Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral

[Aaron]

The obvious hypothetical concern would be that public homosexuals would pursue others in the barracks in the same manner that straight military people would pursue each other if in the same barracks.

I'm from the infantry originally, so we didn't see too many women. Im just pointing out aspects which might cause concern.

I've already pointed out that I've seen gays come on to other straight soldiers but I also said that all it takes is for the straight soldier to say no thanks. If the gay guy or gal persists it becomes harrassment and *bam* goodbye career. All it takes is a little maturity.

[Plekhanov]

Most of it would involve asking the question: Are we keeping the gay military types in a seperate barracks area? The concern is with undue fratnerization, which is why the females are kept in seperate barracks as well.

Why on earth would gay soldiers need to be segregated? I really rather doubt they are in the British forces and they still seem to function.

[Enforcer Talen]

Most of it would involve asking the question: Are we keeping the gay military types in a seperate barracks area? The concern is with undue fratnerization, which is why the females are kept in seperate barracks as well.

You mean to tell me that in the 21st Century your still keeping the women and men in seperate barracks? Fuck me, the US is backwards. No wonder the US troops used to shit a brick when they visited our barracks on exchange.

In the infantry? Yes.

[jegs2]

In the infantry? Yes.

In CS and CSS units, no. Speaking as a former company commander of one of those units, sexual misconduct and pregnancy in such units is not uncommon. Contrary to popular misconception, Soldiers are generally on their own and able to do what they want once the duty day is complete.

[Aaron]

What constitutes sexual misconduct?

[FSTargetDrone]

"They don't have them group terlets here no more, do they?"

You mean to tell me that in the 21st Century your still keeping the women and men in seperate barracks? Fuck me, the US is backwards. No wonder the US troops used to shit a brick when they visited our barracks on exchange.

More to the point, besides the rare occurance I doubt that the gays are going to be propositioning the straights if there's a bunch of gays around.

Cpl Kendall, and here I was thinking nBSG's mixed pilot quarters was fanciful (then again, the show is produced in Canada).

[Knife]

Personally, while I don't have much of a problem with gays in the service, they would pose some logistical problems implementing such a policy- so you better save your fork for someone who actually disagree's with ya.

Logistical problems, how so? Do you mean providing separate quarters on base or other facilities?

I don't see how it's any different from integrating women into the service. I think some of the people opposed to having known gays in the service (I'm not singling you or anyone else out here) comes from a hysterical belief that gays will start to make sexual advances against straight service members.

Yes and no. Atleast in the Corps. you have four men to a room with a common bathroom for ten or so rooms, including a common shower. As much as you wouldn't put a women in there with the forty other men, you're going to have the same problem with a gay man/woman in simular circumstances.

Some of the newer barracks are more like appartment complexes, so that would erase that particular issue, but a vast chunk of (again Corps) still lives in 1950-1960 era shit.

[Aaron]

Don't get me wrong, FSTargetDrone. Men and women don't actually live in the same room. We have our own rooms and have seperate bathrooms or sometimes share a bathroom but take turns using it. Depending on the type of barracks you live in. I hope I didn't give the impression that nBSG was how we lived. Men and womans rooms are on the same floor however and often next door to each other. My barrack block of 6 rooms had 4 guys (including me) and one woman in it It was an apartment style barrack block, arranged kinda like a condo.

[Aaron]

Oh yeah. We each had our own room.

[Knife]

Most of it would involve asking the question: Are we keeping the gay military types in a seperate barracks area? The concern is with undue fratnerization, which is why the females are kept in seperate barracks as well.

You mean to tell me that in the 21st Century your still keeping the women and men in seperate barracks? Fuck me, the US is backwards. No wonder the US troops used to shit a brick when they visited our barracks on exchange.

More to the point, besides the rare occurance I doubt that the gays are going to be propositioning the straights if there's a bunch of gays around.

Depends on the barracks really. Since the goverment rather spend billions on useless weapons they axe before they hit the fleet rather than infrastructure....a lot of the barracks out there are old fashion style shit. There are some newer apartment like barracks that are co-ed though. Those wouldn't be much of a problem though.

[jegs2]

What constitutes sexual misconduct?

Generally Soldiers fucking within the chain of command. For example, a section or squad leader having sex with one of his or her Soldiers. Unfortunately quite common and difficult, if not impossible, to police.

[Aaron]

Generally Soldiers fucking within the chain of command. For example, a section or squad leader having sex with one of his or her Soldiers. Unfortunately quite common and difficult, if not impossible, to police.

Yes I can see the problem with that issue. Generally most of our Section I/C's and 2 I/C's are older soldiers that are generally married so that takes care of most of those issues, that doesn't preclude affairs of coures which can and do happen but by and large if there is a an issue of this nature one of the soldiers will be moved out of the unit. Do you mean that the US Military will actually lay disciplinary charges against these individuals? Because the CF will rarely do so unless it's a severe case such as a Sgt Major and a Pvt.

[Raxmei]

Anecdotally, I've never been in a barracks with individual rooms. Basic training and AIT were both in 60-man bays. Goddamn Fucking Camp Roberts has slightly smaller bays. The best barracks I've been in was Camp Parks, which had two-man open cubicles.

Also anecdotally, the presumably straight soldiers in my all-male unit hit on me and each other quite a lot, much more than I would ever want to do even if it was permitted. Oh, and "don't ask don't tell" aside, you do get asked, both directly and indirectly. Soldiers talk about sex a lot, so unless you want to put your career on the line or pretend you're completely asexual you had better get used to lying.

[Enforcer Talen]

Generally Soldiers fucking within the chain of command. For example, a section or squad leader having sex with one of his or her Soldiers. Unfortunately quite common and difficult, if not impossible, to police.

Yes I can see the problem with that issue. Generally most of our Section I/C's and 2 I/C's are older soldiers that are generally married so that takes care of most of those issues, that doesn't preclude affairs of coures which can and do happen but by and large if there is a an issue of this nature one of the soldiers will be moved out of the unit. Do you mean that the US Military will actually lay disciplinary charges against these individuals? Because the CF will rarely do so unless it's a severe case such as a Sgt Major and a Pvt.

Feel free to skim: http://militarycorruption.com/

These aren't all fratnerization, but there is a fair amount.

[Enforcer Talen]

Anecdotally, I've never been in a barracks with individual rooms. Basic training and AIT were both in 60-man bays. Goddamn Fucking Camp Roberts has slightly smaller bays. The best barracks I've been in was Camp Parks, which had two-man open cubicles.

Also anecdotally, the presumably straight soldiers in my all-male unit hit on me and each other quite a lot, much more than I would ever want to do even if it was permitted. Oh, and "don't ask don't tell" aside, you do get asked, both directly and indirectly. Soldiers talk about sex a lot, so unless you want to put your career on the line or pretend you're completely asexual you had better get used to lying.

Thats always one thing startled me: there was more sexual conversations and innuendo in a squadbay then most parties Ive been to.

[Stile]

Generally Soldiers fucking within the chain of command. For example, a section or squad leader having sex with one of his or her Soldiers. Unfortunately quite common and difficult, if not impossible, to police.

Yes I can see the problem with that issue. Generally most of our Section I/C's and 2 I/C's are older soldiers that are generally married so that takes care of most of those issues, that doesn't preclude affairs of coures which can and do happen but by and large if there is a an issue of this nature one of the soldiers will be moved out of the unit. Do you mean that the US Military will actually lay disciplinary charges against these individuals? Because the CF will rarely do so unless it's a severe case such as a Sgt Major and a Pvt.

The US Navy is so uptight about this stuff that they will discipline when an Officer gets too buddy-buddy with an Enlisted member. Think about them applying that to sexual relations. (Athough as discussed elsewhere, it's more of a Navy thing.)

[FSTargetDrone]

Don't get me wrong, FSTargetDrone. Men and women don't actually live in the same room. We have our own rooms and have seperate bathrooms or sometimes share a bathroom but take turns using it. Depending on the type of barracks you live in. I hope I didn't give the impression that nBSG was how we lived. Men and womans rooms are on the same floor however and often next door to each other. My barrack block of 6 rooms had 4 guys (including me) and one woman in it It was an apartment style barrack block, arranged kinda like a condo.

No, I understand. My last post was made in jest.

[jegs2]

Yes I can see the problem with that issue. Generally most of our Section I/C's and 2 I/C's are older soldiers that are generally married so that takes care of most of those issues, that doesn't preclude affairs of coures which can and do happen but by and large if there is a an issue of this nature one of the soldiers will be moved out of the unit. Do you mean that the US Military will actually lay disciplinary charges against these individuals? Because the CF will rarely do so unless it's a severe case such as a Sgt Major and a Pvt.

It can become an issue for very young Soldiers, especially if they become pregnant as a result. Moreover, you can have jealousies build up within smaller units. One Soldier might be pissed that so-and-so is getting better treatment from a junior NCO because she puts out. However, such relationships may go unnoticed by more senior leadership, while their repercussions fester within the unit, degrading overall morale and effectiveness of the unit.

[Plekhanov]

Yes and no. Atleast in the Corps. you have four men to a room with a common bathroom for ten or so rooms, including a common shower. As much as you wouldn't put a women in there with the forty other men, you're going to have the same problem with a gay man/woman in simular circumstances.

Why are you so sure this would be a problem?

The US armed forces by all accounts already has a great many bi/gay troops who are forced to stay officially in the closet due to the don't ask don't tell policy. Presumably they are currently housed in the circumstances you describe, why would this situation suddenly become untenable just because they were no longer forced to stay officially in the closet?

The armed forces of most of the western world recruit openly gay troops to they currently experience the problems you predict should the US forces ever do the same?

[Uraniun235]

The armed forces of most of the western world recruit openly gay troops to they currently experience the problems you predict should the US forces ever do the same?

Doesn't your argument hinge on the notion of the social values of most of the western world being the same as those of the US?

[Plekhanov]

The armed forces of most of the western world recruit openly gay troops to they currently experience the problems you predict should the US forces ever do the same?

Doesn't your argument hinge on the notion of the social values of most of the western world being the same as those of the US?

Not at all, the 1st part of my argument concerned the fact that there are already many closeted homosexuals in the US forces and nobody has explained why these homosexuals will suddenly cause 'logistical problems' if they are can come out.

As regards the 2nd part of my argument if someone raises hypothetical fears about 'logistical problems' that openly gay troops will cause in the US (in which case the burden of proof is obviously on them to demonstrate what these problems are and why they will occur) it's entirely legitimate to ask if these 'logistical problems' have occurred in other similar circumstances.

No social values in the US don't have to be "the same" as the rest of the west for such case studies to be of value. Obviously the more similar the circumstances the stronger the inferences that can be drawn from them are but it's an appalling case of black and white thinking to state that just because there are some differences in social values say between the US and the UK that the experience the UK forces had after lifting the ban on gays serving is of no relevance to an argument about what might happen if the US forces did the same.

[Knife]

Why are you so sure this would be a problem?

The US armed forces by all accounts already has a great many bi/gay troops who are forced to stay officially in the closet due to the don't ask don't tell policy. Presumably they are currently housed in the circumstances you describe, why would this situation suddenly become untenable just because they were no longer forced to stay officially in the closet?

The armed forces of most of the western world recruit openly gay troops to they currently experience the problems you predict should the US forces ever do the same?

Before you get all caught up in your argument, remember I really don't have a problem with gays in the military. Rather it will cause some problems at first due to some antiquated housing and other small details.

Second off all, the all mighty shower argument (while not designed to thrwart gay people from ever joining) shows the extremely close quarters that people are forced to live in in some spots of the military. I'm saying that putting openly gay people in units who live in such close quarters is going to cause problems whether the gay guy is actualy aroused or not at someone else in an open shower.

I wouldn't suggest subjecting females to an open male shower, why would I propose the same sex equivilant. Which leads to them getting other housing, much like female soldiers, sailors, Marines now. Due to the disparity between male/female in pure numbers, the females get their own room or at most one roomate while the males (as I mentioned earlier) get four of them shoved in a room. This would, fairly or unfairly, display a type of favortism or the implication there of.

Obviously the solution to this particular problem is the goverment investing in better housing for it's military troops, hence while I labled it a logistical problem rather than any sort of moral or ethical problem.

And to directly respond to your question, beside US military bases themselves overseas, I have no idea what other countries military barracks look like so I have no idea in what conditions and eviroments male/female/straight/gay personel interact in such close quarters if indeed those intimate close quarters exsist.

Apperently according to Kendal, Canada's a bit further along in their housing projects, though their military is proportionately smaller than the US's.

[Knife]

Not at all, the 1st part of my argument concerned the fact that there are already many closeted homosexuals in the US forces and nobody has explained why these homosexuals will suddenly cause 'logistical problems' if they are can come out.

Your reading into my statment way too far. A logistical problem was meant to say it was a logistical problem. It wasn't any damn code word, so cool your jets killer.

In my, and now I guess the infamous, example of the open showers, I equate it no different than if we introduced females into the all male infantry. I wouldn't stick a female in an open shower with twenty guys, would you? Why would I do that with the same sex equivilant. I went into this in my last post though,

As regards the 2nd part of my argument if someone raises hypothetical fears about 'logistical problems' that openly gay troops will cause in the US (in which case the burden of proof is obviously on them to demonstrate what these problems are and why they will occur) it's entirely legitimate to ask if these 'logistical problems' have occurred in other similar circumstances.

Again you seem to think I'm speaking in some sort of damn code. Inadaquate and proper fucking housing is a god damn logistical fucking problem.

*sigh* read some sort of homophobic code in that, jeez.

*snipped the last part cuz I don't think it has anything to do with anything I said, rather about Uranium's reply*

[Kamakazie Sith]

Not at all, the 1st part of my argument concerned the fact that there are already many closeted homosexuals in the US forces and nobody has explained why these homosexuals will suddenly cause 'logistical problems' if they are can come out.

As Knife has already pointed out the logistical problem will be the need to build entirely seperate barracks for gay soldiers. However, that presents another problem because now you have barracks housing soldiers who are all sexually attracted to each other. It is a nightmare.

As regards the 2nd part of my argument if someone raises hypothetical fears about 'logistical problems' that openly gay troops will cause in the US (in which case the burden of proof is obviously on them to demonstrate what these problems are and why they will occur) it's entirely legitimate to ask if these 'logistical problems' have occurred in other similar circumstances.

Obviously, other countries haven't asked these questions. If they had I'm sure they'd conclude that placing homosexual men in with heterosexual men is a violation of privacy for both.

No social values in the US don't have to be "the same" as the rest of the west for such case studies to be of value. Obviously the more similar the circumstances the stronger the inferences that can be drawn from them are but it's an appalling case of black and white thinking to state that just because there are some differences in social values say between the US and the UK that the experience the UK forces had after lifting the ban on gays serving is of no relevance to an argument about what might happen if the US forces did the same.

The UK isn't as prudish as the US is on matters of sex. They've probably never considered the point that Knife brought up. I feel it's a valid point though. I just wouldn't feel comfortable sharing a shower with other men that would be sexually attracted to me.

[Medic]

In the infantry? Yes.

In CS and CSS units, no. Speaking as a former company commander of one of those units, sexual misconduct and pregnancy in such units is not uncommon. Contrary to popular misconception, Soldiers are generally on their own and able to do what they want once the duty day is complete.

Combat arms barracks won't have women in them because... there are no women in the units.

There are women on this floor in fact that I'm living on right now cause I'm NOT in a combat arms unit. The way they've done it on Riley, they hide them en masse on the 3rd (top) floors generally. Then again the barracks here are nice; 2 rooms with their own giant (by Army standards) walk-in closet that share a common area. Females of course only ever get female roommates and odd numbers out will get their own room entirely to themselves, esp. if that female's of rank. (read: chevrons)

With DADT you can't know if your roommate's gay unless you see his porn stash really. With a new policy gays would overnight be utterly visible because of concerns about... rooming servicemembers appropriately. Knowing this is AMERICA where gays are so loved and respected I can imagine some gay servicemembers STAYING in the closet for a time even if DADT is repealed in favor of homosexuals serving openly. Merely because of the fact that they may not know if they'll be a minority of one and they WILL likely be aware of who the homophobes in the unit are.

Change could and probably should happen but it could be messy, that's about as much as me or most of The Mess posters are saying. (nix moonbat Lonestar)