frizzelle is trying to get the comment meter up again. I will assist.

    Pitbulls
    Critical Mass
    Apartment buildings with underground parking
    Sarah Palin
    Teabag
    Uncle Fuckers

    Dan has Loveschild, Chris has Chris84.

13. One last comment – I know you probably don’t hang around on slog that much, but there are actually lots people who served or people whose partners served on here. And even more people whose friends, parents, siblings, etc. served. I am probably completely typical of the commenters here — lifelong friend served in the Air Force and now works for the VA, another lifelong friend’s boyfriend was killed in Iraq, childhood friend is a captain in the Marines, college friend was a Naval officer, etc.

    There isn’t this world where us “liberals” are totally isolated from military folks with no idea how they live or what issues they face. You’re creating this wall because you want to believe that anybody who knew anything about the subject would agree with you. I definitely found your comments and Frizzelle’s brother’s comments to be interesting — you, in particular, made me think about how I would feel as a straight girl, being made to live with lesbians (BTW, I figured it wouldn’t bother me – I wouldn’t even have to stop walking around naked as I don’t make a habit of doing that very often). But, I don’t find either of you guy’s arguments to be convincing — you are certainly entitled to your opinions and feelings on the subject, but in terms of thinking logically about what makes sense for the military and for our society, I still come down in favor of ending DADT.

14. @57: We shouldn’t be in the business of coddling people like Chris, who can’t argue in anything more than anecdotes and hypothetical situations. He’s sounding like a brat, whining about “tree-hugging capitol hill liberal hippies” and whatnot without providing any realistic statistics regarding gay conduct within the military from actual gay individuals.

    Not all of us are from the insulated world that Chris apparently grew up in, some of us are from where these bigots actually come from. If gays can handle living in those cities, then they can handle meeting them face to face in the military. That’s not an issue.

    As to comfort, nobody can provide realistic proof that gays will be predatory within the military to a distracting or debilitating extent. No, it’s all theories based on these 20-30 year old stereotypes of gay men and women and a reuse of 60 year old racist tactics like saying “we can’t integrate, we’d need separate barracks to prevent crime, they’re a risk to our soldiers” and so on and so forth.

    And really, we, the american people, are not paying for your comfort, Chris. If you aren’t going to fight because you may or may not feel uncomfortable, you’re starting to sound unprofessional and unfit for service to the american people. If you joined the army because it was an easy job that fit your self-image, you need to go back and look at those portraits and statues all around Washington D.C. to find out what makes a real soldier.

15. @53, I hate, hate, hate you. I’m looking at reuping just to get DLI. Just finished up six months of lovely Russky Yizik here at the SOF Language School at Bragg.

16. “The military is not a place to find romance.”

    Why do you assume that gays joining the military are only doing so looking for romance? Can’t they have joined for the same reasons as straight people? Or did you really just join up as part of a neverending quest for pussy and are projecting your motives onto them?

17. What’s the point? Chris84 has zero credibility. He’s trotted out every right-wing line there is.

    You haven’t served in the military so you don’t know what you’re talking about – and then he ignores those here who HAVE.

    You’re crazy, ignorant, tree-hugging, left-wing liberals…because you disagree with me.

    Homos will look at my peen in the shower.

    The guy has zero credibility in this discussion. Surprised he hasn’t invoked the Nazis….yet.

18. What a tool.

19. @67 – I’m guessing his is pretty small.

20. @64 I agree with you on pretty much all points. We should not coddle bigots, we should not engage in segregation era rhetoric about fears of integration. However with those things said there are many reasonable non-bigoted people who believe that gays serving openly will bother bigots in the military. Now I think that you and me could win the debate that it does not matter but currently it is up for debate. This leads me to think the resources of progressives are better spent supporting gay marriage and equality at home. The military will fall into place soon afterwards. I coin this term as the “domino theory.” 🙂

21. Fraternization is not the issue–sexual assault and harassment are the issues. You don’t need separate quarters to solve that, you need to clean house and raise the standards for service.

    Our military is largely populated with ethical, intelligent, patriotic, hard-working men and women, and I have nothing but respect for the people who follow the rules and do their jobs.

    Unfortunately, the military is also populated by a significant number of scumbags who are otherwise unemployable and if not for the military, would probably end up dead or in prison. These are mostly ostensibly heterosexual men, who join the military because they have nowhere else to go, and do not deal well with the dehumanizing psychological conditioning necessary to get people to kill each other without hesitation when so ordered. These are the assholes who go around raping the female soldiers and, given an opportunity, do things like forcing enemy prisoners to watch each other jack off in Abu Ghraib. Anyone who has served in the military knows the kind of people I’m talking about. If you’ve served, you’re picturing them right now.

    It’s a dirty little secret that no-one in the military or the leadership wants to talk about. In addition to patriots and the naive, the military also attracts psychopaths and criminals. While a good chunk are screened out, and military discipline and training help a huge number of people better themselves, there are plenty who simply end up as criminals in better shape who have been trained to keep below the radar of authority figures. They do not want the general public to know that if you enlist, you’ll have to serve with these people.

    Most people in the military are not terrified of normal gay men and women hitting on them. What they are afraid of, is that the scumbag rapists (who aren’t even gay–just indiscriminate) will be able to target them. They believe that fear of dismissal under DADT is the only thing keeping same-sex sexual harassment and assault in check. They may not know how to articulate it, but make no mistake, when someone says they’re concerned about “unit cohesion” they’re really talking about the fear of prison-rape scenarios.

    If the people in the military can look past the fear and think this process through, they should realize that ending DADT will make the situation better for everyone. If DADT is the only thing keeping the predators in check, won’t removing DADT force the people who have been looking the other way to actually speak up and boot those people who have no business being in the military in the first place?

22. If the Air Force can fully integrate it’s black and white service members in ONE DAY then how the hell can repealing DADT take years. Does there have to be peace on earth and then and only then when Jesus returns will it be repealed.

23. Chris sure is a drama queen.

24. @72 – it took the UK one day to do it (gays in the military) and Canada was 2 days as I recall.

25. Why read the man’s opinions if you’re not willing to consider them? Integration will be difficult. It’s going to happen. We can do a good job integrating the services or we can do a bad job. In my experience, the best way to do a good job at anything is to listen to the people who are most affected by the thing you’re planning to do.

    Grow up. We’ve won the fight. You don’t have to convince this guy anything. You should, however, respect his experience and consider his opinions.

26. As a former military Officer, I can tell you that the author is absolutely wrong when he asserts that the military does not acknowledge or provide benefits to heterosexual servicemembers that are not available to gay servicemembers under DADT. In addition to the not insignificant tangible benefits such as health care for heterosexual spouses, married living quarters, and the ability to shop on military bases that would not be available to a gay servicemember lawfully married in Massachusetts, the military also conducts outreach to heteosexual spouses of servicemembers specifically to ensure that those servicemembers do not have personal problems that affect the mission of the unit. I can’t tell you how much of my time as a military officer was occupied in doing things for the people who worked for me to ensure that their home life was not in turmoil, including such things as: obtaining leave for a servicemember to handle emergencies that their spouses were experiencing, helping a servicemenber to ensure that his or her spouse was financially secure; helping a servicemember to ensure that his or her spouse could obtain medical benefits; helping a servicemember defend against or disciplining a servicemember for a spousal accusation of domestic violence; helping a servicemember to arrange child care issues with a spouse, etc. This is just a short list. It is simply wrong to state that the military does not concern itself with the home life of its members and the issues that they have with their spouses–at lease heterosexual spouses, none of this is applicable to same sex spouses or partners under DADT(except that those same sex spouses have enormous power to ruin a gay servicemember’s career, simply by outing them).

27. @75 – difficult?

    Um, no.

    Sorry, no other first world nation had a problem doing it, at least in the last three decades.

28. @77, no other first world nation has such a fear-based society.

29. Chris84 is precisely the type of enlisted personnel that made me deliberately abandon my intended military career track 30 years ago: watching day after day as my peers exhibited difficulties performing simple tasks such as close order drills, failing written tests AFTER having had both the questions AND answers provided to them just days before, and overhearing comments about how some of them couldn’t wait to be handed a gun and “start blasting away” convinced me that, in an all-volunteer military, I simply had no desire to be in command of outright idiots, trouble-makers, bullies – and bigots.

30. what a weak fucking argument against repealing dadt. so gays and lesbians can’t keep it in their pants? is that all you got??

    i find it amazing that a few homophobes in the military still have such influence.

31. Why hasn’t anyone suggested co-ed barracks and showers… with cameras? Then every person serving could experience the joys of having their private lives subject to equal scrutiny.

32. With respect, Chris, your response is bullshit. You can start complaining about the ‘giant strain on resources’ caused by ending DADT when we’re no longer spending $750 BILLION A YEAR on the military.

33. Gays have already seen your unit, fella. Get over it. They did.

34. People really shouldn’t even talk to hipsters about the military. It is a lost cause.

Comments are closed.