Sexual Orientation and Military Service

[denuseri]

Should the Military place restrictions on it's service members for their sexual orientation?

[IAN 2411]

I was in the UK Special forces, and i think that we all had kinks and sexual prefrences, the UK has restrictions on gays, but i believe that is understandable. There is a buddy, buddy system and if you upset a person, you dont want his boy freind fucking up your life if you need his protection, because he is retaliating. I believe the Danish Army allow gays but they have very few wars, and in no way do i mean to insult the Danes or their Army with that remark. Other kinks? Well i believe that it would not interfere with their daily life, in fact, i think their vanilla relationships cause the most problems. There was one person i knew that had a boyfreind, but out of the army that i knew of, and he knew that i knew, but live and let live, he was not likely to mess with the other personel so i said nothing. He never once in 14 years asked why, but he gave me a lot of respect and it was a natural respect, but i have always been very broad minded.

Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

I just find it odd that we in the USA have taken the stance that we have on it considering we are supposed to be all about freedom. (Not to mention the role of women in our military)

Which, I do give kudos to Obama and the Adm. Mike Mullen for stateing that the don't ask don't tell policey is in serious need of revision.

Odd how McCain has changed is position 180 degrees too.

Smh, F'ing politicians.

[IAN 2411]

denuseri,

The thing that you have to remember is that the laws about gays in the forces of both the USA and GB were placed there many years ago. They were placed there not by the polititions, but the forces comanders themselves, all being at least Brigadeer upwards. They were made water tight by the military lawers, and what politition or high ranking commander is going to jepordise his / her career by trying to change tradition. I expect there are gays in both our armies, but it will be behind closed doors, and if it ever comes to the serface it will not be publisised in a court martial, because it never happened. Before i left the army in 1980 there was a case in my Regiment, the whole battalian knew about it, but the two men involved were secreted away back to the UK. The expected court martial never happened, they were both honerably discharged as soon as their feet touched the tarmac at Heathrow Airport.

Regards ian 2411

[steelish]

Personally, I see both sides of the issue.

One one hand, no one should be restricted from serving our country if it is their wish - unless they have a physical reason they cannot do so.

On the other hand, if there are sexual relations going on within a unit, a soldier (man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight, etc) might not have his/her head completely in the battle if he or she is concerned with the safety of a loved one that is fighting side-by-side with said soldier. I believe this more than anything is the concern of the government. However, that door has already been opened by allowing women to serve in combat, so because that line has already been crossed, I feel that this specific argument is moot. If the argument is used that being forced into combat with someone who's sexual orientation makes said soldier uncomfortable, then the government MIGHT win that case, because there are enough "touchy-feely" people out there to stand behind this issue. I believe though that the military (whichever armed force the soldier serves in) instills enough maturity and bolsters patriotism to the point it overrides any misgivings about another person's sexuality.

[denuseri]

Being "uncomfortable" isn't a good exuse imho, it didnt stop other minorities from serving and alltough women have restricted access in some militaries, it hasn't stopped women from serving.

As far as sexual relations go between service members, thats commonly been restricted even between hetrosexuals and is a punishable offence between members of the same command.

[IAN 2411]

I think the point that steelish is trying to make is this, if there are two gay men on the front line and one of them is a specialist. Then the speicialists boyfriend, mate whatever is out in the open, but in close combat with the enamy. His borfreind has to put a rocket so close that it not only kills thirty enemy and saves sixty troops, but at the same time puts his mate in the kill zone, it will have an effect on the specialist mate to carry out his task. I believe this to be true, and you have to think vanilla to think gay in that scenario, it is sad but a possibility that a lot of people would die for the sake of one persons love. That is the scenario that the military chiefs are afraid of, and so to are the streight troops fighting beside the gay lovers. I have tried to make that as clear as i can. Please dont for one minute think that i am anti gay, becaue there are places for gays in the forces, but not in a combat batallian, because life and death depend on cool heads.

Regards ian 2411

[SadisticNature]

I think its absolutely ridiculous for the military to turn away able bodied people of sound mind in a situation where they have stop loss programs that prevent people from leaving after their term is up. And yes that is regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender or any other factor they could consider discriminating on.

[fetishdj]

The precedent has to be ancient Greece here, where it was not only encouraged to be gay but the men in the army were encouraged to pair up because it was beleived that a strong pair bond between two individuals made them more likely to fight effectively - to defend each other if nothing else. Whether this has any comparison in the modern forces is a different matter and I am not aware of any evidence - would be interested in seeing if there is.

One question I do have to ask, however, is: which is worse - a man pining away and not focusing on his duties because of missing his wife/lover or a man worrying about his wife/lover being in the same place as he is? Personally I think that they are the same and, frankly, don't think any professional soldier serves any less well because of 'the wife and kids back home' so why should it be any different if the 'wife' happens to be a man?

But we are mired in the conventions and traditions which not only forbid gays in the military but also prevent women from serving on the front line (I beleive that one is on the Geneva convention, though some countries - Isreal, for example - do ignore it). It may be time for a rethink of some old traditions which were largely based on old fashioned attitudes to sexuality and gender politics.

Of course, what always amused me is the fact that it is precisely because of gays in the military that we have the BDSM lifestyle we have today

[IAN 2411]

fetishdj, you should read my post once more, because i have given you a good reason why the army thinks that gay people should not be soldiers on the front line. We do have women on the front line in the uk, and they are there because we have one with her leg missing, and one that was caught in a cross fire and shot to pieces, and they both have the George Cross to prove it. It might be accidental that they were in that position in the first place, but that in no way minimises their heroic deed. While i was in the Para's, i think every one of my buddies had some kind of kink or fetish, it was those little faults that made us the powerful men we were.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

I have a question. What is the official position on heterosexuals? Now that women are serving on board ship and in the Army, how do they deal with relationships that grow up between male and female?

[Ozme52]

They use the other F-word. No fraternization.

Means exactly the same thing of course.

[azure]

Equal opportunities are thrust down our throats to the ridiculous extreme. Gays in the military - not a great idea - when you have 16 to a room, and have to strip down inches from a gay girl / boy - that's uncomfortable. Women in the military - sure but do not expect them to do all the same jobs as the men. One-armed vegetarians and single mothers with 15 kids... no way! Regardless how well they can carry six men through a field of burning straw.

[IAN 2411]

Equal opportunities are thrust down our throats to the ridiculous extreme. Gays in the military - not a great idea - when you have 16 to a room, and have to strip down inches from a gay girl / boy - that's uncomfortable. Women in the military - sure but do not expect them to do all the same jobs as the men. One-armed vegetarians and single mothers with 15 kids... no way! Regardless how well they can carry six men through a field of burning straw.

I think you might be a little off line, as i have explained women are already on the front line in the UK. I also think you might be getting the wrong idea about Gays, just because a person is a gay, that does not mean he/she is going to jump on the first naked body they see sleeping next to them, that is a very outdated view. It does not matter if you are Gay, streight, or kinky, you will always be a soldier/whatever first, in the UK if a gay in the army crossed that line he would be out on his ass. The other thing about a gay in the UK forces is, he volenteered, and that means he is not going to jepoudise his carear for the sake of crossing that same line. Dont think for one minute that they are not there, because if they were there in the 60s-70s whan i was in the forces, you can bet your life they are still there now. If you feel threatened by the thought of being next to a gay while being naked, dont go swimming in the public baths, and dont go to leasure centres and use the shower fascilities afterwards. The thing about women on the front line, 70% of all operatives/spies/espianage that were dropped into France during WWtwo were women. You dont have to be a man to hold a rifle and walk 10 miles, you only need to be fit, one other thing it is a fact that a woman has a far higher pain tollerance. Dont put the gentler sex down, because they might not be as gentle as you think, but i will add in your defence, those type of women are a minority.

Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

I would just like to remind us all (myself included) as this may be a heated topic for some of us, to please refrain when discussing opposing views from doing so in a manner that seems as if we are making personal attacks at each other.

I would also purpose the question then: Do policies like "don't ask don't tell" apply to a military member's off base lives? What kind of restriction is that really? Isn't it a rather subjective kind of thing that forces one to hide all the time?

And if sexual relationships or fratrenization as Oz so kindly pointed out the military term for us, isnt allowed period between serving hetro-sexual men and women, then whats the problem with letting homosexuals stop having to live behind closed doors allways affriad of aqusation and come out into the open?

What really makes sexual orientation such a hurdle? Other than "fear" of the suposabely unknown?





PS I would also like to thank fetish for bringing up the ancient greeks, the Sacred Band of the Thebans in paticular is where we have the most evidence of male to male pairings of a sexual nature being encouraged and also proved quite effective for them as
They did after all defeat the pedastic Spartans dominion over the Peloponese.

[Thorne]

What really makes sexual orientation such a hurdle? Other than "fear" of the suposabely unknown?

My strictly personal opinion is that it is fear: fear that "someone might become sexually aroused by my nudity" and that, through some mysterious system of osmosis or something, "that might make me gay."

I think much of this can be attributed to a rigid code of morality which views the naked human body as obscene. Remove the fear, or disgust, of nudity and you remove much of the foundation of the fear of gays.

I have no evidence for this hypothesis, only my own feelings and observations.

[Bren122]

The ideology behind the pairing system in the Sacred Band was that you were less likely to run away and leave your lover in danger. There is some evidence that the Sacred Band also contained a number of women at certain times. It is thought that homosexuality amongst warrior groups was quite common; it should be remembered that the bulk of the armies of most city states were in fact militia. The warrior groups, like the Sacred Band, were regarded as being separate from general society and thus opportunities to marry were less common.
What really surprises me about this current debate is that we have countless examples of men and women who have served long and distinguished careers and only outed themselves when they left the service. What is it exactly that makes people believe that being homosexual also means that you can't keep your hands to yourself?

[DuncanONeil]

I was active duty '65 - '69. In that time I encountered a few "gays" in uniform. At least one hit on me. So I do not see the issue in the restriction if folk can still get in.

I just find it odd that we in the USA have taken the stance that we have on it considering we are supposed to be all about freedom. (Not to mention the role of women in our military)

Which, I do give kudos to Obama and the Adm. Mike Mullen for stateing that the don't ask don't tell policey is in serious need of revision.

Odd how McCain has changed is position 180 degrees too.

Smh, F'ing politicians.

[DuncanONeil]

If it is put in place by the General Staff it is not a law but a policy. ANd I suspect that in both countries it is a policy and not a law.

denuseri,

The thing that you have to remember is that the laws about gays in the forces of both the USA and GB were placed there many years ago. They were placed there not by the polititions, but the forces comanders themselves, all being at least Brigadeer upwards. They were made water tight by the military lawers, and what politition or high ranking commander is going to jepordise his / her career by trying to change tradition. I expect there are gays in both our armies, but it will be behind closed doors, and if it ever comes to the serface it will not be publisised in a court martial, because it never happened. Before i left the army in 1980 there was a case in my Regiment, the whole battalian knew about it, but the two men involved were secreted away back to the UK. The expected court martial never happened, they were both honerably discharged as soon as their feet touched the tarmac at Heathrow Airport.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

As for Women in combat. It was not merely an issue of sex in the unit.
As for the other stuff;

ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Applies to everyone. Article 120 deals with rape and carnal knowledge, but as of 2006 was changed. The new article can be found at http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justi.../art120new.htm It list 36 specific offenses. which is why I did not post it.

ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

Anything that affects discipline can come under this article, including consensual sex.

Personally, I see both sides of the issue.

One one hand, no one should be restricted from serving our country if it is their wish - unless they have a physical reason they cannot do so.

On the other hand, if there are sexual relations going on within a unit, a soldier (man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight, etc) might not have his/her head completely in the battle if he or she is concerned with the safety of a loved one that is fighting side-by-side with said soldier. I believe this more than anything is the concern of the government. However, that door has already been opened by allowing women to serve in combat, so because that line has already been crossed, I feel that this specific argument is moot. If the argument is used that being forced into combat with someone who's sexual orientation makes said soldier uncomfortable, then the government MIGHT win that case, because there are enough "touchy-feely" people out there to stand behind this issue. I believe though that the military (whichever armed force the soldier serves in) instills enough maturity and bolsters patriotism to the point it overrides any misgivings about another person's sexuality.

[DuncanONeil]

While that is the standard and accepted argument for preventing the situation, it does not stand to test. Soldiers do not die for a cause nor, really, for their country. They die for the guy in the next foxhole. This bond is strongest in those that have actually gone into harms way, likely strongest among Marines. You count on that "other" soldier to keep you safe. If that means they fire "danger close" they are expected to do so. All uniforms know this!

I think the point that steelish is trying to make is this, if there are two gay men on the front line and one of them is a specialist. Then the speicialists boyfriend, mate whatever is out in the open, but in close combat with the enamy. His borfreind has to put a rocket so close that it not only kills thirty enemy and saves sixty troops, but at the same time puts his mate in the kill zone, it will have an effect on the specialist mate to carry out his task. I believe this to be true, and you have to think vanilla to think gay in that scenario, it is sad but a possibility that a lot of people would die for the sake of one persons love. That is the scenario that the military chiefs are afraid of, and so to are the streight troops fighting beside the gay lovers. I have tried to make that as clear as i can. Please dont for one minute think that i am anti gay, becaue there are places for gays in the forces, but not in a combat batallian, because life and death depend on cool heads.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

See msg #21

The precedent has to be ancient Greece here, where it was not only encouraged to be gay but the men in the army were encouraged to pair up because it was beleived that a strong pair bond between two individuals made them more likely to fight effectively - to defend each other if nothing else. Whether this has any comparison in the modern forces is a different matter and I am not aware of any evidence - would be interested in seeing if there is.

One question I do have to ask, however, is: which is worse - a man pining away and not focusing on his duties because of missing his wife/lover or a man worrying about his wife/lover being in the same place as he is? Personally I think that they are the same and, frankly, don't think any professional soldier serves any less well because of 'the wife and kids back home' so why should it be any different if the 'wife' happens to be a man?

But we are mired in the conventions and traditions which not only forbid gays in the military but also prevent women from serving on the front line (I beleive that one is on the Geneva convention, though some countries - Isreal, for example - do ignore it). It may be time for a rethink of some old traditions which were largely based on old fashioned attitudes to sexuality and gender politics.

Of course, what always amused me is the fact that it is precisely because of gays in the military that we have the BDSM lifestyle we have today

[DuncanONeil]

UCMJ Article 120

I have a question. What is the official position on heterosexuals? Now that women are serving on board ship and in the Army, how do they deal with relationships that grow up between male and female?

[DuncanONeil]

But that only seems to affect us guys. The ladies seem to be much more comfortable about such things than most of us seem willing to even begin to think about!

My strictly personal opinion is that it is fear: fear that "someone might become sexually aroused by my nudity" and that, through some mysterious system of osmosis or something, "that might make me gay."

I think much of this can be attributed to a rigid code of morality which views the naked human body as obscene. Remove the fear, or disgust, of nudity and you remove much of the foundation of the fear of gays.

I have no evidence for this hypothesis, only my own feelings and observations.

[DuncanONeil]

More so in the navies!

The ideology behind the pairing system in the Sacred Band was that you were less likely to run away and leave your lover in danger. There is some evidence that the Sacred Band also contained a number of women at certain times. It is thought that homosexuality amongst warrior groups was quite common; it should be remembered that the bulk of the armies of most city states were in fact militia. The warrior groups, like the Sacred Band, were regarded as being separate from general society and thus opportunities to marry were less common.
What really surprises me about this current debate is that we have countless examples of men and women who have served long and distinguished careers and only outed themselves when they left the service. What is it exactly that makes people believe that being homosexual also means that you can't keep your hands to yourself?

[IAN 2411]

If it is put in place by the General Staff it is not a law but a policy. ANd I suspect that in both countries it is a policy and not a law.

I hate to cotridict you on this one Duncan, but if ever you were charged in the army for any serious offence, including omosexual activities, it would come under Military Law. It is so binding that on a court martial of any sort in the UK, there has to be a QC for the defence. I had a freind that was charged with GBH under Military law, he had his own QC and the prosicution had a military lawer. When he lost his case, he served his first 30 days in a military prison at Coalchester, and then transfered to a civilian prison to serve the two years remaining before being dishonerably discharged.

Regards ian 2411

[Thorne]

But that only seems to affect us guys. The ladies seem to be much more comfortable about such things than most of us seem willing to even begin to think about!

I agree, it does seem more prevalent among men. Probably because women tend to be more open about showing emotion, due to cultural conditions more than anything else. Real men don't cry, real men don't hug other men, that kind of thing. All crap, really, but that's the way we're taught.

[MMI]

It seems to me that any form of sexual activity in the military is seen as a distraction - hence the "no fraternising" rule for straight relationships, and no rule for gays because "there aren't any queers here". The no fraternising rule wasn't necessary before women were allowed in the forces, either, so when gays are permitted to be open about their sexuality, as they surely will before long, they, too, will be required not to fraternise.

[IAN 2411]

It seems to me that any form of sexual activity in the military is seen as a distraction - hence the "no fraternising" rule for straight relationships, and no rule for gays because "there aren't any queers here". The no fraternising rule wasn't necessary before women were allowed in the forces, either, so when gays are permitted to be open about their sexuality, as they surely will before long, they, too, will be required not to fraternise.

Nice thought MMI but it has a slight problem, UK military law is old outdated and has never been changed from the day it was written. I believe that they still have death by firing squad for Desertion and cowardice in the face of the enemy. There is also life for fraternising with the enemy, whatever the hell that means, I also believe that the death penalty still holds on treason. These penalties will never be used but they are still in place, I did ask my platoon commander once why they had never been repealed, he was also a military lawyer and civilian lawyer. His answer was, if for any reason the UK had to come under military law, the laws were in place to take the appropriate action. I don’t think the UK book of military law has been changed since it was first written, it has had amendments to minor offences, but the capital punishment laws remain. The answer to military law is, if it is not broken, don’t fix it.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

You are free to contradict. I still contend, and admit I am not familiar with the pertinent documents in British service, that here in the US the governing document for courts martial is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Note that this is not a law per se in the US but a codification of other US laws in a form unique to the military.
As can be seen by; " Authority: E.O. 12473; 10 U.S.C. 47.

Source: 68 FR 36916, June 20, 2003, unless otherwise noted.


Sec. 152.1 Purpose.

This part:

[[Page 569]]

(a) Implements the requirement established by the President in
Executive Order 12473 that the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), United
States, 1984, and subsequent editions, be reviewed annually.
(b) Formalizes the Joint Service Committee (JSC) and defines the
roles, responsibilities, and procedures of the JSC in reviewing and
proposing changes to the MCM and proposing legislation to amend the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 U.S.C., Chapter 47).
(c) Provides for the designation of a Secretary of a Military
Department to serve as the Executive Agent for the JSC.


Sec. 152.2 Applicability.

This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Military Departments (including the Coast Guard by agreement with the
Department of Homeland Security when it is not operating as a Service of
the Department of the Navy), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the Combatant Commands, the Inspector General of the Department of
Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other
organizational entities in the Department of Defense (hereafter
collectively referred to as ``the DoD Components'')."
This MCM and the UCMJ by extension are based on executive order and federal regulations. Which are also not laws, though grounded in them.

I hate to cotridict you on this one Duncan, but if ever you were charged in the army for any serious offence, including omosexual activities, it would come under Military Law. It is so binding that on a court martial of any sort in the UK, there has to be a QC for the defence. I had a freind that was charged with GBH under Military law, he had his own QC and the prosicution had a military lawer. When he lost his case, he served his first 30 days in a military prison at Coalchester, and then transfered to a civilian prison to serve the two years remaining before being dishonerably discharged.

Regards ian 2411