Are attitudes about gays serving in the military changing?

[CommunityEditor]

Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, who supported “don’t ask, don’t tell” when it was enacted in 1993, now argues that circumstances today — a military straining to deal with two wars amid calls for a bigger force — dictate that it’s time for the country to revisit the issue of gays in the military.

And it's not just Shalikashvili with the attitude adjustment.

A Zogby poll of more than 500 service members released Dec. 19 found that 73 percent of military members are “comfortable” with lesbians and gays, and 23 percent “know for sure” that someone in their unit is homosexual.

At the same time, the most recent Military Times poll of more than 6,000 subscribers indicated that the percentage of active-duty personnel who think homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military has risen slightly every year since that poll began, from 24 percent in 2003 to 30 percent in 2006.

Are attitudes about gays serving openly in the military changing?

Read the full story: Shalikashvili calls for rethinking ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

Please remember to follow our Community Guidelines. Hate speech is not welcome here. If you feel a post, conversation or user requires our attention, let us know by using the Report Bad Post button (it's on the top right of every message board post).

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

Are attitudes about gays serving openly in the military changing?

Having served with (known) homosexual soldiers (yes, and with women in combat roles as well), I'd say that the attitudes are changing.

Where there have been problems (in my experience) has been where the "command element" (which could be anyone from a Sergeant on up) essentially ran around waving their hands in the air and (figuratively) moaning about "doom, DOOM, !DOOM!".

Where the "command elements" took the position "There will be NO problems." the number of problems has been minimal.

Possibly this is one of those times that the pointy hats ought to catch up with the troops.

[stpetefl]

I think the attitude is changing. I have been in the Army for almost 19 years and I used to be hardcore against it but in the last 5 years I have served with at least 3 guys that I knew were gay (they openly told me) and I really have changed my mind. I think it doesn't matter.

[Smitdawg971]

I disagree. It is not acceptable as most people think. And I really think it's apalling that they can use the law as their own personal get out of war card. We have alot of lesbians in our unit that work hard, but where is the integrity? Isn't that one of the Army Values that we have on our NCOER's. I believe it's time to change the law and begin punishing homosexuality to the fullest like adultry and other in moral acts.

[FINKD]

Originally Posted by Smitdawg971

I disagree. It is not acceptable as most people think. And I really think it's apalling that they can use the law as their own personal get out of war card. We have alot of lesbians in our unit that work hard, but where is the integrity? Isn't that one of the Army Values that we have on our NCOER's. I believe it's time to change the law and begin punishing homosexuality to the fullest like adultry and other in moral acts.

How can a person use their being a homosexual as a "get out of war card?" If you're imply that they would throw away a career after 18 years by doing this then you're mistaken. The military has lost a number of people who speak Arabic languages, which we now need, because people were identified as being homosexual. Prosecuting homosexuals simple because they're homosexuals is the height bigotry. Would you punish heterosexual single people who have sex for engaging in an immoral act? All service members should be treated on how they adhere to standards of behavior, not on the basis of their sexual preference.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by Smitdawg971

I disagree. It is not acceptable as most people think.

And exactly how acceptable do you think "most people think" it is? I would, of course, be most pleased to review the results of the well-designed, properly conducted, and soundly calculated surveys that you produce in support of your belief.

Originally Posted by Smitdawg971

And I really think it's apalling that they can use the law as their own personal get out of war card.

Considering that a discharge for a violation of the DADT policy is NOT mandatory (it is discretionary), exactly how do you see homosexuality as a "Get Out Of War Card"?

Originally Posted by Smitdawg971

We have alot of lesbians in our unit that work hard, but where is the integrity?

Please provide your definition of "integrity". If they work hard and do the jobs that they have contracted to do, doesn't that display "integrity"?

Originally Posted by Smitdawg971

Isn't that one of the Army Values that we have on our NCOER's.

Yes, I believe that keeping your word, not breaching your contract, working hard, and doing the job that you are supposed to be doing is well within the parameters of one (or more) of the "Army Values". Don't you?

Or is there an "Army Value" that says something like "I will only have sex with people of the opposite gender." that I have somehow overlooked?

Originally Posted by Smitdawg971

I believe it's time to change the law and begin punishing homosexuality to the fullest like adultry and other in moral acts.

I see, and since when did the US military become the "Church Militant"?

BTW, did you know that almost all members of the US military could probably be discharged for violations of the "immorality" clauses of the UCMJ (I draw your attention in particular to Section 925 Article 125)?

Of course there are those who subscribe to the "I don't want to do that so you CAN'T" or the "As Long As I'm Not Getting Any (Much As I Would Like To) I'm Going To Make It Illegal For Anyone To Get Any" schools of "legal philosophy".

MILITARY TRIVIA TIME - "During which quarter century did it become illegal for homosexuals to serve in the US military?"
_____ 1775 to 1800
_____ 1800 to 1825
_____ 1825 to 1850
_____ 1850 to 1875
_____ 1875 to 1900
_____ 1900 to 1925
_____ 1925 to 1950
_____ 1950 to 1975
_____ 1975 to 2000
_____ 2000 to 2025

[ganiskj]

Of course attitudes about gays serving in the military are changing. Things change all the time; peoples' attitudes, the weather, the average american's waistline, the time the sun rises and sets everyday, etc. The more accurate question is, should the military's policy of not allowing openly gay men and women to serve, be changed. My response to that question is, absolutely not.

Regardless of the current wave of support homosexual activity seems to be enjoying today, homosexuals themselves remain a very vocal minority of our population, albeit a minority with a very effective media relations campaign. Its also worth noting that, unlike race or skin color, homosexuals are a minority by choice, made so by a chosen activity, not by birth or faith, circumstance or environment.

Interestingly enough, across the country wherever the idea has been left to the popular vote, attempts to legalize gay marriage have always been overwhelming defeated (perhaps attitudes aren't really changing after all?).

Additionally, considering the "nuts and bolts" of homosexual activity, male on male contact is probably among the most hazardous form of activity of its kind, medically speaking. Not to mention the documented (insurance industry studies/tables) higher rates of overall medical problems/poor health among practicing homosexuals, along with the resulting significantly shortened life expectancies. All of this would add an even greater burden to the currently over-taxed military medical services.

If that's not enough, do we really have to revisit the adverse affect openly gay men and women would have on a unit's good order and discipline?

[FINKD]

Originally Posted by ganiskj

Of course attitudes about gays serving in the military are changing. Things change all the time; peoples' attitudes, the weather, the average american's waistline, the time the sun rises and sets everyday, etc. The more accurate question is, should the military's policy of not allowing openly gay men and women to serve, be changed. My response to that question is, absolutely not.

Attitudes change over time, so may yours.

Originally Posted by ganiskj

Regardless of the current wave of support homosexual activity seems to be enjoying today, homosexuals themselves remain a very vocal minority of our population, albeit a minority with a very effective media relations campaign. Its also worth noting that, unlike race or skin color, homosexuals are a minority by choice, made so by a chosen activity, not by birth or faith, circumstance or environment.

That may be the opinion of religious people but science tends to support the belief that homosexuality is of a biological nature. That doesn't mean some people choose to be homosexual, but the vast majority of them are born that way.

Originally Posted by ganiskj

Interestingly enough, across the country wherever the idea has been left to the popular vote, attempts to legalize gay marriage have always been overwhelming defeated (perhaps attitudes aren't really changing after all?).

Not Arizona. They rejected a measure to ban gay marriage 51% - 49% and that's in a conservative state. Gay marriage ballot proposals are usually put to the voters by the Republicans to bring out the evangelical voters because the Republican know if the Evangelicals come out to vote the Republicans will get their votes. It's not about morals to the Republicans but getting themselves elected and the Evangelicals are and have been played like a PlayStation.

Link

Originally Posted by ganiskj

Additionally, considering the "nuts and bolts" of homosexual activity, male on male contact is probably among the most hazardous form of activity of its kind, medically speaking. Not to mention the documented (insurance industry studies/tables) higher rates of overall medical problems/poor health among practicing homosexuals, along with the resulting significantly shortened life expectancies. All of this would add an even greater burden to the currently over-taxed military medical services.

Please show us these documented problems. Any sex, either heterosexual or homosexual, can be dangerous if the people aren't taking the proper precautions. I think the military sees enough problems with STDs, unplanned pregnancies, etc. and any additional problems with having gays in the military would be minimal at best.

Originally Posted by ganiskj

If that's not enough, do we really have to revisit the adverse affect openly gay men and women would have on a unit's good order and discipline?

Good order and discipline doesn't rest on sexual orientation. Would having someone who is Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim have an adverse affect on a unit's good order and discipline? What has an adverse affect on good order and discipline is people not adhering to established standards of conduct. That's what this comes down to, meeting standards of conduct. Gays have, are and will also be serving in the military whether you like it or not. They should be judged on how well they perform their jobs and how well the adhere to standards of conduct. Neither they nor anyone else should be held to standards that promote intolerance and bigotry which is what you are advocating.

[ganiskj]

Sorry FINKD, but there is no "scientific proof" that homosexuality is genetic, just theory and speculation. However, your acceptance of this line of thought as some sort of irrefutable evidence is further indication of the effectiveness of the pro-homosexual lobby. Your comments comparing what you identify as the "opinion of religious people" with that of science lead me to speculate that you believe that science and religion are incompatible. I wonder how some devout and faithful doctors, researchers, scientists or professors might feel about that?

(As an aside; I wonder how, if some "homosexual" gene did exist, it could possibly live on through successive generations? After all, by the very nature of their preferred sexual activity, homosexuals are unable to reproduce with their partners.)

Also, I neither stated nor implied that good order and discipline rests upon sexual orientation, but agree that order and discipline require people to conform to standards of conduct. In today's military, those standards include parameters on all of our sexual activity. Is the system perfect? Of course not. Does some activity receive tacit Command approval because it goes unchallanged or unpunished? Undoubtedly. Can we/should we do a better job in enforcing the current regulations under the UCMJ? There is always need of, and room for, improvement. However, making the regulations more liberal in defining acceptable behavior will not have a positive impact on order and discipline. You yourself said, and I agree, that good order and discipline require people to conform to standards of conduct, not that the standards of conduct need to conform to the people's actions. Leadership isn't about doing what's popular, it's about doing what's right.

If you tell a child he can't play with matches, then punish him if/when he does, he generally learns that matches aren't toys. If instead you give the lad a pack of matches and tell him he is allowed to play with them if he is careful, he'll likely burn himself and possibly set fire to the house.

Your response further indicates you hold the opinion that I am an intolerant bigot, or at the very least that I advocate intolerance and bigotry through my stated views. While I sincerely advocate your right to express your opinion, I must correct you.

It is unlikely that you could find a more accepting and open-minded individual than me, as I rarely take offense at another's activities or personal views. As a greatly flawed individual myself, I find my time constantly occupied by the need to regularly police my own actions. That doesn't mean that I lower my standards or expect others to allow me to indulge my baser instincts. If in some way I fail to "measure up" for participation in a certain activity or with a certain group, I expect myself to either change or accept that I can't take part in/be part of .....(fill in the blank). That's just life.

You're right, attitudes do change over time, but not always for the better. My moral compass however is unwavering, and for that I make no apologies. I recognize that many of my views might offend others, but I'd rather people not like me for who I am, than like me for who I'm not.

[SGM 1_guest]

Originally Posted by FINKD

How can a person use their being a homosexual as a "get out of war card?" If you're imply that they would throw away a career after 18 years by doing this then you're mistaken. The military has lost a number of people who speak Arabic languages, which we now need, because people were identified as being homosexual. Prosecuting homosexuals simple because they're homosexuals is the height bigotry. Would you punish heterosexual single people who have sex for engaging in an immoral act?


"Prosecuting homosexuals simple because they're homosexuals is the height bigotry".

It's not bigotry.. The policy is don't ask don't tell. If a soldier openly admits to him/her being a homosexual then it is the Units responsiblity to valid their claim and then take the appropriate action required by UCMJ.

"All service members should be treated on how they adhere to standards of behavior, not on the basis of their sexual preference".

This is strictly your opinion. Again reverting back to the policy don't ask don't tell.

If you feel so strongly about this maybe you should attempt to put yourself in a position to change current policy.

As for the individuals that have "openly" admitted to being homosexual their Units/Commands have the responsibilty to take the appropriate action...and yes, Soldiers do use this as an excuse to be discharged from the service... Soldiers also use being a conscientious objector as a means to get out.