Sexual Orientation and Military Service

[IAN 2411]

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

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gay, that does not mean he/she is going to jump on the first naked body they see sleeping next to them, that is a very outdated view.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

Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

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

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

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

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





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

[Thorne]

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

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

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

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

[DuncanONeil]

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

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

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

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

[Thorne]

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

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

[DuncanONeil]

Perhaps but it may be more basic than that.
In the past the division of labor was between camp and hunting. In camp you can have a very social and gregarious nature. However the same behaviours on the hunt will likely leave you hungry. With the amount of time spent in such activity the needs of quiet and care likely became more ingrained, unconsciously. Add to that the observation of the manner of behaviour among the women, in primitive understanding, could easily become to be marked as difference between the genders. With the belief than supported that such actions or behaviour would label that "hunter" as a women.
Just a thought, no basis nor classroom interaction created this. The differences seem so ingrained they have to have been inculcated in the human psyche in humanities youth.

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

[DuncanONeil]

Fraternization covers a lot more than just sex!

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

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

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

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





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

[Bren122]

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

[DuncanONeil]

More so in the navies!

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

[MMI]

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

[IAN 2411]

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

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

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

Actually the fraternization rules are more about command than sex.
Think about it in terms of the business world. If the boss is dating a secretary it matters not a whit how good she is at her job. If she gets a raise or a promotion is is seen as not earned. That is the issue with fraternization.

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

[DuncanONeil]

Actually fraternization is not about regulating sex. It is about the command structure, I have been trying to find a comparable civilian term to help in understanding the term. Just while typing this got a hit on the search macro, Fraternization is akin to nepotism, for those not related "sleeping their way to the top". It is all about favored treatment not from skills and abilities but from a personal relationship of some kind.

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

[denuseri]

I don't know Duncun, more than a few of my friends that are in the service have told me, that if they get cuaght doing it with anyone else in thier command in the field or at sea, on even on base property in some cases; that there are consequences, even if its on shore leave or off post sometimes.

More often than not they go after the woman alone and eaither don't penalize the male or have far less harsher penalty enforced, and regardless of rank or duty assignment if it's relations with the same sex, its over they are going to be kicked out of the service period.

[DuncanONeil]

Not quite! The act of sex alone is insufficient.

"(O)ne of the Court of Military Appeals' earliest decisions observed, "It is true, as urged by appellate defense counsel, that fornication, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, has been held not to be an offense under military law. United States v. Ord, 2 CMR(AF) 84. This is consistent with the view expressed earlier herein that Congress has not intended by Article 134 and its statutory predecessors to regulate the wholly private moral conduct of an individual." United States v. Snyder, 1 C.M.A. 423, 427, 4 C.M.R. 15, 19 (1952). Later in the same paragraph, CMA noted that "simple fornication is not an offense cognizable under military law." Id.

Chief Judge Everett has provided this helpful synopsis of the law governing fornication in the military:

In summary, the treatment of adultery and fornication in military law seems to be this: (a) two persons are guilty of adultery whenever they engage in illicit sexual intercourse if either of them is married to a third person; (b) if unmarried, they are guilty of fornication whenever they engage in illicit sexual intercourse under circumstances in which the conduct is not strictly private; and (c) private sexual intercourse between unmarried persons is not punishable." (http://caaflog.blogspot.com/2007/09/...itary-law.html)

United States v. Izquierdo, 51 MJ 421(fornication, committed openly and notoriously, is an aggravating circumstance sufficient to state an offense under Article 134, UCMJ).

(as an indecent act under Article 134, UCMJ, fornication is open and notorious, flagrant, and discrediting to the military service if committed in the actual presence of others, when the participants know that a third person is present, or under circumstances where it is reasonable likely that others will view the act).

(evidence was legally sufficient to show that fornication was open and notorious where, although appellant hung a sheet between beds, two of appellant’s roommates were present during the fornication and both were suspicious of the activity behind the sheet).
(evidence was not legally sufficient to show that fornication was open and notorious where intercourse took place behind closed barracks room door and nobody else was present in the room).

I don't know Duncun, more than a few of my friends that are in the service have told me, that if they get cuaght doing it with anyone else in thier command in the field or at sea, on even on base property in some cases; that there are consequences, even if its on shore leave or off post sometimes.

More often than not they go after the woman alone and eaither don't penalize the male or have far less harsher penalty enforced, and regardless of rank or duty assignment if it's relations with the same sex, its over they are going to be kicked out of the service period.

[Thorne]

In summary, the treatment of adultery and fornication in military law seems to be this: (a) two persons are guilty of adultery whenever they engage in illicit sexual intercourse if either of them is married to a third person; (b) if unmarried, they are guilty of fornication whenever they engage in illicit sexual intercourse under circumstances in which the conduct is not strictly private; and (c) private sexual intercourse between unmarried persons is not punishable."

Nice job of research, Duncan. As you note, this seems to permit consensual sex between adults as long as it is kept private. I wonder, though: I don't see anything specifically stating that the adults must be different sexes, or even that there can only be two adults involved. Would a three-some violate the UCMJ? What about an orgy? Would a gay couple violate the rules if they remained private?

"This is consistent with the view expressed earlier herein that Congress has not intended by Article 134 and its statutory predecessors to regulate the wholly private moral conduct of an individual."

I found this statement particularly illuminating. I wonder if anyone has bothered to inform Congress of this little gem? As far as I can tell, politicians generally spend far more time trying to control the morality of their constituents than they do trying to control themselves.

[DuncanONeil]

As I said 41 Minutes Ago in message #66
United States v. Izquierdo, 51 MJ 421(fornication, committed openly and notoriously, is an aggravating circumstance sufficient to state an offense under Article 134, UCMJ).
(evidence was not legally sufficient to show that fornication was open and notorious where intercourse took place behind closed barracks room door and nobody else was present in the room).

Nice job of research, Duncan. As you note, this seems to permit consensual sex between adults as long as it is kept private. I wonder, though: I don't see anything specifically stating that the adults must be different sexes, or even that there can only be two adults involved. Would a three-some violate the UCMJ? What about an orgy? Would a gay couple violate the rules if they remained private?


I found this statement particularly illuminating. I wonder if anyone has bothered to inform Congress of this little gem? As far as I can tell, politicians generally spend far more time trying to control the morality of their constituents than they do trying to control themselves.

[DuncanONeil]

I found this statement particularly illuminating. I wonder if anyone has bothered to inform Congress of this little gem? As far as I can tell, politicians generally spend far more time trying to control the morality of their constituents than they do trying to control themselves.

As I pointed out somewhere in the thread it really is not about sex. It is an issue of security. Our favorite kink actually puts us in the same risk category as homosexuals. Although we would likely not suffer the same result.

[Thorne]

As I pointed out somewhere in the thread it really is not about sex. It is an issue of security. Our favorite kink actually puts us in the same risk category as homosexuals. Although we would likely not suffer the same result.

Yeah, I understood that. But the statement in question was neither about sex or security, but about morality! It seems to me that the comment you quoted stated flatly that Congress does not have the right to regulate an individual's morality as long as he remains private. Yet we constantly see regulations which attempt to do just that.

[IAN 2411]

You are free to contradict. I still contend, and admit I am not familiar with the pertinent documents in British service, that here in the US the governing document for courts martial is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Note that this is not a law per se in the US but a codification of other US laws in a form unique to the military.

I understand what you are saying, but as you say you are unfamiliar with UK service law. I do know that a lot of the laws that are used today in the UK army, and were in place during the Napoleonic war. They are very much in difference to the ones you talk about, but whether UK or American, even if it were not against military law, there would be found another reason why the gays would not be allowed in the military of either country. 1: there is not an American officer above the rank of colonel which would jeopardise his/her career to openly defend a gay staying in the forces, with the fear of themselves being called camp. 2: with their stiff upper lip, and pomp and ceremony, the British officers are no different. The higher ranks, in the war departments on both sides of the pond, are full of outdated bigots, and they are dinosaurs of the free world.

Regardless of rank or duty assignment if it's relations with the same sex, its over they are going to be kicked out of the service period.

The same punishment takes place in the UK forces, and it is carried out with immediate effect. There was a case in my unit, and the two personnel were flown back to the UK from Cyprus, went to a holding camp and were dismissed from the service, all within 24 hours. There were no charges, no trial and no court martial, because gay relationships never take place in the British army.


Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

I can understand your feelings on this matter but I am afraid I must disagree with your assumptions and conclusions.

I understand what you are saying, but as you say you are unfamiliar with UK service law. I do know that a lot of the laws that are used today in the UK army, and were in place during the Napoleonic war. They are very much in difference to the ones you talk about, but whether UK or American, even if it were not against military law, there would be found another reason why the gays would not be allowed in the military of either country. 1: there is not an American officer above the rank of colonel which would jeopardise his/her career to openly defend a gay staying in the forces, with the fear of themselves being called camp. 2: with their stiff upper lip, and pomp and ceremony, the British officers are no different. The higher ranks, in the war departments on both sides of the pond, are full of outdated bigots, and they are dinosaurs of the free world.

Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

Actually ian our chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has stood up and said before congress that "dont ask dont tell" be revised and he is about as high up as an admiral can be and still be in the military.

[Lion]

I find it sad that gays are still treated as second class citizens in most "Free" countries around the world.

I'm not a soldier, never fought in battle, so I cannot speak for the trust that one must have when fighting in the front lines. I know that the Canadian military is fighting currently in Afghanistan (yup, we have an army too ~15 000 people) with no restriction of sexual orientation, and there has not been a single story about a problem arising from someone being gay.

Secondly, not all army personel are on the front lines. If you're known to be gay, you can do anything, including drive a truck, be an interpretor, be a medic, anything! How is that just? Why don't they kick out the known Muslims off the army because it'll make things easier too? Call it the 'Don't pray don't tell' rule.

I know what it feels like to be a second class citizen, my family moved from that country to Canada for a lot of reasons, a better life was the primary concern. I know how it is when positions and possibilities are denied just because of my label, and I will never accept that another group go through what I did.

[IAN 2411]

I find it sad that gays are still treated as second class citizens in most "Free" countries around the world.

I'm not a soldier, never fought in battle, so I cannot speak for the trust that one must have when fighting in the front lines. I know that the Canadian military is fighting currently in Afghanistan (yup, we have an army too ~15 000 people) with no restriction of sexual orientation, and there has not been a single story about a problem arising from someone being gay.

Secondly, not all army personel are on the front lines. If you're known to be gay, you can do anything, including drive a truck, be an interpretor, be a medic, anything! How is that just? Why don't they kick out the known Muslims off the army because it'll make things easier too? Call it the 'Don't pray don't tell' rule.

I know what it feels like to be a second class citizen, my family moved from that country to Canada for a lot of reasons, a better life was the primary concern. I know how it is when positions and possibilities are denied just because of my label, and I will never accept that another group go through what I did.

No; you have that slightly wrong, in the UK gays have the same rights as a vanilla person. Two married lesbians can adopt a child stating that they are a family, i have to say that it goes against the grain for some bigots, but the equality laws are what the UK abides by.

Regards ian 2411

[Lion]

No; you have that slightly wrong, in the UK gays have the same rights as a vanilla person. Two married lesbians can adopt a child stating that they are a family, i have to say that it goes against the grain for some bigots, but the equality laws are what the UK abides by.

Regards ian 2411

I said most, not all. I am proud to be in a country that allows gays to have all the rights as everyone else.

Although, from what I read, gay marraige isn't yet allowed there. Everything else, thankfully, is. (adoption, military, protection against hate)

[DuncanONeil]

Gays may adopt in the US!

I said most, not all. I am proud to be in a country that allows gays to have all the rights as everyone else.

Although, from what I read, gay marraige isn't yet allowed there. Everything else, thankfully, is. (adoption, military, protection against hate)

[DuncanONeil]

How do you protect against hate??

I said most, not all. I am proud to be in a country that allows gays to have all the rights as everyone else.

Although, from what I read, gay marraige isn't yet allowed there. Everything else, thankfully, is. (adoption, military, protection against hate)

[Lion]

How do you protect against hate??

Hate speech is illegal in Canada. Our freedom of speech does not give someone in the media/or any political party to write or claim that Muslims/Gays/Jews/Blacks/group defined by religion, race, sexual orientation, and age, ruin the fabric of the society, or that their acts do.

From the platform of the Texas Republican Party:

Homosexuality - We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases.

Claims like this, for a party platform is outlawed in Canada. Protection against hate. Hope this helped you understand the definition of the term now.

And personally, I think the platform that the Texas Republican Party is taking on homosexuality is nonsense. Feels like 1960s, instead of blacks, it's gays. Claims that are backed by nothing but idiotic assumptions and bigoted views.

[DuncanONeil]

You assume they are bigots! Yes, assume! You take one piece of information. The objection and determine an entire raison d'etre behind that objection.

No; you have that slightly wrong, in the UK gays have the same rights as a vanilla person. Two married lesbians can adopt a child stating that they are a family, i have to say that it goes against the grain for some bigots, but the equality laws are what the UK abides by.

Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

As much fun as it may be to make blanket statements about still highly contested mythical races. It would be nice to stay on topic and perhaps open another thread for the other topic.