Gay Ex-Officers Say 'Don't Ask' Doesn't Work

[Donutboy 0]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 — Three retired military officers, two generals and an admiral who have been among the most senior uniformed officers to criticize the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for homosexuals in the military, disclosed on Tuesday that they are gay.

The three, Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr and Brig. Gen. Virgil A. Richard, both of the Army, and Rear Adm. Alan M. Steinman of the Coast Guard, said the policy had been ineffective and undermined the military's core values: truth, honor, dignity, respect and integrity.

They said they had been forced to lie to their friends, family and colleagues to serve their country. In doing so, they said, they had to evade and deceive others about a natural part of their identity.

The officers said that they were the first generals and admiral to come out publicly and that they hoped that others would follow.

They are the highest-ranking military officers to acknowledge that they are gay. Col. Margarethe Cammermeyer was discharged from the Washington State National Guard in 1992 for being a lesbian. She was later reinstated.

Ten years after the Clinton administration instituted the policy of "don't ask, don't tell," it remains contentious and has fallen far short of President Bill Clinton's vow to allow gays to serve openly. The officers hope to spur a dialogue, in Washington and in the military, about changing the policy.

Gay Ex-Officers Say 'Don't Ask' Doesn't Work

[Tiger Al 0]

There's no reason homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military.

[Tigermike 3,058]

If you go to war, it sure gives new meaning to the expression "cover my ***"! :blushbig:

[War Eagle 96 10]

You can be as gay as you want, just don't tell me about it if I'm counting on you to avoid breaking down crying when we're fighting off the enemy during hostility.

What a bunch of whinning!

[Tiger Al 0]

You can be as gay as you want, just don't tell me about it if I'm counting on you to avoid breaking down crying when we're fighting off the enemy during hostility.

What a bunch of whinning! 

Interestingly enough, when I was in the Army I had a friend who was gay and if you had spoken like that to him he would've dismantled you. This guy was bad news when he was pushed, which I had the opportunity to see one time.

Matt and I were coming out of a bar (yes, a gay one) in Germany and two locals passing by started saying something to us. My German wasn't very good but Matt spoke it very well. He told me later that they were hurling the usual offenses. He said something back to them and this set them off! (I'm sure I heard the word 'schweinehunde' in there!) Before I even had a chance to react, Matt sent one of them to the ground with a straight on knee shot and then lit into the other guy pretty viciously. The knee guy mistakenly tried to get up and Matt sent him back down hard.

I was fairly shocked at the ferocity he showed because he was always so mild mannered. He told me that he'd had to learn how to deal with people like that and couldn't always just 'let it go.'

There are two guys in this world who learned that homosexuals aren't all girlie-boys!

[TitanTiger 20,519]

I struggle with this issue. I know what many fellow conservatives think about it, but what I'm not clear on is why they think what they do. The only argument I've heard against it that held any water to me was the issue of having to bunk, shower, change clothes, and so on with someone who may be sexually attracted to you. I assume that men and women get separate quarters or arrangements for such activities because of these kinds of issues. Why should it be different for a gay man?

Aside from that, I don't see why a gay person who is willing to fight and die for their country should be prevented from doing so. Can someone clue me in?

[TrueTiger 0]

If you go to war, it sure gives new meaning to the expression "cover my ***"! :blushbig:

lol.

I wouldn't want to know about it either.

WARR EAGLE

[Tiger Al 0]

I struggle with this issue.  I know what many fellow conservatives think about it, but what I'm not clear on is why they think what they do.  The only argument I've heard against it that held any water to me was the issue of having to bunk, shower, change clothes, and so on with someone who may be sexually attracted to you.  I assume that men and women get separate quarters or arrangements for such activities because of these kinds of issues.  Why should it be different for a gay man?

Aside from that, I don't see why a gay person who is willing to fight and die for their country should be prevented from doing so.  Can someone clue me in?

I'll try! I'm only going to address the bunk/shower issues that you raised. After that, you can decide how much further you want to take it. Fair enough?

The big concern that heterosexuals express, like you did, about homosexuals in the military is how to handle those times when men or women are in common areas where there is some degree of nudity. The scene is in the showers and the gay soldier will see another one naked, become aroused and will then act on that arousal in some way, ranging anywhere from a sexual come on to an actual rape. I think that this is based on a lot of false assumptions.

One assumption is that because gay men are attracted to men they are, therefore, attracted to ALL men. I don't think this is true because I've known a few gay men and in that respect they're no different from straight men. Another way to look at it is like this-I, as a straight man, am not attracted to every woman I see nor is every woman who sees me attracted to me. When I do see a woman that I'm attracted to I don't have to act on that impulse and vice versa. It works the same with homosexuals.

Another assumption is that the gay soldier is a threat to the heterosexual soldiers because he won't be able to control his libido based on the previous assumption. I think that the straight soldier would be more of a threat to the gay one simply due to the ratio of each in a military unit. I was assigned to an Army hospital and the medical field probably has statistically more gays in it than other fields like any of the combat arms, MP's, supply, etc. My unit, which consisted of probably 100 or so people had about 5-10 known homosexuals (male and female) in it. The percentages have probably changed since then but I doubt they have very much. So, in the dreaded shower scene, I don't think you're going to see a handful of gays, who probably won't be there at the same time anyway, trying to assert themselves on a much larger population of straight soldiers. And, if so, I'm sure that retribution would be swift! Which is another reason the straight men might be more of a threat to the gays, because you might see a lot of false accusations.

Which brings me to one last point and that is that the Uniform Code of Military Justice has rules and punishments in place already for sexual behavior and harassment among heterosexuals that would extend to homosexuals as well. It's not like the gays could just lay up with each other in the barracks because there are no rules about that. There are. In the dorm I lived in, women were on the bottom floor and men were on the top floor and after a certain time neither was allowed on the opposites floor or room.

As for segregating the gays from the heterosexuals, I think that kind of ostracism would be counterproductive to the goals of acceptance of and respect for the gay soldier. We've tried that with blacks and women and it was a bad idea then We were able to incorporate them fully into the military despite misguided opposition to their being there. The same should be done with gays who want to serve their country in the military.

I hope this helps you, Titan.

[Ranger12 46]

Even though I have a serious problem with the lifestyle, they do have rights as an American to serve their country. However, some concerns do have merits. We do not billet males and females together for obvious reasons and those same reasons can be used if you are billeted with a gay soldier. I really would not like the idea of sharing a shower with a gay man. That would make me highly uncomfortable in the same way a man and woman showering together. Of course, some would call me homophobic for that reason.:roll:

[War Eagle 96 10]

I struggle with this issue.  I know what many fellow conservatives think about it, but what I'm not clear on is why they think what they do.  The only argument I've heard against it that held any water to me was the issue of having to bunk, shower, change clothes, and so on with someone who may be sexually attracted to you.  I assume that men and women get separate quarters or arrangements for such activities because of these kinds of issues.  Why should it be different for a gay man?

Aside from that, I don't see why a gay person who is willing to fight and die for their country should be prevented from doing so.  Can someone clue me in?

I'll try! I'm only going to address the bunk/shower issues that you raised. After that, you can decide how much further you want to take it. Fair enough?

The big concern that heterosexuals express, like you did, about homosexuals in the military is how to handle those times when men or women are in common areas where there is some degree of nudity. The scene is in the showers and the gay soldier will see another one naked, become aroused and will then act on that arousal in some way, ranging anywhere from a sexual come on to an actual rape. I think that this is based on a lot of false assumptions.

One assumption is that because gay men are attracted to men they are, therefore, attracted to ALL men. I don't think this is true because I've known a few gay men and in that respect they're no different from straight men. Another way to look at it is like this-I, as a straight man, am not attracted to every woman I see nor is every woman who sees me attracted to me. When I do see a woman that I'm attracted to I don't have to act on that impulse and vice versa. It works the same with homosexuals.

Another assumption is that the gay soldier is a threat to the heterosexual soldiers because he won't be able to control his libido based on the previous assumption. I think that the straight soldier would be more of a threat to the gay one simply due to the ratio of each in a military unit. I was assigned to an Army hospital and the medical field probably has statistically more gays in it than other fields like any of the combat arms, MP's, supply, etc. My unit, which consisted of probably 100 or so people had about 5-10 known homosexuals (male and female) in it. The percentages have probably changed since then but I doubt they have very much. So, in the dreaded shower scene, I don't think you're going to see a handful of gays, who probably won't be there at the same time anyway, trying to assert themselves on a much larger population of straight soldiers. And, if so, I'm sure that retribution would be swift! Which is another reason the straight men might be more of a threat to the gays, because you might see a lot of false accusations.

Which brings me to one last point and that is that the Uniform Code of Military Justice has rules and punishments in place already for sexual behavior and harassment among heterosexuals that would extend to homosexuals as well. It's not like the gays could just lay up with each other in the barracks because there are no rules about that. There are. In the dorm I lived in, women were on the bottom floor and men were on the top floor and after a certain time neither was allowed on the opposites floor or room.

As for segregating the gays from the heterosexuals, I think that kind of ostracism would be counterproductive to the goals of acceptance of and respect for the gay soldier. We've tried that with blacks and women and it was a bad idea then We were able to incorporate them fully into the military despite misguided opposition to their being there. The same should be done with gays who want to serve their country in the military.

I hope this helps you, Titan.

Right! I could walk into a communal shower with a bunch of women and I wouldn't be attracted to them.

Look I don't care if your gay, I guess...just don't talk to me about it and make me accept you. I don't force my views, urges, tendencies, passions etc. on other people in a public environment, so why does it have to be any different if I'm gay?

[War Eagle 96 10]

BTW, since when does being gay make you special? Just shut the heck up and do your damn job.

[AURainman 6]

I dont have a problem with Gay people in the military. As Chris Rock said, "Let 'em join the military. 'Cause I AINT FIGHTIN' !!!!"

I joke of course. Should I ever be called to arms, I would stand and fight I assure you.

[Tiger Al 0]

Even though I have a serious problem with the lifestyle, they do have rights as an American to serve their country. However, some concerns do have merits. We do not billet males and females together for obvious reasons and those same reasons can be used if you are billeted with a gay soldier. I really would not like the idea of sharing a shower with a gay man. That would make me highly uncomfortable in the same way a man and woman showering together.

Ranger12, I know that because you're a religious man you have a problem with the gay lifestyle and I'm glad to see that you're able to separate your beliefs in how you should conduct yourself from how you'll allow others to conduct themselves. That's respect and that's a good start. Your concerns about showering with a gay man are understandable, but, I'd be willing to bet that at some point in the Army you already did and you didn't even know it.

Of course, some would call me homophobic for that reason.

The more important question is, do YOU think that makes you homophobic? If so, are you OK with that? If not, try to figure out the source of your fear so that you can overcome it. If you are OK with it then accept it, own it and be honest about it.

BTW, since when does being gay make you special? Just shut the heck up and do your damn job.

WE96, You've got it backwards. In the military, gays are already made to be special. If the military finds out about their homosexuality then they are dishonorably discharged. They don't want special treatment at all. They want to be able to follow the same rules that you or I would have to follow in the military and nothing more.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Even though I have a serious problem with the lifestyle, they do have rights as an American to serve their country. However, some concerns do have merits. We do not billet males and females together for obvious reasons and those same reasons can be used if you are billeted with a gay soldier. I really would not like the idea of sharing a shower with a gay man. That would make me highly uncomfortable in the same way a man and woman showering together. Of course, some would call me homophobic for that reason.:roll:

I guess I'm homophobic too. We have all women battalions, let's have an all gay batallion. Let's let the world know that we accept the disturbed and confused as normal and are willing to show the world that instead of trying to hold up morals, we just don't care. I'm glad you had a gay friend, but that doesn't make it alright. I have gay friends too, but I let them know that I DO NOT approve of their lifestyle. Does that make me hate them? No. We just have boundaries in our friendship that we do not cross. That is what the military is attempting to do.

Most people in america are not as open ended, uh minded, as you (pun). The country as a whole does not want it forced on us. Left alone, there is acceptable private behaviour. Forced, Americans will have a backlash like never before seen.

Therefore, if gays in the military do not like the role they play as MEN, then leave and get a job decorating houses of something. But do not make the MAJORITY conform to you. A gay man can go to work everyday in the real world and never have to profess his sexuality, but now we are saying that a gay man in the military has a "RIGHT" to shove it in our face. I can't even go to work and start preaching without getting reprimanded, but you think that gays have more rights than christians.

Nice counry we are turning into.

[texaubie 0]

Another way to look at it is like this-I, as a straight man, am not attracted to every woman I see nor is every woman who sees me attracted to me. When I do see a woman that I'm attracted to I don't have to act on that impulse and vice versa. It works the same with homosexuals.

I, as a straight man, may not be attracted to every woman I see but I bet I would enjoy showering every day with a bunch 18-25 year old women that are in excellent physical condition. I might even see one or two that I liked.

[Tiger Al 0]

CCT, would you say that it was fair for one of your gay friends to be fired from his job for no other reason than his being gay?

Twenty four countries including the UK and Israel don't discriminate against homosexuals.

[Donutboy 0]

Even though I have a serious problem with the lifestyle, they do have rights as an American to serve their country. However, some concerns do have merits. We do not billet males and females together for obvious reasons and those same reasons can be used if you are billeted with a gay soldier. I really would not like the idea of sharing a shower with a gay man. That would make me highly uncomfortable in the same way a man and woman showering together. Of course, some would call me homophobic for that reason.:roll:

No. I think the matter needs serious discussion and to do that, you have to be honest and open about what your fears and feelings are. I've read some very good responses to this issue and I think those isues need to be addressed. Perhaps the showers could be made with stalls like urinals routinely are. Hang a towel inside the stalls and wrap yourself before exiting your stall if you feel uncomfortable with a gay person seeing you naked. I think this is an issue where Clinton missed the boat. Instead of solving the problem of gays in the military, he created a new set of problems. Gays should have the right to serve their country if they want and honest, open discussions should be made to solve any problems that might arise.

[Tiger Al 0]

Another way to look at it is like this-I, as a straight man, am not attracted to every woman I see nor is every woman who sees me attracted to me. When I do see a woman that I'm attracted to I don't have to act on that impulse and vice versa. It works the same with homosexuals.

I, as a straight man, may not be attracted to every woman I see but I bet I would enjoy showering every day with a bunch 18-25 year old women that are in excellent physical condition. I might even see one or two that I liked.

I'd bet you wouldn't feel as comfortable as your fantasy leads you to believe!!!

[texaubie 0]

Another way to look at it is like this-I, as a straight man, am not attracted to every woman I see nor is every woman who sees me attracted to me. When I do see a woman that I'm attracted to I don't have to act on that impulse and vice versa. It works the same with homosexuals.

I, as a straight man, may not be attracted to every woman I see but I bet I would enjoy showering every day with a bunch 18-25 year old women that are in excellent physical condition. I might even see one or two that I liked.

I'd bet you wouldn't feel as comfortable as your fantasy leads you to believe!!!

Hey, I can dream!

[CCTAU 3,350]

CCT, would you say that it was fair for one of your gay friends to be fired from his job for no other reason than his being gay?

Twenty four countries including the UK and Israel don't discriminate against homosexuals.

A mistake of discontent in my job doesn't get someone killed. You have to have a content group in order to successfully work together during conflict. The questions and emotions that arise from this causes discontent among the troops.

[Tiger Al 0]

CCT, you didn't answer my question. People can become content as the initial fear subsides. Also, remember, we believed at one time that the introduction of blacks in the military was going to foul everything up because they were inferior mentally, had poor eyesight, the country wouldn't accept it and/or they were...black.

[TitanTiger 20,519]

TigerAl, I don't think the comparison of this issue to that of blacks in the military holds water.

[Tiger Al 0]

TigerAl, I don't think the comparison of this issue to that of blacks in the military holds water.

Why not? Do you think there is more animosity towards gays in 2003 than there was against blacks in 1948 when Truman abolished racial segregation in the armed forces?

Homosexuals have served in every branch of the military throughout the history of this country. The question isn't, "Do we let them in?" They are and have always been. The question is why should they be forced to lie about it to enter and remain in the service and fear that, if discovered, they'll be dishonorably discharged for otherwise honorable service to their country?

[AURainman 6]

The comparison between race and sexuality has been made numerous times. It always brings us back to the argument of "nature vs nurture." In other words, are people BORN gay or do they CHOOSE to be gay. If it were proved that there existed a "gay gene" or something, then being a homosexual would no longer be a choice. Therefore, the profiling based on homosexuality would be equivalent to that of profiling based on race.

I am personally in the camp that believes people choose to be gay on either a conscious or subconcious level. Therefore, your comparison between racism and "homophobia" do not hold for me.

[War Eagle 96 10]

The comparison between race and sexuality has been made numerous times. It always brings us back to the argument of "nature vs nurture." In other words, are people BORN gay or do they CHOOSE to be gay. If it were proved that there existed a "gay gene" or something, then being a homosexual would no longer be a choice. Therefore, the profiling based on homosexuality would be equivalent to that of profiling based on race.

I am personally in the camp that believes people choose to be gay on either a conscious or subconcious level. Therefore, your comparison between racism and "homophobia" do not hold for me.

Good point Rainman, even TigerAl and Donut have referred to being gay as a "lifestyle."