Gays in the military: Separate but equal?

Home » Opinion » Commentary

Thursday, July 02, 2009

Comment

By Doris Gentry

I read with great interest the guest editorial by Shalikashvili in the June 22 Register “Gays in the military”).

My issue is not with gays or with their service in the military — my issue is housing, bathing, bunking, sleeping, communal co-habitation. Let me explain.

We are foster parents and we take teen boys. They share a room. They have bunk beds. They share a bathroom and a shower (no, not at the same time; they take turns) and they share an area where they change clothes.

My teens are mostly tough, burly men, athletic and robust. Typically, we take teens from probation. Sometimes, they have a past that may include acts of aggression.

So here is what happened to us. In a bedroom of two teen boys, I got a new boy. He was just a boy to me. I did not see anything unique about him. Perhaps now looking back, I might say he was of a smaller build but tall. Lanky maybe. He was more delicate-looking. But none of this ran through my mind at the time.

Had it run through my mind, I would not have drawn any conclusions. After having more than 100 teen boys as foster children, I know they come in all shapes, colors and religious beliefs.

I brought him home, introduced him to the others and we had dinner. He had been a runaway from Texas. The boys were very interested in his tales of lands far away and strange foods and horses and cattle and ranches. He seemed to fit right in our home.

That night, after bedtime, the biggest fight broke out in the boys’ bedroom. I ran in and this boy was on the bottom of the pileup. The other boys were yelling and demanding him out of their bedroom, said he was gay and it was just like having a girl for a roommate.

Later, we learned that when the boys began stripping down in their room, the new boy did a catcall and whistled at one of them. Whew, that was it. When they learned he was gay and in their bedroom and them in their birthday suits, they came unglued.

For the safety of the new teen, we moved him to a separate bedroom and our home calmed down. Now I go back to the article, “Gays in the military.” I know we offer separate showers and bunks for women. Might we do the same for gay men and yet another for gay women? I am just curious how this would work.

(Gentry lives in Napa.)

68 comment(s)

Hear Ye wrote on Jul 2, 2009 1:20 AM:

" Oh man, this letter would be forgivable if it was written by a child. "

Raven wrote on Jul 2, 2009 6:45 AM:

" shaking my head ... "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jul 2, 2009 6:51 AM:

" Number 1, the military already has regulations in place against sexual harrassment, defined as:
Any unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of sexual nature; or
Deliberate or repeated offensive comments, gestures, or physical contact of a sexual nature in a work or work-related environment; or
Influencing, offering to influence, or threatening the career, pay, or job of another person in exchange for sexual favors.

Number 2: Most adult homosexuals, if they are motivated to be in the military in the first place, are unlikely to risk their lives and jobs through inappropriate, adolescent behavior.

If you've followed any of the homosexuals who have "outed" themselves, they are motivated, responsible, well-trained and well-respected military members who have applied their skills and training to serving their country.

It's a travesty that they are treated any less like a hero than the other members of the military are treated, regardless of what they have actually accomplished. "

kdbk wrote on Jul 2, 2009 12:08 PM:

" Sure "hear ye", when you've got nothing of substance to say, just call names and suggest others are writting like a "child". Don't you have anything "mature" to say on the subject of gays in the military? Oh, shucks, I just asked a rhetorical question. Anyhoo, just because radical liberals like you and Raven think gays should be able to flaunt their homosexuality in the military, that has NOTHING to do with reality nor the facts of the matter. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 2, 2009 12:35 PM:

" Thank you Doris, for relating a real life story of what I've been saying in these blogs all along.

Older gay military members may be able to conduct themselves in a more circumspect fashion than an adolescent boy, but after all, sexual attraction is one of our most basic drives. Momentary exuberant outbursts can be expected from 18 year old recruits. That doesn't make it pleasant for unsophisticated fellow recruits who are not expecting this sort of thing. Somehow the other writers here are assuming that all the gays in the military are highly self-disciplined older men with long distinguished careers. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 2, 2009 1:35 PM:

" Like Doris says, the military has separate shower facilities and sleeping arrangements for their female members. No one has yet offered an explanation as to why that separation is appropriate, yet separating gay males from straight males under the same circumstances is not appropriate? "

Hear Ye wrote on Jul 2, 2009 1:39 PM:

" Kdbk-

No I really don't have anything of substance to say in regards to this particular letter. And yes, I do have "mature" things to say about gays in the military. If you could just point me to where the "mature" conversations are taking place I'll make my way over. "

Raven wrote on Jul 2, 2009 4:01 PM:

" one more time JR...the military already has in place systems to deal with inappropriate behavior by any member toward another, straight or gay, male or female, deals with it quite harshly You really seem to be fixated on the idea that gay men cannot control themselves...any idea of the number of sexual harassment charges that have been lodged against men by men, in or out of the service?

The separate showers thing has been gone over ad nauseum

and the whole incident described by Doris shows me two things....that gay bashing by teen boys is alive and well and what did she do the the boys who became 'unglued?

moderator, is there a reason we have this both as a commentary and as a letter to the editor? "

NVR Brian Kennedy wrote on Jul 2, 2009 5:20 PM:

" This article was uploaded twice, and comments have been left on both articles. I will delete the other article and move the comments to this article. "

glenroy wrote on Jul 2, 2009 5:28 PM:

" There you go....no male I know given a choice would shower with a gay man... or have as a roomate.

It's not about being equal the gays want special treatment. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jul 2, 2009 5:29 PM:

" Yours is a common concern, but an unnecessary one. Have you read the responses to the General's letter? Many of your concerns have been addressed there.

Military housing is changing, and as old housing is replaced, it is being replaced with more individual living units, instead of barracks. While boot camp may still be group living, in basic training, most people are too tired at the end of the day to engage in any prohibited activity, even if they were inclined to do so, which history has demonstrated most are not.

Discipline and self control are a large part of military instruction. Gay people have always been in the military, and are there today, estimated at about 65,000. 13,000 have been discharged under DADT, not for improper conduct, but simply because someone found out they are gay. While for some, it is easy to hide for a while, it is nearly impossible to hide for a long time if you are going to have any sort of honest relationship.

With over 100 foster children, this was probably not the first gay boy you had, just the first one who was loose about his boundaries, and open about his orientation. Gay people have shared living quarters with straight people throughout history, usually without problems related to being gay. I am sure you have had conflicts over other things among your straight children. I had roommates throughout 6 years of college, and even shared a house with 6 others for 10 years including men and women, and no one was having sex with each other, and there were no boundary problems. It can be done, and is being done in the military today. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 2, 2009 5:30 PM:

" When I was in the military there were gays serving along with everybody else. And they were not all effeminate and 'lanky', some were huge brawny guys who would likely come out on top of a 3 or 4 man 'pile-on'.

So if 'glenroy' ever served he showered with gay people and just did not know it.

I notice here that the gay kid gets beaten up and you separate him from the others without saying what you told the boys who were beating on him.

Since the majority of sexual assaults in our military are women attacked by heterosexual men, adding openly gay men to the mix is just not that big a deal.

At least they will not be joining in assaulting women.

~Ruff "

pharper wrote on Jul 2, 2009 5:31 PM:

" I haven't heard many (if any) instances of gay military personnel assaulting people of the same sex, but you hear too often for comfort about heterosexual men abusing female soldiers.

Ms. Gentry, first of all (just out of morbid curiosity) why would the young man's build tell you that he was gay? It's every bit as likely that one of your "burly" young men was every bit as gay as this one, you just never knew it. In fact, that's the way it typically is - most of the gay people you know are people you don't know are gay.

That having been said, I don't know what the big difference is - either way, you big strong military men will have to shower with gay people. I think it's quite telling that you underestimate a gay person's ability to restrain himself. Most of you soldiers would never dream of whistling at or harassing a female soldier, right? Both for fear of getting in trouble and because it's rude and disgusting. My educated guess is that a gay man, open or not, would show the same respect for any of you. And I happen to know enough about male anatomy to be able to confidently say that simply showering with other males will not automatically cause a reaction without some help.

Interestingly, I don't know of any female soldiers who support DADT. I think it's less of a threat to their machismo to shower with lesbians. "

pharper wrote on Jul 2, 2009 5:31 PM:

" I could also share a personal anecdote that counters yours, Ms. Gentry, which just goes to show that singular personal experiences aren't proof.

On senior trip, boys were expected to room with boys and girls with girls. There were four students to each room. In one room, there were three straight guys and one gay guy. (Bear in mind that these are seventeen- and eighteen-year-old boys, not famous for subtlety or great judgment.) The boys were required to share beds for two nights, as well as co-habitate in the same room for the duration of the trip.

Interestingly, there were no problems. There were no complaints about sleeping in a bed with someone of a different orientation. There were no accusations of sidelong looks or unwanted advances. In fact, they had fun rooming together. And you know what else? Not a single one of the other boys on the trip would have minded being in a room with someone who was gay. And these are teenagers! Do you really think that grown-ups, military-trained grown-ups, would have more problems than these boys? "

antipc wrote on Jul 2, 2009 7:55 PM:

" Well if we're going to have a no-holes- barred invitation in the military, why not the same for womens college dorms?

Never know who may show up, eh? "

gypsy wrote on Jul 2, 2009 8:25 PM:

" As if one troubled teen who's been bounced around in the foster care system is any reliable representative of the gay population at large, never mind those who are sharp and dedicated enough to join the military. This analogy is absolutely ridiculous. "

Hear Ye wrote on Jul 2, 2009 8:47 PM:

" Of course as soon as anyone other than women live in a Womens dorm it is no longer a Womens dorm. Yet the military is still the military. All it takes is Americans who are willing to sacrifice their lives for you and I. Gay Americans have sacrificed their lives for you since our inception, you're obviously proud. What a shame. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 3, 2009 12:44 AM:

" Raven wrote: 'The separate showers thing has been gone over ad nauseum."

Just as I thought. You have no explanation for why women should be treated differently. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 3, 2009 12:48 AM:

" Hear Ye wrote: "No I really don't have anything of substance to say..."

That's obvious, but you do go to the effort of insulting the author ("written by a child"). Real mature. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 3, 2009 12:53 AM:

" Ruff wrote: "Since the majority of sexual assaults in our military are women attacked by heterosexual men, adding openly gay men to the mix is just not that big a deal."

I can't believe you said that. Anything short of an actual sexual assault is no big deal? "

John Richards wrote on Jul 3, 2009 1:04 AM:

" pharper wrote: "There were no complaints about sleeping in a bed with someone of a different orientation."

Interesting anecdote, but a sample size of one doesn't prove anything.
Most straight guys I know would refuse to sleep in the same bed with a gay male.

What if you had paired one of the straight boys with one of the straight girls, and maybe nothing would have happened. Would you also have used that as an example of something that is OK? Yet society doesn't permit boy/girl sleeping arrangements on senior trips. You don't seem to be able to draw the parallel. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 3, 2009 1:10 AM:

" Ruff wrote: "So if 'glenroy' ever served he showered with gay people and just did not know it."

You're missing the point. As long as gays in the military obey the DADT rules (as they did when glenroy and I served), there is no problem. As soon as they start flaunting their sexual orientation openly, there will be lots of problems! "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jul 3, 2009 8:04 AM:

" JR -- You mean the way heterosexual men in the military flaunt their sexual orientation openly? Toward women?

Why are heterosexual men any less equipped to deal with harrassment (which is, as has been repeatedly stated, against military regulations across the board) than women are? If there's a problem, they have the option of reporting it. Or not. Just as women do.

What makes anyone believe that a homosexual soldier would even risk trying to harrass a heterosexual soldier in a military environment, or would be likely to be "flaunting their sexual orientation openly"? Maybe if he's suicidal. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jul 3, 2009 9:12 AM:

" JR. Care to share your reasons for why women should be treated differently?

Perhaps there are no good reasons for treating women differently. Tradition, including religious traditions which treat women as less than equal, are the main justification for treating women differently.
The primary practical reason for separating women from the men, is that they are viewed by some as being weaker, and less capable of defending themselves from physical attack by men. One piece of that is that when women are sexually assaulted, they can become pregnant. But this falsely assumes that men will attack women if they are in close quarters. While attacks on women by straight men do occur, not all men attack women, no matter what the circumstances. In fact, most men do not attack women. Would you, even if you had to shower together?

I lived in a house with 6 others including straight women and men for 10 years, and no one attacked anyone. I have slept in the same bed with straight men who knew I was gay, without any problems. Only homophobic men are afraid of close contact with gay men. It is the unfounded negative beliefs about gay people you cling to that justify your continued desire to treat them as less than equal. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jul 3, 2009 9:30 AM:

" The use of the pejorative therm Flaunt ( To parade oneself ostentatiously; show oneself off ) assumes facts not in evidence. Being truthful about who one is attracted to or has committed to as a life partner, does not require flaunting one's sexual orientation any more than being truthful about being straight requires flaunting. Your negative beliefs based on stereotypes lead you to the unjustified conclusion that "there will be lots of problems". Unspecified and unjustified fear of the unknown is not a rational reason for ending the careers of 13,000 dedicated soldiers so far, and the 65,000 other highly trained, including combat experienced gay service members currently serving in the armed forces. "

Raven wrote on Jul 3, 2009 10:04 AM:

" JR, I said we have discussed that time and time again and feel it is merely rehashing old news. The separate shower situation is a sop to antiquated morals that hold any sight of another human being naked is immoral, that men and women cannot control themselves and should be avoided at all costs.

I personally have no problems with unisex showers and bathrooms, it would certainly save money in constructions costs, and have no doubts that the vast majority of both sexes can control themselves in using such faculties. (A number of universities have gone to unisex shower and bathroom faculties in their co-ed dorms with great success.) And there is a mechanism already in place for anyone who doesn't abide by the rules through the UCMJ.

And you are missing the point, JR, that the military is not abiding by its part of DADT. They are have been and still are ctively seeking out gay and lesbian service members and booting them out the door to the detriment of our military readiness. "

pharper wrote on Jul 3, 2009 11:50 AM:

" Most straight guys I know, JR, wouldn't give a good goshdarn about sleeping in the same bed as gay guy. In fact, plenty of them have sleepovers and hang out and go camping together. The times, they are a-changin'. I don't doubt that many members of your generation feel the same way you do, but most members of my generation (that I know of; of course I can't speak for everyone) don't care one way or the other what your sexual orientation is, and as long as you're a good friend and a decent person, you're cool by them.

Since most of the population is heterosexual, I would venture to guess that such is the reason for a standard rule of no boy/girl sleeping arrangements. Even so, I'd say that a girl is more vulnerable to advances from a boy (because of obvious physical differences) than a man to another man. Going even further beyond that, my guess would be that because of the stigma on it and possible repercussions, a gay man is far less likely to make advances on another man than a heterosexual male on a girl (or even vice versa).

You just don't have a leg to stand on with your arguments, JR. "

glenroy wrote on Jul 3, 2009 2:02 PM:

" Gee….funny how all those who advocate gays in close quarters aren’t in the military…. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 3, 2009 3:30 PM:

" o.k. Glenroy:
My cousin was in the Navy during WW!!. He worked as a deep sea diver examining and retrieving material from sunken enemy ships. After the Navy he was a fireman for 30 years. He served his country with honor and his city with courage. He is also gay. Never had a problem in close quarters in either area.
One of my son-in-law's best pals is gay. They grew up together. He was a groomsman in my daughter's wedding. No one ever paid attention to his sexual preference. He was a friend. They vacation together and have a wonderful friendship. I'm glad this generation is "sexual preference" blind. The times are a changing. "

Raven wrote on Jul 3, 2009 5:27 PM:

" Served for almost 13 years, glenroy. I knew of gay and lesbian airmen who served with me - they did their jobs, the sole criteria I was concerned with; what did did after duty hours I could have cared less, as did most of the people who served with them - there were more important things to worry about. "

rogers wrote on Jul 3, 2009 6:02 PM:

" Ms. Gentry perhaps you should ask the 20 nations of 26 which serve in NATO, what their experience has been since they seem to have little trouble with it.

And some others like Australia, Israel, New Zealand, Argentina, Philippines, Uruguay.

Incidentally most gay men and women I know will tell you they have little sexual interest in "straight" individuals, you see they prefer other homosexuals.

Russia allows gays to serve in times of war. In their case that is quite often. Another country I know allows gays to also serve as long as they pretend that they are straight and never show affection toward another gay - the USA.

Inappropriate sexual advances are just that - inappropriate. Women in the work force or those strolling by a construction zone well know the comments and heckling they will receive from men.

I wonder if you would have written this letter had the new young man in your home made inappropriate comments and catcalls to your daughter? What would her protective brothers have done?

Those here who rage against gays in the military only underscore their own ignorance and bias. They continue to believe in the same myths they were raised with and they contribute distrust, fear and condemnation toward people they know little of and have no intention of learning about.

That old adage that "ignorance is bliss" comes to mind. Unfortunately, ignorance can also be demeaning, hateful and damaging to others. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 3, 2009 8:32 PM:

" pharper wrote: " Most straight guys I know, JR, wouldn't give a good goshdarn about sleeping in the same bed as gay guy."

Obviously you and I hang out with a very different crowd... "

John Richards wrote on Jul 3, 2009 8:56 PM:

" rogers wrote: "most gay men and women I know will tell you they have little sexual interest in "straight" individuals, you see they prefer other homosexuals."

Get with the program already! We weren't talking about choosing lovers, but lesser activities such as leering and catcalls. I know that if a good-looking, scantily clad lesbian walks past me, she has the same effect on me if she was straight. Most of the time I have no idea what the sexual orientation of that seductive-looking passerby is. What's more, I don't care. Female beauty is female beauty.
Is it too much to assume that a gay male would have somewhat the same feelings toward a straight male? "

John Richards wrote on Jul 3, 2009 9:03 PM:

" rogers wrote: "I wonder if you would have written this letter had the new young man in your home made inappropriate comments and catcalls to your daughter?"

You're missing the point. If there had been both male and female adolescents present, they would have been suitably segregated and not permitted to sleep in the same room or undress in front of each other. That's what should have been done had they known ahead of time the young man was gay, and what the military is doing now with DADT. "

Hear Ye wrote on Jul 3, 2009 10:29 PM:

" Gee Glenroy, so much for that angle "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jul 4, 2009 12:15 AM:

" "seductive-looking passerby"

Sometimes, JR, seduction is in the eye of the beholder. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jul 4, 2009 12:19 AM:

" "Is it too much to assume that a gay male would have somewhat the same feelings toward a straight male?"

Is it too much to assume that the straight male who is most afraid of this situation might have the same feelings toward a gay male?

Actually, no, it's not too much to assume. In fact one experiment supported this assumption. Those who expressed the most homophobic views were more aroused by videos of homosexual acts. "

rogers wrote on Jul 4, 2009 12:15 PM:

" Ah there you go again JR! You rip Ruff with "I can't believe you said that. Anything short of an actual sexual assault is no big deal? "

Then you turn around and minimize my question to Ms. Gentry with "We weren't talking about choosing lovers, but lesser activities such as leering and catcalls."

So let me pose this to you, If that scantily clad lesbian walks by, even if you don't know shes's a lesbian, would your arousal move you to make catcalls, sexual suggestions or a pat on the butt? I suspect not because it is inappropriate behavior, yes?

Most of the time, most people (in the military or not) do not exhibit inappropriate behavior because society lets you know that it isn't acceptable.

You also said "Somehow the other writers here are assuming that all the gays in the military are highly self-disciplined older men with long distinguished careers."

No we aren't. What we are saying is that YOU need to review your own attitudes and conclusions because real world experiments with gays in the military by many other nations do not bare out your dire predictions.

So why is that JR? Are the military of other nations like Canada and Great Britain (who fight with us in Iraq and Afghanistan) or those from Australia and Israel just a bunch of "girlie men"?

It's possible, if we mothball DADT and change our approach by letting openly gay individuals enter the military, that some very competent homophobic officers and enlisted might leave in disgust. The same thing happened in the 1950's with desegregation of the military. But not many fled. The military moved on and we still brag that it's the finest fighting force in the world. "

magnum wrote on Jul 4, 2009 8:06 PM:

" Who cares about gays in the military! I'm more concern about gangs in the military! "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jul 4, 2009 10:32 PM:

" Magnum.
Your concern is a very rational and realistic one, shared by many.

The Army provided waivers to a whopping 18 percent of active-duty recruits in the last four months of 2008, allowing them to enlist despite gang membership, criminal records, medical conditions and obesity. So a gang member, or an overweight convicted thief, with ADD, is deemed eligible to serve his country, while a fit, law abiding, highly educated West Point graduate, trained Arabic linguist with two tours of duty in Iraq, and an 18 year combat veteran decorated pilot among 13,000 others, at a cost of hundreds of millions of tax dollars, are kicked out simply for being gay.
Gang members, and even non-U.S. citizens, are being welcomed and granted rights that are unavailable to law abiding, natural-born, experienced, highly educated and highly skilled U.S. citizens because they happen to be gay. "

reneefannin wrote on Jul 6, 2009 7:01 PM:

" Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see anything about Doris' letter that is offensive to gay people. She does not say that she thinks you should have to hide that you are gay. She merely poses a question of why not offer seperate showers. I'm not sure what showering arrangement is appropriate either...I wouldn't want to be in a shower with anyone who was commenting on my body...be it other gay women or men...Maybe everyone could just shower together..or better yet we could refrain from 8th grade type behavior while showering and just deal with it....maybe behave a little more civilly and be a bit less ridiculous over nudity like our European brothers and sisters....but I don't find her letter offensive or childish...I don't know the answer to the shower question, but I know it is wrong to tell gay men and women who are serving tehir country that they cannot marry the person they love or even talk about them. I know it si wrong to encourage dishonesty amongst people who have committed their life to service and a moral code. Showers...I'd have to think a little more about....but it shouldn't be an excuse for discrimination or keeping in place the ridiculous policy of Don't Ask Dont Tell. "

Doris Gentry wrote on Jul 7, 2009 6:43 AM:

" Gosh - I did not know my comment would entice so many replies. First of all - I did not have an agenda - truly I was wondering.

Second - all of you that said his slim, lanky size did not mean anything - you are right - the gay community I am sure comes in all sizes.

As to the boys that were piled on top of the new youth - they were reprimanded, but my first concern was for the new teens safety, and that is what I was writing about so I did not discuss other matters.

OK - I love the discussion - and I love the great thoughts many of you said - some of you wrote well articulated letters and made really valid points - thanks so much for taking the time to do that.

I love America and I love the freedom we have here to express ourselves. And with that freedom comes the right to challenge other thoughts and to embrace concepts that are unique.

Thanks for writing and thank you Register for allowing us the banter! "

John Richards wrote on Jul 7, 2009 12:14 PM:

" rogers wrote: 'If that scantily clad lesbian walks by, even if you don't know shes's a lesbian, would your arousal move you to make catcalls, sexual suggestions or a pat on the butt? I suspect not because it is inappropriate behavior, yes?"

Correct. I'm very self-disciplined, and would do nothing in that circumstance except for a brief, appreciative glance. But I'm an older gentleman. Would most 18 year old males behave in like fashion, especially if it occurred in close quarters like a nightclub? "

Raven wrote on Jul 7, 2009 5:33 PM:

" actually JR having done security at several nite clubs in SF, I would say most 18 year old males and females do behave themselves. Do you think there is some switch that gets turned on at a certain age to correct behavior? Why do you assume that 18 years can't behave themselves as you do? The worst people I had to deal with were the older ones who thought they knew everything and had a right to do anything they wanted. "

Napagrrl wrote on Jul 8, 2009 9:40 AM:

" Maybe I missed something. Do we KNOW the "new boy" is gay or did he simply whistle at one of the others - intending it to be a joke, ill-advised, but nevertheless a joke? This is something that happens in school locker rooms all the time. The boys think they're being funny - how many of us have heard teens calling other teens or situations "gay." Remember, this is the new kid; he has to try to fit in and he may have thought a joke like this would do it. My concern is that the "old boys" thought violence was the appropriate response to the whistle and didn't just say, "Knock it off." Just my thoughts based on not thoroughly understanding the situation. "

Grits wrote on Jul 9, 2009 11:30 AM:

" When I served in the Navy 30 years ago, I worked in the comand legal office, where among other things, we processed administrative discharges, including those based on the homosexuality of a service member. In ALL BUT ONE case I worked over a 4 year period, the member had gone to the NIS (Naval Investigative Service; now I think it's NCIS) ON HIS OWN (I don't recall any females involved) and stated to an agent that he had been having a relationship with "an unamed civilian male" - ALWAYS that phrase! The one different case involved a sailor who returned unexpectedly from leave and discovered his roommate with his partner- all the poor guy did afterwards was request a new roommate, but there had been no reported problems between them, and he finally had no choice but to confess that HE was uncomfortable because his straight roommate knew his affiliation! Betcha thought the straight guy requested the room change, huh? I served with many gay members, and in my training unit were a few lesbians -I couldn 't have cared less, but some may have been uncomfortable. We never discussed it, so I don't know, but for the sailors I was honored to serve with, it didn't seem to be such a big deal; we had an important job to do and just "carried on".
Just my individual experience... "

John Richards wrote on Jul 9, 2009 4:10 PM:

" Grits wrote: " but some may have been uncomfortable."

That's an understatement!

For the same reason many females would be uncomfortable bunking with males and undressing in front of them. "

Grits wrote on Jul 9, 2009 5:46 PM:

" John R. wrote: "For the same reason many females would be uncomfortable bunking with males and undressing in front of them. "

And vice versa!

I used the word "uncomfortable" deliberately here, John, since for all I know some may have been more affected, but as it was not discussed among us I am hesitant to use stronger terminology in this case.

My main point was that from my experience those service members I processed for admin discharge for this reason had apparently gone of their own volition to the NIS and stated they were active homosexuals. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 9, 2009 6:56 PM:

" "And vice versa."

Right. You and I seem to be in agreement about this point, yet the pro-gay libs steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this simple truth. "

Paddy wrote on Jul 9, 2009 10:55 PM:

" Good points Doris. I believe if they allow all troops to cohabitate (no separate barracks, showers, etc) then allowing gays in the military would be feasible. I'm not sure we'd win many more wars but we'd have more recruits than we'd ever need. "

Raven wrote on Jul 9, 2009 11:18 PM:

" No one said some have not, JR...but if you look at that percentage who have you will find they make up a very very small minority of the total.

Paddy...hate to disappoint you but as far back as 1978, the units I served with in the USAF had coed barracks. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jul 10, 2009 4:20 PM:

" "The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays." Barry Goldwater, 1973.

Former V.P., D. Cheney agrees, as do many other conservatives.
One year ago, seventy-five percent of Americans in a Washington Post-ABC News poll said "gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001.

Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for openly gay people to serve in the U.S. armed forces. Support from Republicans has doubled over the past 15 years, from 32 to 64 percent."

CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was held between DEC-19 and 21. Results were: 81% believe that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.

The fact that some people are uncomfortable about their bodies is no excuse for spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars to discharge combat proven, highly trained, skilled and experienced people who only want to serve honestly and openly. This discrimination is based on irrational negative beliefs learned in childhood. It is time to surrender the prejudices of youth and treat everyone as equal under the law. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 11, 2009 12:07 AM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "The fact that some people are uncomfortable about their bodies is no excuse..."

So you think the military should make all barracks, bunking arrangements, and showering facilities co-ed? Too bad for them if all those prudish females feel uncomfortable undressing in front of male colleagues... "

John Richards wrote on Jul 11, 2009 12:13 AM:

" Raven wrote: "the units I served with in the USAF had coed barracks. "

During my active tour of duty with the Army, I served some TDY at USAF facilities, and it was obvious to me the the USAF facilities were nicer equipped and had more attention to privacy than typical Army barracks. "

Raven wrote on Jul 11, 2009 7:55 AM:

" yeah, the air force had all the new, neat toys....and having a coed barrack doesn't mean one is forced to undress in front of any one, there are still separate bath and toilet facilities, many use the same methods that have worked so well in college campuses for decades - semi-private baths with locking doors. (btw the army uses similar housing arrangement now, once the recruit has been trained and joins the regular forces) "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jul 11, 2009 7:57 AM:

" JR. You are creating a straw man argument. I never suggested a change to less privacy. The reality is that military housing is changing, and as old housing is replaced, it is being replaced with more individualized living units including private bath rooms and sleeping rooms, with shared kitchen and living rooms, instead of barracks. The move is toward more privacy, not less.

While boot camp may still be group living, in basic training, most people are too tired at the end of the day to engage in any prohibited activity, even if they were inclined to do so, and history has clearly demonstrated most are not. Gay people are already there, have always been there, and have proved they can control themselves. Continuing to discriminate on the basis of an unfounded fear is irrational. The privacy issue is merely an excuse to continue the discrimination, marginalization, and stigmatization of gay people. "

Raven wrote on Jul 11, 2009 12:34 PM:

" form the DOD, JR....here is the current standard for army barracks...

Two junior enlisted soldiers share a common kitchenette and bath in a two-bedroom suite, hence the "1+1" label. Senior enlisted soldiers have a private suite including a separate furnished living room.

this doesn't apply to locations in deployments. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 11, 2009 9:02 PM:

" Raven wrote: "the army uses similar housing arrangement now, once the recruit has been trained and joins the regular forces."

So you admit that during basic training there is no privacy when it comes to bunking, showering, undressing, etc. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 11, 2009 9:11 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "in basic training, most people are too tired at the end of the day to engage in any prohibited activity, even if they were inclined to do so"

That depends how you define 'prohibited activity'. I've said all along that the concern isn't that overt sexual acts will occur, but lesser activities such as ogling and unwelcome remarks about body features. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 11, 2009 9:13 PM:

" Raven wrote: "this doesn't apply to locations in deployments."

Exactly my point. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 11, 2009 9:16 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: : The privacy issue is merely an excuse to continue the discrimination..."

So female soldiers who want privacy from male ogling while showering and undressing should be told, "Sorry, that's just an excuse." ? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jul 12, 2009 8:32 AM:

" JR. "ogling and unwelcome remarks about body features." are prohibited behaviors. It has not been a problem in the past, and there is no reason to believe it would become a problem in the future.

It appears you have never been to a nude beach or other clothing optional location or situation. People of all ages, sexual orientations, and both sexes mingle without any problems. It can be done, and is done by many on a daily basis. It is people who are repressed about their bodies who worry most about being seen.
But the military is moving toward more privacy, and there is no reason curtains could not be provided to protect the feelings of the uncomfortable individuals. Any perceived problem about nudity can easily be addressed with a few pieces of cloth.

Unjustified fears of a few that they may experience a few uncomfortable moments in the shower are not a sufficient reason for spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars, including the tax dollars of gay citizens, to destroy the careers of highly trained, dedicated and decorated combat veterans, mission critical interpreters, doctors, medics, pilots, and others who are willing to risk their lives for the rest of us. "

Raven wrote on Jul 12, 2009 10:29 AM:

" JR...you have any data that this problem of ogling in the showers even exists?...male to male, female to female?...the DOD is paranoid about having data on just about anything, so there should be some out there because, there are gay and lesbians serving in the military now, always have been and always will be.

The question is why should we grant waivers to allow convicted felons to openly serve and not allow gay and lesbians who have committed no crime to be open...we don't tell the felons with the waiver..."shh, don't tell anyone you are a felon"...we don't make Wiccan's hide their religion, there are even Wiccan chaplains now; why should anyone have to hide what they are?

Why should the military be spending time and money to drive well trained and distinguished warriors from the ranks?

Why, because you think that someone may look at them funny in the shower? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jul 13, 2009 10:58 AM:

" Nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in their armed forces, as compiled by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara:
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Britain
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Uruguay

If these nations can do it, so can we. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 14, 2009 12:15 PM:

" Yes, there is a good-sized list of nations that, as a sop to political correctness, now allow gays to serve openly in the military, but the list of nations who don't allow it is longer.
There is a trade-off. Do you want your basic fighting unit, a platoon, to be politically correct, or do you want it to be the best fighting machine possible?
Cohesiveness in a platoon is built by male-to-male camaraderie, but that can't exist when the possibility of love or lust is lurking in the background. "

Raven wrote on Jul 14, 2009 1:31 PM:

" so units with large numbers of female members cannot build that unit cohesiveness,...JR...it is only a male to male thing?

Unit cohesiveness is not dependent upon the sex of the units members but the trust they have in the person next to them of being able to do the job.

(last time I checked I don't see reports of Israeli army units having problem with unit cohesiveness) "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jul 16, 2009 8:40 AM:

" No trade off is necessary. Gay people are already serving, and some are doing so openly without any problems. It is only the homophobic people who have a problem, and homophobia can be cured with education.
In a country dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal, I expect all people to be treated equally under the law, and that includes the civilian controlled military. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 16, 2009 10:27 PM:

" Raven wrote: 'Unit cohesiveness is not dependent upon the sex of the units members"

Combat unit cohesiveness can't help but suffer when feelings of love or lust are present. Those feelings are not an issue when the unit's members are all heterosexuals of the same gender.

"I don't see reports of Israeli army units having problem with unit cohesiveness."
The last war they were in, the 2006 Lebanon War, featured the worst performance yet of the Israelis, a mere shadow of their performance in the 1948 war. One can't help but wonder how much the introduction of gays into the Army contributed to that poor performance. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: