Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants

[MILON]

Why do we assume, as straight men, that WE are going to be harrassed by gay men in any particular situation? I mean, in reality, it probably wont happen. I dont picture homosexuals as sexually starved zombies waiting to jump any man that enters the room. Personally, I have never assumed that I would even be hit on while hanging around my gay friends and it has never happened. I dont believe we should jump to those conclusions.

[1stindoor]

I don't think that's the issue. At least not in the senior ranks...I think it's more of an issue of someone "hitting on" another in junior ranks. I try to put it into perspective...

Imagine trying to pick up some girl at a bar and instead of just getting turned down politely...or even rudely, instead she chooses to get a bunch of her friends to jump you, and beat you to death...I mean...afterall...what makes you think she would even like you like that?

[Pete]

Originally Posted by MILON

Why do we assume, as straight men, that WE are going to be harrassed by gay men in any particular situation?...........

Are you saying that people in positions of power will not/do not use their position to gain advantage over people under them who are sexually different from them?

I think there have been a number of quite public cases of men going after women. And a few of women going after men.

So gays will not go after non-gays? Is that what you're saying?

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by Pete

Are you saying that people in positions of power will not/do not use their position to gain advantage over people under them who are sexually different from them?

This is another one of the potential problems we'll see in a few years...that coupled with discrimination allegations because someone is "out."

[MILON]

I am saying that we shouldn't assume homosexuals will always go after heterosexuals. Sure it can happen and likely will, but just as in heterosexual situations a polite turn down is probably all that is needed. Some people will always try to take advantage of other people if they feel they can benefit from it. But, this doesnt prevent us from gaining employment, buying goods, or living our lives they way we choose too.

I also believe the majority of the issue will come in the junior ranks. The younger population doesnt seem to be ready to accept this yet. After all, high high school students still use "gay" as a negative term and an insult and we can also consider the recent homosexual suicides resulting from bullying. Could we assume this type of reaction would be worse within incoming soldiers of the same age group?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by MILON

I am saying that we shouldn't assume homosexuals will always go after heterosexuals. Sure it can happen and likely will, but just as in heterosexual situations a polite turn down is probably all that is needed. Some people will always try to take advantage of other people if they feel they can benefit from it. But, this doesnt prevent us from gaining employment, buying goods, or living our lives they way we choose too.

I also believe the majority of the issue will come in the junior ranks. The younger population doesnt seem to be ready to accept this yet. After all, high high school students still use "gay" as a negative term and an insult and we can also consider the recent homosexual suicides resulting from bullying. Could we assume this type of reaction would be worse within incoming soldiers of the same age group?

What if it is unwelcome?

Will it be harassment?

Hostile environment?

It would be if I hit on a female in my workplace. Why not if a gay man tries to hit on me? Am I supposed to be flattered?

Why is it necessary to have seperate barracks and restrooms for men and women if there are locks on doors, shower curtains, and toilet stall doors?

Why not just build one set of barracks, and one set of unisex restrooms? We can all control ourselves, right? Good order and discipline and all that.

TR

[MILON]

Is the military prepared to answer any of these questions???? For some reason, I doubt it.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by MILON

Is the military prepared to answer any of these questions???? For some reason, I doubt it.

But yet it is time to end DADT?

The key question is "Will allowing gays to serve openly help, hurt or be a neutral impact on the military?"

Will allowing the small number of gays who serve openly be "worth it" to the military?

Will gays be counted as a minority group and require special consideration on promotion boards like Blacks and women have?

And who says who is gay? If being gay gives a person a leg up on promotions why not list "gay" as your sexual prefference - even if you're married to a member of the opposite sex?

So many questions without answers - but yet it's time.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Pete

But yet it is time to end DADT?

The key question is "Will allowing gays to serve openly help, hurt or be a neutral impact on the military?"

Will allowing the small number of gays who serve openly be "worth it" to the military?

Will gays be counted as a minority group and require special consideration on promotion boards like Blacks and women have?

And who says who is gay? If being gay gives a person a leg up on promotions why not list "gay" as your sexual preference - even if you're married to a member of the opposite sex?

So many questions without answers - but yet it's time.

IMO, another question worth answering is "How does one determine 'worth it'?"

Is the issue of "worth it" centrally about military effectiveness in an operational sense or should the broader potential for improved civil-military relations also receive consideration?

As for the current president, I've always been of the view that he deliberately misled the GLBT community so they'd vote for him and that he had no real intention of delivering if doing so entailed anything resembling a political risk. MOO, this issue is too important to be left to a blase commander in chief.

[Richard]

Ex-Congressman Mark Foley (Rep-FL) might be a good subject-matter expert to offer his insight on some of the points being brought up over the topic.

Richard

[Bebop]

Originally Posted by MILON

Why do we assume, as straight men, that WE are going to be harrassed by gay men in any particular situation? I mean, in reality, it probably wont happen. I dont picture homosexuals as sexually starved zombies waiting to jump any man that enters the room. Personally, I have never assumed that I would even be hit on while hanging around my gay friends and it has never happened. I dont believe we should jump to those conclusions.

I've been hit on by gay men, even after I made it clear I was straight. Some gays have a sick fetish of hooking up with heterosexuals. And given the amount of alcohol the junior ranks consume, I guarantee some gay dude is going to misread a straight guy, make a move, and get beat when said straight male sobers up. And the straight male is going to be held 100% accountable even though he would not have acted if the gay guy didn't try to hook up with him. Bad news IMO.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

IMO, another question worth answering is "How does one determine 'worth it'?"

Is the issue of "worth it" centrally about military effectiveness in an operational sense or should the broader potential for improved civil-military relations also receive consideration?...................

I think the "worth it" for anybody in the military would be military effectiveness. The case can be made for any gay individual that they are "worth it".

Which is why many in the military are in favor of the continuation of DADT. It is individual.

When DADT is fully repealed than it swings from "individual" to "group". Now the group gains rights as a group - not the individual. The group becomes protected with special rights.

I wonder what or who the new EO NCOs will be? I would put that in pink but it is a serious question.

[alright4u]

[QUOTE=The Reaper;353302]Guaranteed.

Also look for the complaints about assignments, discrimination, hate crimes, sexual harassment, sexual assaults, etc., etc.

I guess we will need to sleep on our backs, and start showering with our backs to the walls now. If I have to shower with gays, I want to shower with the women as well. If he can keep his lust in check, so can I.

Will gays in the barracks be allowed to share rooms and sodomize one another, or will they automatically be authorized off-post quarters and BAH at the with dependents rate?

Look for a surge of HIV positive soldiers and partners hitting the military medical system as well.

Welcome to the gay Army.

And imagine the rifle company CO is queer. Unreal. Sorry for not being PC.

[AngelsSix]

All I am going to add here is from a medical standpoint, and you med folks correct me if I am wrong.

When I worked at Portsmouth, if a sailor turned up HIV positive, he/she was re-tested to confirm and then moved to a "special unit" at the hospital. There was a whole ward dedicated to these folks.

I know the Army has a "special troops battalion", I pass it all the time. So why would it be an issue? I am certain the Army has a similar program to deal with HIV positive individuals.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by AngelsSix

....... I am certain the Army has a similar program to deal with HIV positive individuals.

The purpose of the military is to deploy - go places - do things.

Any time a service member is unable to do that someone has to step in and take their place.

We have discussed single parents (male & female) & prego's many times here.

By forcing "social norms" into the military it has impacted readiness. The repeal of DADT is the forcing of another "social norm" into the military.

HIV can not be dealt with like single parents or pregos - and it will impact readiness. And it will increase health care costs.