NationStates Jolt Archive

While the examples given below may not hold true for all units, they are a step in the right direction. :)

And it seems to me that the US military, at least outside the Pentagon and JCS, may be more in step with reality than Congress. (Which shouldn't be a surprise...)

(CBS) A gay soldier says he disclosed his sexuality to his superiors, even offering graphic proof, and was neither discharged nor reprimanded, despite the military’s "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuality.

Army Sgt. Darren Manzella appears in a Lesley Stahl report on gays in the wartime U.S. military to be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday, Dec. 16, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Manzella, a medic who served in Iraq for a year, currently serves as medical liaison for the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Kuwait, where he says he is "out" to his entire chain of command, including a three-star general. After leaving Iraq, he started receiving anonymous emails warning him about his openness that suggested he was being watched, so he went to his commander to head off an investigation he felt was coming. "I didn’t know how else to do it," he tells Stahl, acknowledging that he initiated an investigation of himself by violating the policy. "I felt more comfortable being the one to say, 'This is what is real,'" Manzella says.

He then says his commander reported him, as he was obliged to do, and then "I had to go see my battalion commander, who read me my rights," he says. He turned over pictures of him and his boyfriend, including video of a passionate kiss, to aid the investigation. But to his surprise, "I was told to go back to work. There was no evidence of homosexuality," says Manzella. "'You’re not gay,'" he says his superiors told him. This response confused him and, he says, the closest a superior officer came to addressing his sexuality was to say "I don't care if you're gay or not."

Manzella's commanders may not be the only ones who are indifferent to gays serving openly under them. Discharges of gay soldiers have dropped dramatically since the Afghan and Iraq wars began, from 1,200 a year in 2001 to barely 600 now. With the military struggling to recruit and retain soldiers, gay soldiers claim that commanders are reluctant to discharge critical personnel in the middle of a war.

Stahl spoke with several gay former military members who say they were also out openly in their units, known to be gay by as many as a hundred other service members. "They don’t care….these are our peers…the 'Will and Grace' generation," says Brian Fricke, referring to the popular television program featuring a gay character. Fricke was a Marine Corps avionics technician who served in Iraq. "They grew up with it in the media….They see gay people as people…Americans," says Fricke. "They don't see gay people as people with a disability…."

These gay former service members say they did not re-enlist because they oppose the don't ask, don't tell policy, which they say shows the military's leadership is out of step with American society and its allies. Gays serve openly in the British military and in those of the other 14 NATO countries.

U.S. Army Maj. Daniel Davis, speaking to Stahl out of uniform to emphasize that he does not speak for the U.S. military, says don't ask, don't tell is necessary to achieve cohesion among soldiers, especially those in combat. Most service members are conservative, he says, and won't readily accept gays. "If you have a moral or religious issue, you cannot order me to [bond] with that [gay] person," says Davis, a specialist in battlefield tactics. "Our purpose in the military is not social engineering….It’s about fighting and winning the nation's wars."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/13/60minutes/main3615278.shtml

Slowly emerging into the 21st century. However, I can't imagine the US government doing anything to change official policy any time soon.

I always love the reasons gays shouldn't be allowed. It makes me laugh. Logic and rational thought goes out the window.

Logic and rational thought goes out the window.

Well that's the military for you, in a nutshell.

I think the important part came right after your bolding:
With the military struggling to recruit and retain soldiers, gay soldiers claim that commanders are reluctant to discharge critical personnel in the middle of a war.

IIRC from a term paper I once did on USAian treatment of GLBT people, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" had been (de facto) suspended during all critical war periods, not for any "enlightened" reasons but just for the fact that they needed every single soldier, and that process has been reversed every time so far once that immediate need had gone.

Of course, one may cross one's fingers that progress will have come far enough for it not to happen this time, but I'm not betting on it.
Having read the article, I think it's clear that there's not much of a "It's okay for you to be gay" attitude, but an "I'll pretend I haven't seen/heard all of this because if I had, I'd need to dispell you which I can't afford right now" attitude, and that's not at all a sign that the army moves "in the right direction", but only that it's with its back against a wall.

MY brother is a soldier, in fact after his tour in Afghanistan starting next year, his units CO is registering him for Ranger Candidate, he and the majority of his platoon all think the same way (save for a few rednecks that him and his platoon despise). "If someone is covering my ass, they might as well think its aa cute one."

Its like not letting women into combat roles, its rediculous

I always love the reasons gays shouldn't be allowed. It makes me laugh. Logic and rational thought goes out the window.

Yeah. It's hard to imagine why these people think heterosexuals can curb their lust, while gays can't.

As I've said before: When you are being shot at, if all you can think of is sex, then you really need to re-examine your priorities.

He then says his commander reported him, as he was obliged to do, and then "I had to go see my battalion commander, who read me my rights," he says. He turned over pictures of him and his boyfriend, including video of a passionate kiss, to aid the investigation. But to his surprise, "I was told to go back to work. There was no evidence of homosexuality," says Manzella. "'You’re not gay,'" he says his superiors told him. This response confused him and, he says, the closest a superior officer came to addressing his sexuality was to say "I don't care if you're gay or not."

This kinda odd.. don't you think?

This kinda odd.. don't you think?If they officially state he's gay, they are required by law to discharge him.

It's turning a blind eye. Odd, perhaps, but unfortunately the only way for those commanders to follow the letter of the policy and not the intent.

This kinda odd.. don't you think?

Not at all. Had he stated the soldier was definitely gay he'd be required by regulation to prosecute him. By pretending the evidence wasn't evidence enough he gave himself an out.

Anyway, I've always hated the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. When I was in the Army there were soldiers that we knew were gay, but nobody cared. There was a gay soldier in my troop (cavalry equivalent to a company) when I was in Iraq and he wasn't treated any differently.

edit: Actually, I should say that if anyone cared they didn't say anything about it, which is just about as good.

If they officially state he's gay, they are required by law to discharge him. Which really pisses me off. The US has got to learn! A man who is physically attracted to another man just has different hormone composition!

Which really pisses me off. The US has got to learn! A man who is physically attracted to another man just has different hormone composition!Oh. So homosexuality can be detected from a blood sample?

Ah, so this is why the Iraq War is going so badly. I Mock those who take me seriously

Oh. So homosexuality can be detected from a blood sample?No. The variations are too small.

No. The variations are too small.

So then one would assume that hormone treatments could, as a side affect, alter one's sexuality. Is there any evidence of that ever happening?

Well, I'd rather have someone running after me, trying to inject me with hormones to make me straight, rather than stoning me to death to "prove" that I will end up in Hell for all eternity.

So then one would assume that hormone treatments could, as a side affect, alter one's sexuality. Is there any evidence of that ever happening?they do that after gender-change operations all the time

they do that after gender-change operations all the time

So where are all the mass produced 'cures' for being gay? I mean, if it's a simple as a tiny adjustment in your hormone levels, then how hard would it be to make an anti-gay pill?

So where are all the mass produced 'cures' for being gay? I mean, if it's a simple as a tiny adjustment in your hormone levels, then how hard would it be to make an anti-gay pill?

The military monopolizes the supply to give to any troops who may be involved in a "Gay Bomb" friendly fire incident.

Not at all. Had he stated the soldier was definitely gay he'd be required by regulation to prosecute him. By pretending the evidence wasn't evidence enough he gave himself an out.

Anyway, I've always hated the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. When I was in the Army there were soldiers that we knew were gay, but nobody cared. There was a gay soldier in my troop (cavalry equivalent to a company) when I was in Iraq and he wasn't treated any differently.

edit: Actually, I should say that if anyone cared they didn't say anything about it, which is just about as good.

This is exactly what I was looking for. It seems to be percolating from the bottom up. If the majority of troopers don't care, and that seems to be the case, the whole argument for it undermining morale falls apart.

So where are all the mass produced 'cures' for being gay? I mean, if it's a simple as a tiny adjustment in your hormone levels, then how hard would it be to make an anti-gay pill? So you don't like gays?

This is exactly what I was looking for. It seems to be percolating from the bottom up. If the majority of troopers don't care, and that seems to be the case, the whole argument for it undermining morale falls apart.The majority of the voters still vote republican. Treatment of gays is probably not the highest thing on their list of priorities when voting.

The majority of the voters still vote republican. Treatment of gays is probably not the highest thing on their list of priorities when voting.

Most soldiers I know are concerned more with foreign policy, the military budget and immigration than treatment of gays, good or bad. Most that I've run in to are Libertarians, although there are more than a few hard-core Republicans.

Goddamn activist soldiers, etc, etc.

The majority of the voters still vote republican. Treatment of gays is probably not the highest thing on their list of priorities when voting.

Which serves my observation that the Christofacist "base" that drives the anti-gay agenda behind the "don't ask" policy is not the mainstream and that congress and the pentagon are behind the curve...

Most soldiers I know are concerned more with foreign policy, the military budget and immigration than treatment of gays, good or bad. Most that I've run in to are Libertarians, although there are more than a few hard-core Republicans.

IIRC, wasn't there some data recently showing that Ron Paul had the largest support among the military?

Most soldiers I know are concerned more with foreign policy, the military budget and immigration than treatment of gays, good or bad. Most that I've run in to are Libertarians, although there are more than a few hard-core Republicans.

Which serves my observation that the Christofacist "base" that drives the anti-gay agenda behind the "don't ask" policy is not the mainstream and that congress and the pentagon are behind the curve...



IIRC, wasn't there some data recently showing that Ron Paul had the largest support among the military?
Ah, crud... did I really right voters instead of soldiers? Apparently you two caught my drift anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.

IIRC, wasn't there some data recently showing that Ron Paul had the largest support among the military?

IIRC it's Ron Paul and then Obama.

Goddamn activist soldiers, etc, etc.

LOL At least ya named yerself accurately....

IIRC it's Ron Paul and then Obama.

Remind me to try avoiding political discussion once I'm in the Navy...I highly suspect people will not like my opinions.

A man who is physically attracted to another man just has different hormone composition!

No, he doesn't.

No. The variations are too small.

No, they aren't "too small". They are non-existent. You're just making shit up.

they do that after gender-change operations all the time

No, they don't. The hormones transsexuals receive do not change their sexual orientation - the gender reassignment itself does. If a biological male is heterosexual before the operation she will be homosexual afterwards because she will have the same sex as that of the persons she is attracted to - women. Vice versa if she is gay before the op.

Good to see the military moving in the right direction. The reasons for hating gays are many and ridiculous and we are better than that.

No, he doesn't.



No, they aren't "too small". They are non-existent. You're just making shit up.



No, they don't. The hormones transsexuals receive do not change their sexual orientation - the gender reassignment itself does. If a biological male is heterosexual before the operation she will be homosexual afterwards because she will have the same sex as that of the persons she is attracted to - women. Vice versa if she is gay before the op.

So what exactly controls sexuality, then?

So what exactly controls sexuality, then?

That is the question. It's not hormones. Sexuality != libido.

That is the question. It's not hormones. Sexuality != libido.

So we don't know yet then? Damn. That question keeps bugging me.

So what exactly controls sexuality, then?

If I'd have to guess, I'd say "the penis".

That question keeps bugging me.

Why?

So we don't know yet then? Damn. That question keeps bugging me.

I shouldn't think we'll find out any more than we will what makes someone like the colour red.

Remind me to try avoiding political discussion once I'm in the Navy...I highly suspect people will not like my opinions.
You might be surprised... You might find yourself having experiences that will change your opinions. Living on one's own in the real world will do that.

I shouldn't think we'll find out any more than we will what makes someone like the colour red.
What happened to the research about the "gay gene"? I haven't read anything about it for quite some time, so I expect there is not one.

Why?
Curiosity. I like to know things.

You might be surprised... You might find yourself having experiences that will change your opinions. Living on one's own in the real world will do that.

Or maybe my political views will be strengthened. I highly doubt I'll start praising the virtues of privatized healthcare or killing people or what have you anytime soon...

Is it recruitment is going so bad, they can't afford to remove Gays currently serving?

Is it recruitment is going so bad, they can't afford to remove Gays currently serving?
That was last year. This year, goals are being met. My guess is that our hero wants out a little early and the command won't let him go.

Personally, the arguments against homosexuals sound an awful lot like the arguments against allowing blacks and women to serve equally. Half of those arguments turned out to be wrong. We'll see homosexuals accepted in the military in the next ten years, I'd guess.

Is it recruitment is going so bad, they can't afford to remove Gays currently serving?
Yes, apparently.

What is your opinion of this? Do you think they SHOULD or SHOULD NOT remove homosexuals?

Yes, apparently.

What is your opinion of this? Do you think they SHOULD or SHOULD NOT remove homosexuals?

They shouldn't. They should have the same right to fight for their nation like any other person, should they choose to do so.

They shouldn't. They should have the same right to fight for their nation like any other person, should they choose to do so.

Oh goodie. I was worried for a moment you were going to praise the removal of homosexuals.

If I'd have to guess, I'd say "the penis".

Errr... Then what controls sexuality if neither partner has a penis??

Oh goodie. I was worried for a moment you were going to praise the removal of homosexuals.

I think this change in thinking about homosexuals is going to be slow but also the stupidity of tossing out good soldiers when they have trouble meeting recruitment targets.

Remind me to try avoiding political discussion once I'm in the Navy...I highly suspect people will not like my opinions.

Nah, go right ahead. I went from being a Libertarian to a full blown social democrat while I was in the military. If they don't like it, fuck 'em.

Nah, go right ahead. I went from being a Libertarian to a full blown social democrat while I was in the military. If they don't like it, fuck 'em.

Well, I'd rather not fuck them, but I get your point. :)

Errr... Then what controls sexuality if neither partner has a penis??

Obviously those people you speak of cannot have sex.

Disclaimer: the previous post may or may not have been written in jest

Ah, so this is why the Iraq War is going so badly. I Mock those who take me seriously
Erm, the only reason ....

That was last year. This year, goals are being met.

Let's say I'm a high school freshman, wanting to go to a good college. To do so, I set my goal to get all "A" grades. Instead, I get all "C"s. For the next year then I set my goal to simply get all "C"s, and I do.

Am I meeting my goal? Yes. In doing so, am I going to get what I want? No. The army is not now "meeting goals" because of an upswing in recruitment, or a better drive, or more, ambitious people willing to join the military.

They are meeting goals because they lowered their goals. And while going "last year we didn't make it but this year we did!" makes for great political talking points, it makes for a shitty reality. We only "met the goals" because the goals were set lower, which, while yes, does mean we met goals, meeting the goal, itself, is irrelevant. Recruitment isn't an end to itself, it's a means to an end. We recruit so that we may have soldiers to fight wars. Meeting a recruitment goal is not anything good, if that goal is still insufficient to do what we are doing, namely, fighting in two wars.

I'd actually really like to hear the argument against homosexuals serving openly in the US military, but I guess the simple-mindedness of it will prevent it ever appearing in this forum.

Being in the military is the exact opposite of "Living on one's own in the real world".

I'd rather have gays fighting than the bottom-of-the-barrel scrapings that are being used to meet quotas.

Nah, go right ahead. I went from being a Libertarian to a full blown social democrat while I was in the military. If they don't like it, fuck 'em.Let's not take "Don't ask, don't tell" too far now...:p

What the ???

Being gay is a CRIME in the US Army ?

I'm astoned, I knew the US laws are somewhat homophobics, too much Christianity in the law, but this...

Here in France we all knew the story of the first "male gay widow of war" ( doesn't know the english word for this ) , who was the boyfriend of a French special forces member, killed in Afghanistan.

He received the same rights of pension as every "widow" of a soldier KIA, it's in the law since I'm young...I'm very very surprised...

Meeting a recruitment goal is not anything good, if that goal is still insufficient to do what we are doing, namely, fighting in two wars.
A line that I've always wanted to use on a fitness report, or any other personal eval is "Fails to meet the low standards he sets for himself". Yes I understand.
[edit]
When you look at the numbers, it's not clear to me that any of the forces has reduced it's yearly quotas...The Army seems to be right at 80,000 per year, while the other services vary up and down over the last couple... Which year were you refering to?

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/08recruit.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/07recruiting.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/recruitgoals.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/06recruiting.htm

The problem with DoD's use of manpower isn't that there are too few available for ONE war --- Southwest Asia --- Each country isn't it's own war. It's a philosophy of concentrating certain critical specialties in the Reserves, as well as drawing on the National Guard.

We aren't anywhere near conditions that require any troops other than regular, active-duty. But, the Pentagon saw a way to save money and moved some war-fighting specialties into the Reserves. They virtually guaranteed that Reserves would be called up for any size action and that's not what a lot of Reservists or Guard troops counted on. I'd have quit, too.

What happened to the research about the "gay gene"? I haven't read anything about it for quite some time, so I expect there is not one.

I've heard nothing about it and I don't expect such a piece of research would come to any conclusions.

I've heard nothing about it and I don't expect such a piece of research would come to any conclusions.
Work seems to have "faded".

When you think about homosexuality in the context of history, it seems kind of unlikely that all Spartan soldiers would have been gay because of genetics. In fact, I wonder how a strict heterosexual would have been treated back "in the day".

So you don't like gays?

Isn't it funny when people read things that just aren't there?

IIRC it's Ron Paul and then Obama.

Neither one of which isa all that surprising.

You might be surprised... You might find yourself having experiences that will change your opinions. Living on one's own in the real world will do that.

Indeed. And even then, one's experiences change.

That was last year. This year, goals are being met. My guess is that our hero wants out a little early and the command won't let him go.

Or maybe a journo is making hay out of it. ;)

Personally, the arguments against homosexuals sound an awful lot like the arguments against allowing blacks and women to serve equally. Half of those arguments turned out to be wrong. We'll see homosexuals accepted in the military in the next ten years, I'd guess.

I'm glad to hear that from, you. We may clash on them from time to time, but re military affairs your's tends to be a considered thought here.

Being gay is a CRIME in the US Army ?

Yep, sort of. It used to be worse. Now it's only a crime if one is out. It used to be grounds for a DD period.

Here in France we all knew the story of the first "male gay widow of war" ( doesn't know the english word for this ) , who was the boyfriend of a French special forces member, killed in Afghanistan.

He received the same rights of pension as every "widow" of a soldier KIA, it's in the law since I'm young...I'm very very surprised...

As I've said before: When you are being shot at, if all you can think of is sex, then you really need to re-examine your priorities.

QFT.

they do that after gender-change operations all the time
Um, no.

No, no, and more no.

Gender reassignment surgeries, and the hormone therapies that accompany such procedures, are NOT about changing an individual's sexual orientation. A person who is biologically male and attracted to males may undergo gender reassignment, become physically female, and still remain attracted to males. Their orientation has not changed, just their physical sex. The hormone treatments do not change who they are attracted to.

So what exactly controls sexuality, then?
Based on what we know so far, human sexuality is not controlled by any one element.

Genetics play a role in our sexual behavior, of course, but there's no magic gene that determines who we are attracted to. Hormones and chemical elements also play a significant part, as any 15 year old could tell you, but they also are not the exclusive power behind our sexuality. Our cultural and social context plays a tremendous role, perhaps a greater one than most people are comfortable admitting, and our individual personalities (as shaped by our individual context) will largely determine how we express our sexuality.

If you think about it, it's pretty silly to think that any one simple element controls something as complex as human sexuality. Why would there be? There are many different systems and elements involved in controlling the single emotion of anger, after all, and human sexuality is a zillion times more complicated than that!