slugshooter Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 I feel the military has a dilemma on their hands. Do they discharge a decorated military veteran to appeal to the homophobes, or do they get rid of the whole 'No Gay's' policy that has no bearing on how a soldier performs in combat. Gay Soldier Wants to Stay in Military By MALIA RULON Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- An Army sergeant who was wounded in Iraq wants a chance to remain in the military as an openly gay soldier, a desire that's bringing him into conflict with the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Sgt. Robert Stout, 23, says he has not encountered trouble from fellow soldiers and would like to stay if not for the policy that permits gay men and women to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret. "I know a ton of gay men that would be more than willing to stay in the Army if they could just be open," Stout said in an interview with The Associated Press. "But if we have to stay here and hide our lives all the time, it's just not worth it." Stout, of Utica, Ohio, was awarded the Purple Heart after a grenade sent pieces of shrapnel into his arm, face and legs while he was operating a machine gun on an armored Humvee last May. He is believed to be the first gay soldier wounded in Iraq to publicly discuss his sexuality, said Aaron Belkin, director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California-Santa Barbara. "We can't keep hiding the fact that there's gay people in the military and they aren't causing any harm," said Stout, who says he is openly gay among most of his 26-member platoon, which is part of the 9th Engineer Battalion based in Schweinfurt, Germany. Stout, who served in Iraq for more than a year as a combat engineer, said by acknowledging he is gay, he could be jailed and probably will be discharged before his scheduled release date of May 31. "The old armchair thought that gay people destroy unit camaraderie and cohesion is just wrong," Stout said. "They said the same things when they tried to integrate African-Americans and women into the military." Before the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, enacted in 1993 under the Clinton administration, the Pentagon had explicitly barred gays from military service. At least 24 countries, including Great Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Canada and Israel, allow gays to serve openly. In an e-mail following the AP interview, Stout said he had been ordered not to speak to the media. "I guess they found out somehow that I was talking to the press and now they are having a fit. I will try to get everything straightened out," Stout wrote. Martha Rudd, a spokeswoman for the Army at the Pentagon, said soldiers who are discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" typically receive honorable discharges, although the timing would be up to the individual's commanding officer. She declined to comment about Stout, saying the Army doesn't comment on specific cases. The issue of whether gays should be allowed to openly serve in the military has received increased attention in recent months as the Army has struggled to meet its recruiting goals. Twelve gays expelled from the military sued the government in December, citing a Supreme Court ruling that declared unconstitutional state laws against homosexual sex. The Bush administration has asked a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit. Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey has said he opposes changing the policy, although Pentagon figures show a sharp decline in the number of U.S. military members discharged for making it known they are homosexual, falling from 1,227 in 2001 to 653 last year. A recent congressional study on the impact of "don't ask, don't tell" said that hundreds of highly skilled troops, including many translators, have left the armed forces because of the rule, at a cost of nearly $200 million, mostly for recruiting and training replacements for 9,500 troops discharged between 1994 and 2003. Gary Gates, a statistician at the University of California at Los Angeles, estimates there are about 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in the military, accounting for about 2.8 percent of all personnel. He estimates that at least 25 gay soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the military, said a better way to avoid the cost of replacing soldiers who are discharged for being gay is to make it very clear to people who enlist in the military, including Stout, that they are ineligible to serve if they are gay. "I honor and respect his service to this country, but the fact that he's wounded really doesn't change the underlying fact. ... He is not eligible to serve," Donnelly said, adding that there are many reasons why people aren't eligible to serve. "This is just one of them." Stout said he suspected while in high school that he was gay but didn't acknowledge it until later. "Then I noticed that it wasn't a phase or anything. This is me," said Stout, who enlisted in the Army after graduating in 2000. "The 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, when it first came out, was a good stepping stone, but it's outlived its usefulness," he said. "We've progressed past it both as a military and as a society." Recent media polls indicate some increased public acceptance for allowing gays to serve openly in the military, with more than six in 10 Americans supporting the idea while about half supported it a decade ago. An Annenberg poll taken last fall among members of the military showed a majority opposed to such service, though half of junior enlisted personnel said gays should be allowed to serve openly. Another thought. Regardless of most of you guy's religious feelings about homosexuality, I believe this proves that the "Gay ban" or "Don't ask, don't tell" is worthless. One of you guys favorite arguments about gun control is that no gun control law has ever lowered crime, while that may be true, has anyone that has been in the military ever been sexually harassed, raped or whatever by a gay soldier. Most likely not and I have never heard of it happening before. Heck, Fort Bragg has almost a dozen sexual assaults on base a week involving straight soldiers against females. I served with gay airman, although I didn't know it at the time until I heard they were discharged for it, but it didn't affect their performance and certainly didn't experience anything the military claims that having gay personnel causes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeStandBowHunter Posted April 9, 2005 Report Share Posted April 9, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. Why are you typing in red Slugo ...your posts stand out enough I will say this and that is it for this thread.... NO....for several reasons and I will not go into all of them. I realize that they can take a bullet like the next guy, I realize they can pull the trigger like the next guy and I realize that they can be a hero like the next guy. However, it would lead to alot of problems. It would cause Morale problems for sure. All that this is in my opinion is another attempt for Gays and Lesbians to get the world to sympathize for them and to be sensitive to them. JMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebeilgard Posted April 9, 2005 Report Share Posted April 9, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugshooter Posted April 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. [ QUOTE ] NO....for several reasons and I will not go into all of them. I realize that they can take a bullet like the next guy, I realize they can pull the trigger like the next guy and I realize that they can be a hero like the next guy. However, it would lead to alot of problems. It would cause Morale problems for sure. All that this is in my opinion is another attempt for Gays and Lesbians to get the world to sympathize for them and to be sensitive to them. JMO [/ QUOTE ] And what if said soldier, who was gay, and you didn't know about it Mike. Saved your life in a firefight, and later you learned he was gay, would you push for his dishonorable discharge regardless of the loyalty you owe him for saving your life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeStandBowHunter Posted April 10, 2005 Report Share Posted April 10, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] NO....for several reasons and I will not go into all of them. I realize that they can take a bullet like the next guy, I realize they can pull the trigger like the next guy and I realize that they can be a hero like the next guy. However, it would lead to alot of problems. It would cause Morale problems for sure. All that this is in my opinion is another attempt for Gays and Lesbians to get the world to sympathize for them and to be sensitive to them. JMO [/ QUOTE ] And what if said soldier, who was gay, and you didn't know about it Mike. Saved your life in a firefight, and later you learned he was gay, would you push for his dishonorable discharge regardless of the loyalty you owe him for saving your life. [/ QUOTE ] Look, nobody said anything about dis-honorable discharge here. I stand by what I said in my initial post and that is the end of it. Regardless...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Posted April 10, 2005 Report Share Posted April 10, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. That's a no brainer, kick him out, plain and simple. That's Army Regs, so he should get the BOOT!!! And like TSBH stated, this is just another way to get sympathy from the straight crowd............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugshooter Posted April 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. [ QUOTE ] They have no business serving in the military, If it affects the attitude, morale, or behavior of the soldiers around them - then it becomes a problem. [/ QUOTE ] The same exact things were said about the first blacks and the first women allowed in the military. Some of the women are tougher than the guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Posted April 10, 2005 Report Share Posted April 10, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. Bu there is ALOT of difference in blacks/women compared to gays...........A gay person, especially a gay man, is going to get "shunned" a heck of alot more than a black, or a female Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeStandBowHunter Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. People like you are the reason this world is coming to a halt. Trying to push sensitivity towards gays and everyting else. Why are you so pro-gay Most people don't want that crap...why do you think Kerry didn't get elected...I say it was more his morals than anything else. Dude, give it up man. Nobody want's to hear it! MOST PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO BE SENSITIVE TO GAYS....OPEN YOUR EYES AND EARS MAN! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fisherguy Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. LOL just noticed two things. I go away for a week and TSBH is a moderator!? lol Never would have predicted that a couple months ago. And that new Marines sig...bet that lasts no more than 24 more hours before someone complains. It is hilarious though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugshooter Posted April 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. [ QUOTE ] Why are you so pro-gay [/ QUOTE ] Personal reasons. Why are you so anti-gay. What have they ever done to you Mike ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. Nope sluggo. It would lead to trust issues and problems with morale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeStandBowHunter Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Why are you so pro-gay [/ QUOTE ] Personal reasons. Why are you so anti-gay. What have they ever done to you Mike ? [/ QUOTE ] Personal reasons. Why are you so Pro-Gay. What have they ever done for you?............You see Slugo, we can go back and forth all day long with this. You know how I feel, I know how you feel. It's disguisting. it's not morally(sp) right, they ARE NOT born gay IMO, and anything else you and others think. It has nothing to do with what they are or are not able to accomplish in the military. Troops morale is low enough in some cases. How do you think their morale would be after we allow them to be openly gay and find out your best friend who you been taking quad showers with the last 6 months is gay! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. well, after reading TSBH's comments here, I don't have anything to add, other than the fact that he is right, you want to lower troop morale, let gays OPENLY serve, and see what happens. Like I said, it's a no brainer, if they're gay, kick them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParrotHead Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. NO - this only allows for even more segragation and that doesn't need to happen in the military. Keep your mouth shut and do your job, you're no better or worse that the next guy so stop trying to single yourself out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7th Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. Well, again the Marines have landed and did the job well. The military is not the place for them to prance around. It is one thing to have to take a shower with other men but to have someone looking at me like a dinner date? Not if I would have anything to say about it. They have no more rights then anyone and the regs are the regs. I also agree with them. The military it getting to soft as it is, do to bringing women into the military, half the training you get anymore is being PC. I am not sorry, I think they should let the DI's or Drill Sgt. do his duty and train you to fight and not worry so dang much about hurting someone's feelings. After being out 18 years, I was in for a big shock going to my first school (the Green Berets are still going the same way as they did back in the '80s). The SSG teaching the class was cussing up a storm and then looked at the 2 femails in the class and said "I hope my cussing is not hurting anyone's feelings?" When the girl setting next to me said "Yes Sgt. it is!" I was looking for a hole to craw into becose I just knew I was going to get hit with the over kill, to my shock, he said he would try to watch what he said and did not mean to upset anyone. At brake he asked if I was OK, I told him I was but could not beleave what he just did. He said that I looked like I was ready to pass out when he said that! I am glad that I do not have to deal with the "NEW" army and God help us if they get to serve openly. One more thing, most of the Brits and Israely's that I have talked to have all said the same thing: they don't wont them eather! But again that is just the joe on the line that has to live with them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robk Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. no way to say this in manner that would be easy on the future of gays in the military but if one was found out in some arenas including iraq and afghanistan it would create problems within the ranks if people knew this person or those people were gay there woould be plenty of inner strife inthe ranks. the no ask no tell is really the best way to have it happenand i am sure there were gays in vietnam that gave their life. i knew a guy a cook in our that was marked as a fag and people just shut him out and whether he was a gay or not he was just left out to dry and he was wounded in 69 and the first thing i heard was the sob lived so that is how some today will also react if they suspect a person male or female is gay today. no is the only way i can see it working and it would of bothered me if i had known there was someone gay when i was serving in vietnam and i think it would of been a bad scene for thsoe suspected rob k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reloader Posted April 18, 2005 Report Share Posted April 18, 2005 Re: Quite a dilemma for the Army. Sluggo...Let me pose a question to you... How would the military handle housing for single enlisted Homosexuals? You can't have Co-Ed housing...PUTING GAY MALES(females) IN THE SAME BARRACKS WITH ANY OTHER MALE(female) GAY OR STRAIGHT WOULD CONSTITUTE CO-ED HOUSING. Thus if the military adopts an open policy they would have to provide individual private housing to any gay personel...how is that gonna work. Even if they overcome the cost/political etc. barriers to do so, it would totaly cause rifts and problems in the ranks. And by the way I totaly agree with TSBH all the way, you know the policy when you get in, if you break the rules you get kicked out, honorably, break any other rule and you get kicked out Dis-honorably. Sounds to me like they are already getting a lot of slack. No one is born gay...how could it be genetic? Even if you claim it is a recessive gene and therefore possible for two straight people to have a gay child that assumes that they both carry the recessive for it giving a 25% chance of getting a gay child....but what are the chances of both parents having the recesive gene...statisticaly it would be a genetic mutation that would die out incredibly fast. But even that analysis assumes a lot...and can easily be disproved...given the genetic, they are born that way, theory, if two gay couples (one lesbian and one male gay)get together and decide to work together to have children (the male couple providing sperm and the female couple the eggs with artificial insemination and serogete[sp] mothers) they should have 100% Gay children. However despite this type of arrangement occuring regularly...they do not have that 100% rate of gay children that genetic science would require for the theory to be correct. Sorry for the long post...just started typing and forgot to stop... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.