Supreme Court upholds ban on gays in military

[Grumble and Grunt]

Doesn't the UK's military allow gays to openly serve? How do they deal with sexual harassment?

I have never personally had or known I have had a gay soldier/colleague/superior. I have heard stories about what happens in an all male combat arms unit when someone gets "outed".

Does anyone have any examples or personal experiences with this?

COL David Schroer, now Dianne, served very honorably in SF for many years before undergoing a sex change.

I don't think allowing gays to openly serve would open the flood gates of flamboyant and effeminate homosexuals to charge headlong into the Infantry or Special Forces. A lot of the overtly gay men with such tendencies would probably shy away from this profession.

Objectively, I have no personal opposition to serving with gays. I have never been confronted with the situation though and if so might experience some trepidation. It isn't exactly within my comfort zone and it would take a lot of open-mindedness to deal with. Can we ask our soldiers to do that?

Would it keep a combat unit from bonding as closely as it needs to to function well due to fear and discomfort?

I think the current policy works. I don't believe someone should be subject to violence or oppression due to their personal preferences and I don't want to see the Army get a black eye on this issue. I also don't need something crammed down my throat like the USEMB Baghdad Gay Pride Party. I think that is in bad taste. If it is important enough for someone to serve in the military then they can holster their open homosexualilty in the interest of unit cohesion.

The SOF community continues to be fairly self selecting anyways in regards to what type of people want to be here. My biggest concern is that people will hide behind homosexual discrimination as an excuse for failing to perform to standard. I don't want to see this turn into an EO circus that compromises the quality of our fighting units.

[K.Ingraham]

G&G, given that this issue is not going away, your question deserves some actual research (just not by me). The data is there to be found as most modern Western armies allow gays to serve. For most though, this is a new phenomenon.
If the order is given, the CoC will make it work, just as it did when we had to take all the women in the Seventies.

My non-substantiated opinion is that the flamers aren't the ones who are going to enlist, especially not these days. Those who are inclined to join are mostly already there.

[rgrokelley]

So constitutionally they don't have the right. I never looked at it from that side.


Edited to make sense

Constitutionally no one has the "Right" Gay, Straight or otherwise.

Simplified, a right is something everyone has, in which it doesn't cost anyone else anything to give it to you. It is free, but it can't be taken away from you (without due process). So health care, serving in the military, driver's license, marriage and a job are not rights. To receive all of those things, you have to take something away from someone else (money).

[Silverback]

I have no particular aversion to gay people nor does it concern me that they have and are serving, with that said...We should never do something simply because we can. Until an argument can be made that the current policies and procedures violates the constitution, the current policy should be left alone. If the only argument that can be logically made is "European Armies do it" then I think that further cements the case for leaving things the way they are.

[Looon]

I have no particular aversion to gay people nor does it concern me that they have and are serving, with that said...We should never do something simply because we can. Until an argument can be made that the current policies and procedures violates the constitution, the current policy should be left alone. If the only argument that can be logically made is "European Armies do it" then I think that further cements the case for leaving things the way they are.

Yep.

[Ranger Bill]

If it is not broken, do not fix it. Regarding the current poliicy, whether it is broken or not depends on one's viewpoint. Personallly, I favored the policy prior to "don't ask, don't tell." I fail to understand what harm that caused. But then, I am a dinosaur doomed to extinction, and I know that morality and culture continually evolve. I do know that the issue of homosexuals serving in the military takes up a considerable amount of discussion, debate and legal resources. As such, I feel it is a distraction that is out of proportion to any value assicociated with it. But again, that is just me and I have never been accused of not being judgemental. In any case, I am certain the day will come when gays/lesbians/bi-sexuals and trans-sexuals will openly serve. It is a matter of time.

[smokn38]

I'd consider myself an "ultra-conservative" on this as well. It's not a lifestyle I condone nor do I agree with. That being said I personally know someone serving overseas right now that fits the alternative life style and and I hold him in pretty high regard. He is a professional in every aspect of the word both in the military and his LE career. I see no problem with the current policy and I'm sure there are a number of people serving under this policy successfully, courageously and honorably. They want to enter the military, maintain the standards and serve this nation under pretty austere conditions then let them. I find it interesting that a policy created by Clinton is now facing these challenges under the current administration.

[Silverback]

I find it interesting that a policy created by Clinton is now facing these challenges under the current administration.

The issue is that POTUS Clinton is perceived by the Homosexual community as having compromised on a promise and the Homosexual community voted for change and they are seeing the same compromise beginning to form.

The homosexual community does not want equality, the Homosexual community wants to be accepted into the main stream of America and they want to be accepted part and parcel rather than put up with. Maintaining status quo is not enough and the Homosexual community will continue to pursue legislation affording them acceptance without regard to their level of equality.

[Silverback]

Question

When you introduce yourself to someone or to a group do you announce that you are a Heterosexual?

[RangerX]

Question

When you introduce yourself to someone or to a group do you announce that you are a Heterosexual?

What, like when visiting 2nd Batt?

[Ranger Bill]

Question

When you introduce yourself to someone or to a group do you announce that you are a Heterosexual?

Only if asked.

[KW Driver]

I served with a gay, flamboyant queen in my Sqdn. as in he wore a pink terry cloth robe, while carrying a TV tray full of "product" to the shower. he made damn near all the men and some of the women uncomfortable, at least.

but his commander said that he was no trouble, and one of the better, squared away soldiers in his Troop. so... I didn't like being around him, didn't shower in that trailer if he was in there, but he did his job and wasn't one of the 10%.

so here's a question for all the proponents of not changing things. all the arguments here about cohesion and discipline were also used to support segrigated units. all the defences of anti-gay rights in the military echos the fight to maintain segrigation. was that a good policy? should it have stood? what's really the difference in sexual orientation and ethicity?

[Silverback]

what's really the difference in sexual orientation and ethicity?

Ethnicity is defined by a persons outward appearance

Sexual orientation is defined by who a person sleeps with