# Former Officers denounce militarys "dont tell" policy.



## Eggs (Dec 11, 2003)

Three former high ranking officers came forward recently to say that they were gay and condemned the "dont ask, dont tell" policy.

They were:
Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr, *Rear* Adm. Alan Steinman and Brig. Gen. Virgil Richard, all retired.

Link to story:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/12/11/gays.military.ap/index.html


----------



## Eggs (Dec 11, 2003)

Ahem, its not all that funny... I just always laughed at the "Rear Admiral" rank.  Kinda like "Butt Pirate 1st class" or something.


----------



## Eggs (Dec 11, 2003)

In defense of the "dont ask, dont tell" policy.  Let me just state that if in boot camp when I was in the showers... if there was some gay dude in there that was staring at me, there had sure as hell better have been a female there next to him.

I may be meat, but I'm not gay meat.


----------



## heeholler (Dec 11, 2003)

Well maybe I am off topic a bit, but I was in the service, and I personally do not care if someone was gay. I am not gay, but it wouldn't bother me to serve, and I have served with people in the military who were known to be gay. Well thats my .02.  
Oh and Yeah I would rather have a female standing next to me in the showers also, but we didn't have any women in our unit unfortunately!


----------



## Eggs (Dec 11, 2003)

The problem isnt in simply someones sexual preferance.  The problem exists for me in that the military would allow one person (gay) to live in my quarters but not a female.  Its a double standard IMO.  If the military is going to openly accept gays, then thats fine and dandy no doubt.  However, they'd better also make those co-ed showers too then.

Okay, I can probably word this better.  I dont actually have a problem with homosexuals.  I'm not one, but they dont bother me.  What does though is that if the military openly allows gays into the service, and remains co-ed, they are actively (for lack of a better word) discriminating against heterosexuals.  Thats what the problem is to me.


----------



## gr81 (Dec 11, 2003)

I agree with ya man, I would like to see women in the showers with us too!


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 12, 2003)

Man, this is a baiting thread.  .  .you might as well have posted one supporting "Rev."Fred Phelps and his campaign to get a statue of Matthew Shepard entering Hell erected in a Boise city park....

I can't believe you are trying to equate the two circumstances....as if having one gay man in your barracks is the same as cohabitating with a woman. Since obviously for years they have been already living in the barracks (apparently carefully concealing themselves so they won't be beaten up or...as in some cases, killed), it would seem to me that the smallest concern on anyone's mind would be asserting that it's discriminating against a heterosexual soldier. 

What's up with that bogus argument? First, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was instituted with a flurry of straight men crying that their peepees would be in trouble of being hijacked in the showers if that was instituted - probably the most ridiculous argument ever used to attempt to justify special rights for straight men. Even women laughed at that one....wonder why? Do ya think the threat of "gay meat" is why women today can't go out for a walk alone at night....or have to get escorts on a college campus to take them home from evening classes?

The essence of that argument is that heterosexual men put their own images of how they treat women and projected them into fears of how they thought gay men would treat THEM. Quite a few other nations, whose militaries already included openly homosexual men and women, had a good laugh over that.

Interestingly enough, it sounds to me like the military still isn't accounting for the men who were murdered, denied rank promotions and drummed out of the service because of the old "incompatibility" laws...but of course, that discrimination pales compared to the way heterosexual men would be "discriminated"against if there were a single gay man in the barracks and no woman allowed in there. Do you think they'd all have to stop spending their evenings talking about the next chick they were gonna wave their weenies at on their next town leave?

If these guys have been in the service for years...and years...and kept their mouth shut about their sexual orientation, it's been because they would have been stripped of their rank and run out of the service or beaten and, in too many cases, killed because some straight guy decided they were threatened by their very existence. Since most gay people in the service obviously know these things have happened (and still do - there's a case at a fort near me where a murder is unravelling - two servicemen are alleged to have brutally killed another one because the guy was dating some off-base drag performer) it's doubtful having one openly in the barracks is gonna make them long to be too intimate with an insecure or historically violent straight guy. 

The military has strict policies concerning conduct between soldiers, and while I'm no expert, I can imagine the behavior of those people who've been closeted in the military has been much more in keeping with the code than the behavior of maybe sometimes too openly heterosexual service personnel. 

But, an alternative policy might be to just ban sexual talk of any kind among service personnel, forbid visits to the countless brothels near foreign bases and ports of call, and put everyone on an even, albeit celibate playing field. 

Now that might just work....make it "Don't ask, don't tell" for everyone. And if anyone just can't be grownup enough to cope, they can all wear plastic cups over their peepees in the shower or maybe consider just cutting them all off.


----------



## Eggs (Dec 12, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> I can't believe you are trying to equate the two circumstances....as if having one gay man in your barracks is the same as cohabitating with a woman. Since obviously for years they have been already living in the barracks (apparently carefully concealing themselves so they won't be beaten up or...as in some cases, killed), it would seem to me that the smallest concern on anyone's mind would be asserting that it's discriminating against a heterosexual soldier.



I'm glad you threw that "beaten up or killed" part in there, it really grabs the audience   Unless you have some statistics on that, dont even try to use it.  I knew gay military members... and some it wasnt hard to tell were homosexual   I didnt even punch or spit on them as they were close to me, as you would have everyone believe heterosexual soliders do.  I thought they were good military members, but thats not what we're arguing here.



> What's up with that bogus argument? First, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was instituted with a flurry of straight men crying that their peepees would be in trouble of being hijacked in the showers if that was instituted - probably the most ridiculous argument ever used to attempt to justify special rights for straight men. Even women laughed at that one....wonder why? Do ya think the threat of "gay meat" is why women today can't go out for a walk alone at night....or have to get escorts on a college campus to take them home from evening classes?



Ummm, straight men arent receiving any "special rights".  Homosexuals just are receiving lesser.  I believe that homosexuals would be just as capable of doing what these violent men you refer to are capable of, given that society accepted them completely.  A couple years ago I was was friends with this girl that worked at a gay club, and the only time I ever really got to see her is when I was in the city partying at night, so I'd drop by.  So I've been hit on by guys, seen fights break out over lovers, etc.  With that I maintain, gays are just as capable of committing any of the atrocities that heteros do.  And they will over time as they are more accepted in culture.



> The essence of that argument is that heterosexual men put their own images of how they treat women and projected them into fears of how they thought gay men would treat THEM. Quite a few other nations, whose militaries already included openly homosexual men and women, had a good laugh over that.



No, I'm not even considering women here.  I treat all women with respect... I dont cat call, or undress them with my eyes, or do any of the things that you'd like the world to believe heterosexuals do.  I personally think that straights guys shouldnt socially be allowed to act like that, and I pass that on to gays as well.  Even though I HAVE been treated like that by homosexuals.  As well as women have been treated like that by heterosexuals.



> Interestingly enough, it sounds to me like the military still isn't accounting for the men who were murdered, denied rank promotions and drummed out of the service because of the old "incompatibility" laws...but of course, that discrimination pales compared to the way heterosexual men would be "discriminated"against if there were a single gay man in the barracks and no woman allowed in there. Do you think they'd all have to stop spending their evenings talking about the next chick they were gonna wave their weenies at on their next town leave?



Its not accounting for the guys that pissed off their co-workers and disappeared too.  Theres a reason why carriers usually use a few people per deployment, and thats not because they are gay.  Ummm, yeah, thats how heterosexual men spend their evenings, waving their weenies at people out on the town.  Hmmm, where do you get your fears of heterosexual men, and why are you placing your own actions on them as if they commit them as well   The fact is that some heterosexual men are weenies when they are drunk.  Do they necessarily wave their weenies about?  Umm, doubt it.  Perhaps you've never been in the military and just like talking about it.  If thats the case, I recommend you actually learn a little more about whats going on these days and how things are run.



> If these guys have been in the service for years...and years...and kept their mouth shut about their sexual orientation, it's been because they would have been stripped of their rank and run out of the service or beaten and, in too many cases, killed because some straight guy decided they were threatened by their very existence. Since most gay people in the service obviously know these things have happened (and still do - there's a case at a fort near me where a murder is unravelling - two servicemen are alleged to have brutally killed another one because the guy was dating some off-base drag performer) it's doubtful having one openly in the barracks is gonna make them long to be too intimate with an insecure or historically violent straight guy.



They would have been kicked out of the service, yes.  "In too many cases... killed"  Wow, you're throwing that killed thing in there again.  I was in the service five years and never once had a murder on my bases, and never once saw guys who seemed to be homosexual mistreated.  As to the Fort near you, I'd like to think that the single reason why the murder occured isnt because the guy was gay.  Who knows though, perhaps they did.  If so they will be given jail time and kicked out of the service.



> The military has strict policies concerning conduct between soldiers, and while I'm no expert, I can imagine the behavior of those people who've been closeted in the military has been much more in keeping with the code than the behavior of maybe sometimes too openly heterosexual service personnel.



Thats certainly true, most homosexuals have very much kept their behavior within regulations.  That is because the fear of retribution is greater for them... if it were removed, I highly doubt that there'd be any difference.  Oh, and I had a friend that woke up one night and his barracks manager was in his room fondling him.  Was the guy gay?  Maybe not, but he certainly was exhibiting some tendencies towards that.  A male that would have done that to a female would have received alot more punishment than he got as well.  How do I know?  Because I've been there when we apprehended these males and read them their rights.



> But, an alternative policy might be to just ban sexual talk of any kind among service personnel, forbid visits to the countless brothels near foreign bases and ports of call, and put everyone on an even, albeit celibate playing field.



What does that have to do with anything?  People cant be "openly" gay in the military, that doesnt mean that they cant get any action.  Which they do.  While sexual talk is allowed, sexual harassment training/punishments have been given a huge boost in the past couple years.  Sure you could ban sex or anything, and that'd just mean that it was going on silently.  Like homosexuals have been doing... and it'd probably be for the best anyhow.  I'm still not quite sure what brothels have to do with anything.



> Now that might just work....make it "Don't ask, don't tell" for everyone. And if anyone just can't be grownup enough to cope, they can all wear plastic cups over their peepees in the shower or maybe consider just cutting them all off.



Umm, or we make new barracks facilities for homosexuals and give them full rights that heterosexuals have.  Or let homosexuals choose their room mates, or a ton of other things.  However, if homosexuals were allowed to be openly gay in the military and still allowed to room/bunk/etc with heterosexuals, it would be giving them special priveledges as you like to call it.  How would women feel if they had male room mates who could watch them shower, undress, etc?  They couldnt touch or be crass... but how many do you think would be comfortable around that?  And yet you say that heterosexual males should be, I'm not the only one with double standards apparently


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 12, 2003)

Ahem! Folks, look at one simple fact here.

The evidence of what a homosexual member of the armed services is capable of providing is directly reflected in the ranks of these individuals.

You don't become a R Admiral or a General because you were not what the military needed. These individuals obviously performed with stellar results in their chosen positions.

The Military has one purpose. Kick the FUCHING $hit out of anyone threatening Americas soverignty or our allies. If your goal in being a part of our armed forces is to do this job if called then who cares what your personal life is about.

That said there is a part of the homosexual poulation I would not want in the military. Those who would go in and actively seek to turn it into a social club so that everyone can come and express themselves openly and feel warm fuzzy and welcome. The miliotary is a one track organization with a single mission. Not a theater for self expression.  Individuals serve the military the military does not serve the individual!

BTW, I served in our armed forces and there was a medic in our unit who was homosexual. One of the best medics we had! I'd be happy to see him if I had been hurt in any way. But this fellow was not the kind of homosexual who would fit into the pansy category that I think people generally refer to when they argue about it.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 12, 2003)

I'm in a hurry, since I'm giving a final exam within the hour....but you can always start by reading Allan Berube's book "Coming Out Under Fire," (1990) Macmillan Publishing. That chronicles the history of this particular group of service members in World War II. 

A report from a legal support group that tracked incidents of harassment in the services can be located at: 

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/military/antigay.harassment.doubles-03.16.99

This report is from 1999 - I didn't have time this morning to pull up some more recent annual reports. Note the reference to the 1992 murder of sailor Allen Shindler. As for "statistics," a military that doesn't recognize active service by this group didn't keep records of murders/beatings directly related specifically on sexual orientation. I'll look for some indicators out there. Obviously, the fact that anyone would be beaten or murdered for that is different treatment than heterosexual service members receive....and yes, Eggs..it's happened. By the way, when was the last time you were fired from your career position because you were perceived as "heterosexual?"

You do state that "straight men aren't receiving any "special rights. Homosexuals just are receiving lesser." Duh.....if you are one of the people in society receiving "lesser," don't you think the ones having "more" look like they are getting special privilege?

For now, I'll pass by the veiled remarks about "perhaps you've never been in the military and just like talking about it." Pardon me....was this a "military experience only" thread? And the remarks about how you expertly seemed to identify people who you thought were gay. And...uh...the assertions about my apparent fears of heterosexual men. Other than a history of violence and fear, why would anyone be afraid of some members of that group?

As for the behavioral remarks about social behavior...you missed the point, perhaps because you take greater joy in thinking you are flexing your intellectual muscles by taking pot shots at differing opinions. But I do agree - straight men shouldn't be allowed to make the kinds of remarks about women that they do...and you missed the obvious sarcasm in which I stereotyped an entire group of people in the same manner you so freely described assumed gay behavior. 

You might start by asking yourself, (based on your own personal experiences since your own narratives are all you brought to the table here) why these policies were in effect in the first place. Were these people discharged from the military for their own protection, or to protect another group's right to serve?


----------



## Eggs (Dec 12, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> I'm in a hurry, since I'm giving a final exam within the hour....but you can always start by reading Allan Berube's book "Coming Out Under Fire," (1990) Macmillan Publishing. That chronicles the history of this particular group of service members in World War II.



I have more important books to read currently, but thanks for the information.



> A report from a legal support group that tracked incidents of harassment in the services can be located at:
> 
> http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/military/antigay.harassment.doubles-03.16.99



Could you send me a link that works please?



> This report is from 1999 - I didn't have time this morning to pull up some more recent annual reports. Note the reference to the 1992 murder of sailor Allen Shindler. As for "statistics," a military that doesn't recognize active service by this group didn't keep records of murders/beatings directly related specifically on sexual orientation. I'll look for some indicators out there. Obviously, the fact that anyone would be beaten or murdered for that is different treatment than heterosexual service members receive....and yes, Eggs..it's happened. By the way, when was the last time you were fired from your career position because you were perceived as "heterosexual?"



The report (the link of which doesnt work) needs to go back to 1992 to bring up the topic of murder in the military?  I never stated that it didnt happen.  You hyped it up alot more than it does happen though.  You made it sound like if there was a gay person in the military, then they were destined to be beaten, stabbed and otherwise maimed.  Thats not the case.  I've never been fired for being hetero, at the same time, I havent gone to work and made an announcement that I was either.  Either way, I dont believe homosexuals should be treated poorly in the slightest.  They are humans and certainly entitled to being treated as the rest of humanity.  However, that doesnt entitle them to sexual priviledges that heterosexuals dont have.  It does entitle them to the same work, etc.  So, if you are happy to put into place a system that doesnt compromise heterosexuals, I'm all for putting into place a system that allows homosexuals.



> You do state that "straight men aren't receiving any "special rights. Homosexuals just are receiving lesser." Duh.....if you are one of the people in society receiving "lesser," don't you think the ones having "more" look like they are getting special privilege?



Sure, but I'd be wrong.  Lets take for instance in slavery.  Those who werent slaves werent getting special rights, but certainly the slaves werent given the rights.  Does that make it okay?  Not at all.  Dont get too carried away with that statement, I dont really have the time to word it more appropriately.



> For now, I'll pass by the veiled remarks about "perhaps you've never been in the military and just like talking about it." Pardon me....was this a "military experience only" thread? And the remarks about how you expertly seemed to identify people who you thought were gay. And...uh...the assertions about my apparent fears of heterosexual men. Other than a history of violence and fear, why would anyone be afraid of some members of that group?



No, this is a "I have some experience so I know what I'm talking about."  I didnt just gain what I know through books.  But props to you for being able to read   So you're saying that fears can only come from experience?  Thats obviously not the case, but it sounds good.



> As for the behavioral remarks about social behavior...you missed the point, perhaps because you take greater joy in thinking you are flexing your intellectual muscles by taking pot shots at differing opinions. But I do agree - straight men shouldn't be allowed to make the kinds of remarks about women that they do...and you missed the obvious sarcasm in which I stereotyped an entire group of people in the same manner you so freely described assumed gay behavior.



Wow, we agree on something.  And I didnt miss your sarcasm, I found it boring 



> You might start by asking yourself, (based on your own personal experiences since your own narratives are all you brought to the table here) why these policies were in effect in the first place. Were these people discharged from the military for their own protection, or to protect another group's right to serve?



These policies were in effect because of stereotypes that may and may not have been true.  A terrible reason to put policy into place, especially for the US government.  However, that doesnt remove the fact that it has occured, and it doesnt remove the fact that you cannot simply change the US military to homosexual friendly without taking all parties into consideration.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 12, 2003)

Ahh...I guess my sarcasm isn't as practiced as yours... I'll work on it - it might increase the entertainment value. 

You do have a habit of making blanket statements, especially about what you think I'm saying...amazing. It's initially an effectively confusing tool for persuasion on a short term basis. Still, I'm polite enough to find it interesting. So we'll play the reading between the lines one time with you and make a few assumptions here. . .   

The link worked for me - if you like, I'd be happy to copy and paste it in an email to you. And thanks for the props about knowing how to read - I'll be happy to give you some pointers. As a journalist for the last 20 years, I do much more than just read extensively. Interviews and narratives are part of the information gathering process - it's just usually only a very compelling individual narrative that is strong enough to make a significant statement, and even that requires substantiation. Studies that might include pieces of the statistics and data you were interested in are generally contained in academic journals, scholarly books, and organizations that gather statistics and are recognized by policymakers as reliable sources for information.

I only stated that if you noticed an incident referred to in that link, it was a 1992 beating and murder of a gay seaman by fellow shipmates - a random and coincidental reference that appeared in that link about other matters.  I didn't have to reach back to 1992 - I mentioned a recent case at Ft. Campbell in an earlier post. Randy Shilts chronicle "Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military," (1993) St. Martins Press contains interviews and incidents involving violence, discharging witch hunts up until the time the "Dont Ask, Don't Tell" policy was created. Since the creation of that policy, the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military claims there have been 10,000 more discharges.(NY Times, Nov. 28, 2003).

The experience you talk about is limited to your own tenure in the military, and while the narrative is interesting from a personal viewpoint, it only represents a singular experience.  You only assume that you had gay servicemen in your barracks. There's value in sharing that, of course, but not in asserting that it is always replicated thousands of times throughout the nation or a reflection on how a group expects what you call "special rights."  Of course, it did lend itself to several assertions: 

A) You assumed the possible sexual orientation of fellow servicemen based on your own internalized images of what characteristics made them seem gay to you.

B) You said you didn't know whether a fellow serviceman was necessarily gay or not, even though he was caught fondling another man in the barracks. You might have been right, but you maintained more uncertainty about this person's association, despite his behavior, than you did the ones you only "perceived" might be gay based on images of personality traits. Interesting. 

C) You assert that gay behavior would replicate traditional heterosexual male behavior and cited how you were "hit on" while visiting a girl you were dating who worked at a gay bar. Just curious here - do you think the men hitting on you in the gay bar saw the same kind of characteristics in you that you saw in your service friends who you thought might be gay?

The point is that you are asking for the special right to be free of  thinking that an openly gay serviceman in your barracks might look at you in the shower. I suppose that might be possible, but perhaps because you aren't prone to ever reveal in any manner your own sexual orientation in a workplace situation. Are you saying  that you conduct yourself in a closeted way about your own heterosexuality as a matter of personal policy? But how did I know you were heterosexual? Ok...so this isn't the workplace...but then, the military is...

So, no one else in your barracks knew - and their assumptions, much like your own about them, must have been based on their own images of how they defined your sexuality. If you were trying to say that none of the heterosexual servicemen during your military tenure ever discussed anything about sexuality, then I'd be prone to agree that everyone was adhering to the idea that sexual expression isn't conducive to military activity.

There have already been those who you think may have been gay in your barracks, and that was apparently fine. The assumption is that, having an "openly" gay man, meaning, one who can state he is homosexual as freely as a heterosexual servicemen can choose to do in the barracks, creates some kind of special sexual atmosphere for the gay man....even if he is surrounded by people who aren't gay. In the 22 countries in which openly gay personnel have been welcomed in the service, I've seen no reports of that atmosphere being created or any reported "heterosexual" compromises. Perhaps you've got some information in which those heterosexual men were discriminated against or compromised when women weren't included in their barracks.

Did I hype the fact that service personnel have beaten and killed other service personnel for being gay? I don't know...is it a hyped activity when it occurs in a pattern associated only with a service members sexual orientation? I looked through my own files for any reference to heterosexual men being beaten or killed simply for being straight in the service -  maybe there are some compelling cases out there, don't you think? While you say I was asserting that it happens if there is any gay person in the military...that's ridiculous...but the potential is apparently always there because it happens to some of them, and NOT to the heterosexual men. Obviously, the ones who carefully guard themselves in the closet escape both physical and verbal abuse. But even that hasn't been any guarantee. What Shilts found in his research is that incidents of violence against gay personnel in the military dramatically increased with each court case that reinforced the legitimacy of the ban. 

By the way, those who weren't slaves were given the special privilege of owning, or aspiring to own them, as long as they came from another nation.  

I haven't seen one piece of information that documents how heterosexual men have been compromised over the course of military history in this matter. Certainly the numbers of illegitimate children left behind in countries where we've had operations would indicate  there hasn't been a lack of sexual expression, even when military code might have discouraged it. But that's another can of worms....

I think you do miss one point - in a society where all members are afforded the same access and rights, it isn't any one group's military. It never was - the heterosexual image was just that - an image, and when a witch hunt occurs that results in ruined careers based on nothing more than sexual orientation, it's called oppression. So, the very idea that the military has to be made "homosexual friendly" is indicative that someone in power still considers serving their country the exclusive privilege of someone else, or at least the appearance of someone else. Your narrative experience indicates that the image isn't true, but acknowledging that openly would mean some form of unfair compromise. By the way, since when did those who have had special rights, like heterosexual white men, consider anyone else who might be affected when they secured access for themselves? That's kinda why we've got all these issues today...one group didn't exactly think of others as being as "human" as themselves. That's been a rather enduring institution.

You are right - the policy has been wrong for years. But wrong in a very real way. But who is accountable for the damages and actions that policy caused those Americans? It was (and continues to be) a policy based on stereotypes and vagaries that doesn't have a substantiated analysis study to support it.  Still, it has ruined careers, caused hardship and singled out citizens for abuse. Shouldn't someone be held accountable for those actions?

Ok...I've had my fun for the evening. . .thanks for the response, Eggs..


----------



## copen73 (Dec 13, 2003)

I am in the military and personally believe that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is a good one.  Know I do not have any thing personally against homosexuals, matter of fact I have had several friends in the military that were pretty damn obvious about their sexual preference, but many people do have a problem with them.  I will be the first to admit that how well a person performs is not at all related to their sexual orientation.  The reason I believe in the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is simple.  AIDS.....I know, I know......you are just as likely to be infected with AIDS whether you are gay or strait.  But one of the first things that comes to many people's minds when they know if someone is gay is whether or not that person has AIDS.   Now imagine you are on the battlefield and your buddy has just been hit and is in desperate need of First Aid.  You don't want to be having the "AIDS" issue running through your head.  I know this is true because I have heard too many personnel make such comments.  I don't really agree with their reasoning...I mean most of us have been trained in the dangers of blood borne pathogens.  But people still have these fears.  And when bullets are flying  all around you, the last thing you need is one more fear running through your head.   Plus people would be less willing to help the wounded.


----------

