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

1. Let’s go for another 130 plus comments!

2. I wish the politicians, pundits and reporters could be as civil as these two when covering controversial issues. I do believe that I have a better understanding of the complexity of the policy, and what it will take to change the culture now – so thanks!

3. LOL.

   The UK changed policy in a day.

   Canada changed policy in two days.

   Are you SERIOUSLY telling me it takes us YEARS to change policy?

   By the way, the first units to stop discriminating INCREASED combat efficiency – at least in the UK and Canada …

4. im covered in waffle mix.

5. I love that our soldiers are so fragile and their psyches so weak that the mere thought that there may be a homosexual lurking behind a door or in a bunk can damage them.

   Thank god we don’t ask them to do anything difficult.

6. I want to know what Chris’ response is to the statistic that over 1/3 of women who have chosen to serve in the armed forces have been sexually assaulted or raped. Should they just drop out? Do they deserve it? Is it their fault for, you know, being female?

   And some of the nastiest sex talk I’ve ever heard is from enlisted guys, they talk about sex constantly and in some cases, an incredibly degrading way. But it’s always in a heterosexual context, so that’s okay, but some guy one bunk over who gets a stiffie for Neil Patrick Harris is a complete detriment to national safety?

7. These thoughts from service members about DADT aren’t really relevant. If you’d asked them 40 years ago what they thought about allowing blacks into the military you’d have gotten a lot of opposition. People aren’t comfortable with change. That’s nothing new. They’ll adjust. It’s not their call to make.

8. …Gays do NOT have a right to be in the military. the most discreet gay person ever could still be kicked out if someone sees them, ontheir personal time, engaging in activities that implicate them as homosexual. ARGH

9. Perhaps I should be clearer there. Chris’ agument that gays can serve is really, really misguided.

10. No offense to Chris, but that is the most ridiculous bullshit reasoning….

11. At my old consulting firm, I worked with a gay guy who was “out, but not really.” Anybody who knew him for more than a few weeks could figure out that he was gay, but he never talked about his romantic life. Never dates, never boyfriends, whatever. And our practice was pretty liberal and knew each other very well (we went out drinking and pretty frequently, etc.). He was a fairly senior guy in the firm, and I always wondered if his silence was because he just didn’t want to talk about his romantic life, or because he was afraid it would hurt his career (the rest of the firm was perhaps not as liberal as our practice was). Meanwhile, my assistant was also gay and we talked all the time about what he and his partner were up to — in the casual kind of idle chit-chat way that co-workers do (e.g., what did you and Randy do this weekend?).

    How does this relate to DADT? Well… the “your personal life has no place in the work environment” comment… The difference is that my co-worker would not have been fired if he had let it slip that he had a boyfriend. It seems like some in the military think that when DADT is repealed all the gay people are going to make a big fucking deal about how they’re gay (they’re going to drag their personal life into their professional life). I strongly suspect that even when DADT is repealed, that many gays will act just like my co-worker — “out, but not really”. Or like my assistant, who didn’t go around talking about fucking guys, but about how he and his partner went to their lake house or whatever. In other words, like normal people.

12. i’m all for giving DADT the boot, but it is starting to make me mad that anti-DADT folks don’t give more serious consideration to the issue that soldiers are living together in close quarters. you just can’t compare that to any 9 -5 job back home. give these guys that. at least when “everyone” is heterosexual, they really really don’t have to worry about modesty, emotional issues of a certain type, etc.

    i do think with a little work, it could and should all be fine. but c’mon, that’s going to be hard from some folks, and the cohabitation bit about the military makes it not “just like any old job” where discrimination is illegal. some people brush this issue aside like it doesn’t exist, or shouldn’t exist.

    can someone in the military tell me if men and women are commonly housed together in close quarters? if they are, then maybe this is moot.

13. @5 hahhaa, nice…. It seems that all this hype about unit cohesion etc is coming from a male-only perspective. Can we get some female views on this? Do the women in the military feel the same way these men do (jane might jump mary in the middle of the night because now that she’s allowed to be out shes obviously predetory)?

    PERHAPS this comes down (unfortunately) to an irrational fear/loathing/misunderstanding/homophobic view of gay sex, and not so much sexual orientation. If the military really stood by its policies and standards they would repeal DADT and enact severe consequences for fraternization for ALL people (it sounds like that’s what they rely on to deter male/female relationships, just beef it up a bit for all those loose homosexuals).

14. One thing about DADT that I’ve never understood: Somebody earnestly obeys the rules: Nobody asked, and they didn’t tell — yet they get kicked out anyway because SOMEBODY ELSE told.

    Seems like the policy should’ve been called more accurately: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and Don’t Anybody Else Tell Either. Unless I’m totally misunderstanding something.

15. @4 – you should add maple syrup – I recommend some from Vermont.

16. @6, exactly.

17. @13 – “unit cohesion” is military code for “kicking out all the uppity lesbians”.

    If you actually look at the real numbers, and project the percentages, you realize that DADT is used more often on an actively serving lesbian – or a woman who turned down a male request for sexual favors – than it is on the average gay male soldier.

    One of the dirty little secrets they don’t admit.

    Man, the things I could tell you from all the unit personnel files and charge sheets that got buried …

18. Lame. He’s just spouting the conservative line: “hurts unit cohesion”, without even understanding what it means. That and blaming the victim. The gays make him some people uncomfortable. So in order to make those people comfortable, lets not allow any (known) gays.

19. I will admit up front that I could only read about half of this conversation and the one previously posted by Christopher Frizzelle.

    Why you ask? Because it doesn’t and shouldn’t matter what one or two junior officers or one or two enlisted men think when our politicians are deciding to change military policy. When Truman desegregated the Army in the middle part of the last century do you think the majority of white soldiers were comfortable with the decision? Military officers, enlisted men, Congressman, Senators, members of the public, screamed to high heaven about unit cohesion and degradation of fighting ability if those white men had to bunk with black men. Did any of the dire predictions come true? NO. Our military remained as effective as ever in carrying out their missions. Truman ended the racist policy of segregation because it was the right thing to do.

    The policy of DADT should be ended because it is discriminatory and does more harm than good to the armed forces. Those serving in the military are trained to take orders. Will there be some challenges, sure there will be, but I am pretty confident that the military will adjust just like they adjusted to women serving in a multitude of roles and blacks serving in non-segregated units. Change is always scary, but the military will eventually man-up and deal with this in a professional and soldiery manner. So is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff.

20. Onion @12, your argument doesn’t hold water.

    Yes, military people sometimes have to live together in close quarters, share tents, community showers, etc. And yes, it would undoubtedly make a few homophobic people uncomfortable if they could no longer pretend that 100% of their tent-mates are straight (which has never actually been true anyway).

    But the same was true in the late 1940s. I’m sure it was very uncomfortable for some racist white soldiers to have to share tents and showers with blacks.

    No rational person today would argue that we shouldn’t have integrated blacks because it made some soldiers uncomfortable to share tents and showers with them. And we shouldn’t use that excuse to exclude gays today.

21. This is the dumbest argument ever (the whole “should we repeal DADT”, not this specific exchange).

    The arguments against de-segregating the army were similar, and did we wait until all the enlisted men were comfortable before doing that? Hell no.

    The arguments against giving women the right to vote were similar, and did we wait until all the men were comfortable before doing that? Nope.

    17 states still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books when Loving v. Virginia was decided. More importantly, public opinion, even in states where interracial marriage was legal, was solidly (75%) opposed to interracial marriage.

    But now we’ve got a situation where we’ve got to wait for the bigots to all die off or change their minds, and where 52% of Californians can deny equal rights to gays – or 51% of Washingtonians can prevent progressive change – but 59 Senators representing 60+% of the US population aren’t allowed to pass a damn thing benefiting Americans. Worst of all possible worlds, you know?

22. when DADT is repealed, that many gays will act just like my co-worker — “out, but not really”.

    I suspect most of them will remain in the closet. The military will not guarantee their safety any more than it guarantees the safety of female servicemembers.

23. @19 & @20, good stuff.

    What I don’t get here is why this conversation is any different than the decision to allow women to serve? Dealing with the issues of women in the service has got to be much more difficult than gays. The only reason why it’s any different is that we as a society believe that discrimination against women is no longer acceptable (well, let’s say 90%+ do), but we haven’t reached that point with gays.

24. reverse polarity, so do you think heterosexual women and heterosexual men should be housed together in close quarters in the military?

    again, i think DADT is an unfair policy. i’m not “arguing” for retaining DADT. this issue of cohabitating with individuals who could be sexually interested in one another can be overcome, but saying this is a “non-issue” just isn’t true. ESPECIALLY if you are gonna stick with a policy of separation of the sexes. it’s just hypocrisy.

25. I wonder what an average soldier might have said about serving with African Americans before they desegregated the military. I realize that the issues aren’t quite the same, but I think that the mindset off the average soldier might have been comparable.

26. @ 24 Your argument is Gay Panic and nothing more. Gay men are not sexual predators, as you seem to think, that will pounce on straight soldiers because they are “housed together in close quarters.” If they were they would be pouncing right now as there is probably at least one closeted solider in every barracks the military currently maintains.

    There are serious personal safety issues when discussing cohabitation between men and women. The issues are NOT the same when discussing gay men and straight men bunking together. Gay men do not routinely if ever rape straight men. Straight men routinely rape women. Or are statistics of sexual assault “just hypocrisy?”

    The fact of the matter is the armed forces of our allies such as England, France, Germany, and Israel, among many others, allow gay men and straight men to sleep in the same barracks. They also allow for separation of the sexes, my guess is because of safety issues. Last time I checked man on man rape was not rampant in any of those organizations.

    You and your friends in the military need to get over the icky feelings you have toward gay sex and grow-up. Change is coming and your queasiness and transparent homophobic arguments will not stop it.

27. Who gives a shit what he thinks! This is why we have civilian control over the military and we don’t live in some goddamn banana republic.

    When I was in the military I hated dealing with Christian Fundamentalists. Guess what, I fucking coped; I didn’t whine about it.

    Chris, if you don’t like the soon to be new policy then don’t re-enlist.

    As for the “close quarters” argument: what a bunch of BS. For one thing, unless you are in a forward combat area, most jobs in the military are a 9-5 type job. You do your work and then you go home.

    I’m not sure about combat areas, but when I did annual training women and men did sleep in the same barracks and tents. It was no big deal.

    Just because a person is gay doesn’t mean that he is going to be attracted to other men in his platoon, and it definitely doesn’t mean that he would ever attempt to act on it. There’s no place for that in a combat area. The rules already are in place for heterosexual soldiers of the opposite sex working alongside each other; having those same rules also apply to homosexuals is not a big deal.

28. Onion, I was in the military. I did two enlistments. I spent years sharing barracks and showers. Amazingly, I never sexually assaulted any of my straight brethren.

    This was way back even before DADT (I’m old). But if I had been allowed to serve openly, nothing would have been any different. Why? Because I’m not in the habit of hitting on nervous straight guys in the showers. Because it isn’t acceptable behavior, in the military or out. I get a much better response if I hit on other actual gay men. That would not change, regardless of whether the military allowed me to serve openly, or required me to stay in the closet.

29. @12, 24

    Mr Onion,

    Yes women and men are often housed during training in the same barracks.

    Again I do not have experience being in a combat area (thank God!) so I don’t know the situation there.

    What I do know is that during basic training we had less than five minutes to shower. We were all too busy and too scared shitless to check out other guys or to care about other guys checking us out.

    And again, gays are no more predatory than heterosexual men. There are already laws against unwanted advances and harassment. Having gays and lesbians be open about their sexuality doesn’t change anything.

    But maybe you are saying that American men cannot be trusted in such situations? Is that what you are alluding to?

    I take offense to that notion (being an American male) but I do know that many American males are immature when it comes to sex and sexuality.

    The only anecdotal story I have is from a woman I use to date who served with the US Army in Somalia. She told me how she preferred to hang out with soldiers from the Indian Army rather than her fellow Americans, who would often harass her. She mentioned that US Marine helicopters would often fly over the shower area when women soldiers were showering.

    That disgusted me. There is no place for such shenanigans in the military. Hopefully, because of more women soldiers and officers (especially in combat), the situation is better now.

    Anyway, gay men and women have as much right to serve their nation as straight men and women. Those that harass other soldiers, regardless of the reasons, need to be weeded out.

30. Chris says ” . BUT there are cases where homosexuals have made advances to guys. this is not cool in an all male environment”
    If DADT was repealed and gay soldiers were allowed to be open about their sexuality, they would know which other soldiers were gay and NOT HIT ON THE STRAIGHT ONES.

31. Blind squirrel, meet acorn – Will @17 actually made a true statement. Lesbians are far more likely to be kicked out of the armed forces under DADT than gay men. “The disparity was particularly striking in the Air Force, where women represented 20 percent of all personnel but 61 percent of those expelled.”

    So all this gay panic about dropping the soap in the showers is just that: fear and ignorance.

    Another large group of servicemen and women who are not at risk of being gayed up in the barracks are the many non-combat troops, who push paper, not bayonets. Remember all those gay Arabic analysts we fired? Those guys weren’t trying to get into your ass in the shower; they were trying to SAVE YOUR FUCKING LIVES.

    Such a stupid argument.

32. Why is it that so many people have a really difficult time understanding that even though a word sounds the same It don’t mean the same thing! They’re, there and their are different words that have different meanings. Sheesh! It’s called a homophone. Deal with it.

33. 26 danindowntown – holy shit your reading comprehension really sucks.

    1) i think dadt should be repealed because it blatantly bigoted and homophobic (how many times do i have to say that?) i think gays should serve openly! WOOT! 🙂

    2) i’m asking an honest question about cohabitation rules because I am NOT in the military and I don’t know the answers. I admit that! shit!

    I really really really didn’t know the answer to “why hetero men and women don’t cohabitate” in the military out on front lines. Or if sometimes they do. I THANK YOU ALL for informing me why not. I also thank you for informing me that while in training, they DO COHABITATE.

    Apparently in instances where the sexes ARE separated it is because heterosexual men will rape or coerce or bully women? A couple of you suggested that is the reason. It is to protect women, you say. Because HETERO men are the big nasties.

    And some of you say that while it is a problem for heterosexual men to come on to women in the military, it is either a) not likely that homosexual men will make passes at the objects of their desire or, b) if it does happen, it is not a problem, because the asymmetries that exist between men and women don’t exist between men and men.

    Thank you! Thanks for enlightening me! That’s all I wanted!
    Repeal DADT! (I really mean that)

    sheesh.
    (again – it just seemed a little funny that there is an acceptance of non-integration of hetero men and women, but an expectation that heteros and gay/lesbians should completely integrate. but apparently hetero men and women ARE integrating. so the logic can be applied in all instances. integrate hetero men and homo men, integrate hetero women and lesbians, integrate hetero men and hetero women. integrate homo men and lesbians. COOL.)

34. Aside from the small problem that he doesn’t seem to want it applied equally, Chris’s first statement is all that should really matters here:

    “There are many homosexuals serving in the military and with distinction. It is no different if you worked at a law firm or were public figure, you’re personal life has no place in the work environment. “

35. @6 & @16, that’s an argument against ending DADT. If I were this guy and you asked me about women and sexual assault, I’d say “exactly, we tried to tell you 20 years ago (or whenever) that allowing women in the military was a bad idea, and look how well that turned out! Listen to us this time.”

    When trying to get a controversial policy changed, emphasizing how poorly a past controversial policy change turned out usually isn’t the best strategy.

    I don’t agree, and the reasoning Chris offers is even more bullshit than Frizzelle’s brother gave. I’m just saying your reasoning sucks too.

36. You know, after a hard day of flying drones over /P/a/k/iAfghanistan, there’s nothing worse than realizing that the radio operator on the ground and the guy in the drone flying near you are gay.

    Seriously.

    How can you work in an environment like that?

    It reminds me of fighter pilots. All enclosed by their lonesomes, having to worry if the guy in the plane next to them had a picture of his boyfriend instead of a picture of his girlfriend.

    (this is sarcasm, in case you’re not paying attention and think the modern military can’t cope)

37. Hey ONION…. Gays currently serve in the military.

    The discussion isn’t about letting them in with the real he-men— they are there already.

    The discussion is about letting them serve without having to lie etc.

    Society already knows what will happen when gay guys live in the same barracks as straight guys. Not much.

38. OK people. Listen up. I’m tired of all you stuck-up western washington liberals who are so close-minded. The military is not in the business of pleasing the personel first. MISSION comes first and the needs of the country. Now is not the time to be changing policy when we are in the midst of a global war on terrorism with more than 4 theatre of operations. The “DADT” policy, put in place by your beloved President Clinton, stopped the ban on homosexuals in the military. He made it possible for homosexuals to be able to serve but not reveal their sexual orientation because: “it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” THIS is exactly what is at risk. I have been in the battlefield with men and women (yes women), and that last thing we soldiers want to know is that someone has homosexual tendencies or thoughts. I spoke with another soldier today who told me she was constantly “hit” on by another female soldier during training. She was assigned a two person sleeping quarter. This is NOT acceptable!

    For all of you people who are confused about the living conditions and rules, here is it. Men and Women in the military live SEPERATELY. Unless you are married, you must live on base in housing barracks. You are assigned with soldiers in your same unit, and same sex. This is to ensure that no environment for fraternization can grow. Fraternization is strictly regulated and almost forbidden. Now, if homosexuals are allowed to freely express their sexual orientation etc, then this can create another strain on the command and structure of units. NOW commanders will need to create other living quarters for homosexuals (male and female) to seperate them from heterosexuals in an effort to aviod further FRATERNIZATION. That is the whole point. So in an essense, by allowing homosexuals to serve, you are creating the possibility of further segregation of indivuduals within the military.

    The military is not a place to find romance. It’s a place to serve your country and to fight for those who can not. But human nature always gets in the way. Thats were regulations keep soldiers from harrasing each other, dicriminating each other, and so forth. Of course dumb soldiers will always break the rules and they are penalized. BUT these rules are in place for good reason. As a commander, I don’t want to have to come up with living quarters for straight men, gay men, gay women, and straight women. Then come up with showers and bathrooms for the same. This will put a giant strain on resources and weaken our military.

    Since most of you will disagree with me, it’s because you haven’t had the guts to join and serve your country.

39. @Chris84, and what of us who DID have the guts to join and serve who do disagree with your bigoted idiotic ignorant statments?

40. If they get rid of DADT, which if I call was an executive order (right?), do things then revert to the way they were before that when gays were still not allowed in the military except that they were asked upon joining and expected to answer (of course they could still lie about it I suppose and stay closeted)? My point is that DADT was, in fact, a step forward (albeit a tiny one), but I’m in the camp that thinks a much larger step forward is long overdue.

    I can’t help but think that not long ago these same debates were raging about racial equality. It wasn’t legal for people of two different races to marry, non-caucasions (pardon my extra PC-ness, I can’t help myself) weren’t allowed to serve in the military and then when they were they had to have seperate units for them…and these same reasons why were given then, but when things finally changed the consequenses weren’t anywhere near as dire as people thought they would be.

41. @ Akbar, if you did serve in the military, i commend you for your patriotism. But my statements are not idiotic or ignorant. AGAIN, close minded liberals, like yourself, failed to see any of the facts I stated which explain why the DADT is a good policy.

42. @ 41 Even when judged by the low standards of SLOG trolling you can only be classified as a dip shit.

    @ 33 My reading comprehension is just as accurate as that of everyone else that has taken you to task for your asinine questions.

43. Danindowntown, are you a sociology professor? Because you seem to be able to judge others so well… I love it how ignorant, close-minded, idiotic, tree-hugging liberals can never see past their own little world on capitol hill and msnbc. Anytime conservatives make a reasonable argument or comment, the immediate response is “you’re a bigot”, or “you’re a dip shit”.

    Is everyone ignoring the facts I posted earlier regarding the cons of abolishing the “DADT” policy? Or is everyone so set on this “change”? And frankly our Allies in Europe might have different policies regarding homosexuals in their armed forces, but those are different countries. Those small armies do not compare to the sheer size of our military and we can not afford to just change policy from one day to another like they have.

    And when you commented earlier regarding “it doesn’t and shouldn’t matter what one or two junior officers or one or two enlisted men think when our politicians are deciding to change military policy”, it’s those junior officers like myself that need to deal with these policy changes that come down from the politicians. So don’t comment on shit you have no idea about and never will. Because you’re comfortable in your capitol hill apartment, watching msnbc, and bitching that the world “owes” you something.

44. Chris84, the recruiters lied. It’s really not an army of one. You’re not the only one in the army, and some of your buddies way higher up in the chain of command have already testified they support the repealing of DADT.

45. @43, I don’t think anyone is advocating changing policy from one day to another, but much like desegregation be a multiyear process.

    I don’t see any problem with the living situations, we already have mixed gender living arraignments on most FOBs. General Order No. 1 would still apply equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals.

    As for back in the rear just make it so EVERYONE has to be out of the Bs at 0200, regardless of sex. Yeah, it’d make more of a hassle for CQ having to log everyone in and out, but they need something to do to keep them awake anyway. And don’t females live in the same barracks as males in POG units?

    Yes, some people aren’t going to like serving with openly gay dudes, but our fighting men and women are pretty damn good at adapting and overcoming. That’s the game of the game isn’t it?

46. One more reason that separate living arrangements according to sexual orientation wouldn’t work: bisexuality. Just saying.

    Chris84: We are at war in two different countries, which is exactly why we need all the troops we can get. Isn’t that so? Losing Arabic translators and well-seasoned soldiers sounds like it would be a weakness to me, anyway. My ex-girlfriend, who has studied upwards of six languages, really wanted to join the army as a translator, but it sounds as though you wouldn’t want her to join? That kind of confuses me.

    DADT limits our troops when we’re mired in two wars. I think it’s a threat to national security, personally.

47. @ #43 – Said, “Anytime conservatives make a reasonable argument or comment, the immediate response is “you’re a bigot”, or “you’re a dip shit”.”

    Response – Show me a conservative making a reasonable argument or comment, regarding gays and lesbians that isn’t based on even the slightest bit of bigotry, fear or hate, then we might have something to discuss. I just love how you “conservatives” cry “we’re not bigots,” yet you never want to progress forward or change, and just keep the status quo. I thank God daily there are more people in this world that have the spirit of breaking through old barriers and advancing the human race, then those such as you, that truly are regressive in your way of thinking. I imagine you’re one of those “conservatives” that complains that you were born 100 years too late.

    @ #43 – Also said, “Is everyone ignoring the facts I posted earlier regarding the cons of abolishing the “DADT” policy?”

    Response – Helloooo!! Those weren’t “facts” you posted. They were “opinions.” If they were “facts,” then they would also dispute the “facts” that other countries have successfully, and without incident, integrated gays and lesbians into their military just fine.

    Man up, little soldier boy. Your fear that all gays and lesbians are predators is unfounded. And frankly, ignorant, as well. You’ll be just fine, having a gay soldier sleeping in the bunk next to you. You once thought there were monsters under your bed, but you grew up. It’s time you did some more growing.

48. The military is an all-volunteer force, and they work for us. If some don’t like the possibility that they may “shower with a gay”, they can leave, and try to find work in the real world.

    Push it through, and when the world doesn’t fall apart, the conservatives will just have to find something else to be a victim about.

49. I’m really sorry for Jon Brock. With friends like these…

50. Why are people so stupid about gays in the military?

    We’ve ALWAYS been in the military! For thousands of years! Same-sex society: duh!
    We don’t need “special” rights or accomodations…we’re already there and doing fine without separate quarters and showers because we’re so sex mad we’re liable to fuck/rape all the straight soldiers.

    And, I like how the American military is “special”…sure most of the rest of the free world have already dealt with the gay military issue, but the US Army/Navy is unique…we’re the most powerful nation in the world because we’re scared some OUT, gay guy might want to suck our dick in the middle of a sortie…

Comments are closed.