When I hear most discussions on gays in the military, I’ll hear one of two arguments. The first is that it’s a travesty that our military discriminates. “How dare they?!” the people shout, in incredibly fabulous voices. They tend to remind you that gays have been in the military since the beginning of time. Remember Alexander the Great? Total queer. And I don’t have to remind you about the incredible amount of gay jokes made about the U.S. Navy. Face it, gays have been in the military killing people who are “a threat” to American soil since the start of it all.
Then, of course, the counter argument, gays are a threat to our “other” American soldiers. They’ll be too busy checking out their comrade’s ass to realize that he’s being shot and will more than likely start having sex with his dead corpse as soon as he has the chance. “They’ll just be distracted the whole time!” cry the husky men with moustaches and John Deere hats.
They’re both right. And they’re both wrong. I tend to side with the gays on this one because of lots of fun reports I’ve read. I remember the first one that really took my attention came out a few months after the attacks on the World Trade Center. It turned out that a bunch of gay translators were discharged due to their sexual orientation and this therefore decreased the size of a translating team. The documents/audio they had been translating turned out, apparently, to have a lot of information about the September 11th attacks (as in it could have prevented the whole damn thing from happening). Of course, there are conspiracy theorists who believe it was our own government who planned the attacks, but that’s a different subject entirely and I’m not going to bother you with that because you’re a nice person and nice people don’t need to deal with that.
Point is, gays know how to kill people just as good as anyone else; however, if they want to fight for the U.S. Army, they really should be silenced about their sexuality. It’s for their protection.
Have you ever met a mass amount of American soldiers? They’re an interesting crowd, aren’t they? Yes, there are quite a few who are in the army so they can fund their education, but who are the majority of our soldiers? They’re recent high-school graduates who don’t know what to do with their lives after high-school, are patriotic, and more than likely, haven’t really been in “the real world” just yet. Everything they know about people has been from experiences they’ve gathered growing up in their random suburb next to Random City, USA.
According to former Republican presidential candidate Congressman Duncan Hunter, most of our soldiers are indeed conservative (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-wJkrEnmtg) and they hold “Judeo-Christian values.” He claims that forcing these units of soldiers to change their views to accept a gay soldier is doing just that, asking them to change their views.
He’s absolutely right. Having a gay soldier in a troop is not going to deter the gay soldier from doing his job, but it will prevent the straight soldiers from doing theirs. It’s not the gay soldier who will be checking out the straight soldiers; rather it will be the straight soldiers constantly checking out the gay soldier to see if he’s screwing up. For some reason it seems conservative young men cannot grasp the idea that they aren’t always on a gay man’s mind and that a gay man has priorities other than anal sex and lots and lots of glitter.
In other words, our soldiers are just too narrow-minded. The gay soldier is in danger, not just because he’s at war with an opposing army, but because of his American comrades. He is a gay soldier in a country far away from home in the one “branch” of human life that actually encourages the use of weapons in the destruction of others.
Now, I understand that many students here at U of I are related to someone in the military or have a best friend in the military or have dated someone in the military. Hell, I’m sure a small percentage has actually served in the military. This article probably offends a good portion of you. This is why I decided to ask my friend, Soldier X (name left anonymous for obvious reasons), what his thoughts are on what would happen if he were to come out to his troop. Soldier X is a homosexual male who has served two tours over seas and has recently been training to become a Green Beret. His opinions are as follows:
“As a straight acting homosexual, if I were to come out to my fellow comrades, their reactions would be the same as when I first came out to my friends as a sophomore in high school. ‘Yeah right Soldier X.’ But were I to convince them of the truth of my sexuality, they probably wouldn’t care much. I base this opinion solely off of my performance in the field. I was always viewed by my comrades as an asset, not only being a marksman, but also being able to interpret the Iraqi language. Because of this, I don’t foresee them trying to get rid of me simply because of my sexual preference. However, that’s not to say that it’s the same throughout the military. There is always someone out there with a chip on their shoulder and nothing better to do than bust someone for being gay and discharge them. This is why I favor the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy. It protects me from such people. It would be nice to not have to hide my sexuality from those who think I’m checking them out all the time.”
As this is a blog, I hope that someone, anyone, will comment about how wrong I am. But, when you do so, I really want you to tell me why I am wrong. For instance, if you believe gays should be able to openly serve, explain to me how the gay soldier actually would be safe in his troop. Explain to me how the unit cohesion of a troop would not be threatened by a gay man’s presence.
If you feel the opposite, that gays should not serve in the military but for totally different grounds, please explain to me what they are. Do you really think that a gay soldier cannot handle his job? My friend Soldier X has clearly been able to handle his job for quite a while, but of course, he’s had to hide his homosexual identity in order to do so.
One last thought for you from Soldier X, “Having been through countless firefights, mortar attacks, and IED’s, I know first hand that the only thing going through my mind is getting out alive. Definitely not sex.”
Liam Reed: 1987 model, runs fairly well, few dents, starts in cold weather, no baggage, loves flea markets and canned soup. Send all hate mail, love mail, and sexual advances to withtongue@gmail.com
Comments
Alex Baron (Alex Baron) says:
(Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm)
Fantastic job Mr. Reed! I simply don’t see how anyone can argue with what you’ve posted here. This proves to be a rather impenetrable piece of dialectical obstetrics and you certainly deserve more than my words can wield for it here. You speak with unequivocal candor which makes for the comprehension of your ideas to be exceedingly simple to the humble reader. But it’s for your point of view on the subject matter itself that you deserve the most applause for. I believe that if a few soldiers got their hands on your blog, then with time, enough minds could be changed to just accept people for who they were born to be and get their minds out of the gutter. You keep up the good work because you’re very good at what you do and with your power of knowledge, you certainly make one hell of a formidable opponent to anyone mindless enough to stand up to you.
James Foley (James Foley) says:
(Posted May 4th, 2008 at 11:53 am)
While I think that this blog post is well written, I think you miss the point of the debate about “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” It’s not about the fear, it’s about the possibilities. Allowing your arguement to be based on the status quo is ok indicates that change might not really be necessary. Why tell your fellow troop members that you’re gay? Why tell anyone that you’re gay?
My first thought after reading this was that you use the same arguements (which Kevin pointed out) that were used until WWII regarding race in the armed forces. Why would I want a black person in my squad if I didn’t trust him cause of the stereotypes (racism) that were built up? I think what is more important is knowledge of “the other.” You cite evidence from a soldier and that is good, but I think that you limit the scope in what you wrote to one example. Were the translators which were discharged ever asked if they were gay by other service people before this issue became as controversial as it is today? A law which not only selectively enforces who is in or out, who might “be” or not, or which limits seem to everlasting because you can’t undo being homosexual according to it (since you can’t rejoin). So does this mean that homosexuality, regarded by this governmental entity, is not just a lifestyle because it can’t be undone? Yes.
You justify the social constructions but don’t look to the laws regarding gays serving in other countries (i.e. the United Kingdom). Currently, they are at war in Afghanistan and I’m pretty sure in Iraq as well. Yet from my knowledge, there have been no British glitter queens breaking up troop morale with their bottomless quantities of anal sex. There is a justification in your post that while being gay should be normal like everyone else, it can’t be because of the situation of blending into a more heteronormative group to do a stereotypically heteronormative thing. I think the reality of the situation is not so easily cut out: that I would be a threat because I somehow don’t have the same reasons to be there that everyone else does.
Mike Consalvo (Mike Consalvo) says:
(Posted May 4th, 2008 at 11:11 pm)
I know there are a lot of conservatives out there who say that gays present a distraction to the straight people in the military. They say that they can not do their job because of the gays. Well my thinking has always been if they get distracted and can not do their job because of something as simple as the sexuality of the person next to them, then how are they going to be able to handle somebody shooting at them? How can they remain calm and not be distracted when a bomb goes off near them?
I really believe that when it comes down to it, its all about survival. When people are put in a life or death situation and they have to rely on those around them, things like race, gender, religion, and sexuality go right out the door. People are then united by a bigger and more important goal: survival. None of them want to die and surviving brings them all together. When it comes down to it, given the choice of death or being saved by a queer (kinda sounds like a new FOX reality show, doesn’t it “Saved By A Queer”) people are going to choose being saved every time.
We can achieve this goal with the backing of the government. Racism and sexism are not supposed to be tolerated and homophobia should not be tolerated as well.
Kudos to Solider X, he has more courage and balls than I ever could have.
And great job on this blog Liam, keep fighting the good fight. You have made me think and see the other side.
Jensen Thome (Jensen Thome) says:
(Posted May 5th, 2008 at 6:25 am)
All about “survival”?
With 2.9 million solders, there are few “survival” situations that would offer protection for the gay solder. You can be gay as long as we’re all fighting for our lives.. Gross.
Let us not forget, military efforts are directed towards the development, refinement and procurement of our soldiers. Less effort in perfecting the professional, compassionate and successful soldier. We have different personalities in our military. Soldiers become soldiers for different reasons. I will attempt to outline the somewhat offending reasons below..
1) To pay for college
2) Family, honor, country
3) To be freed (if you were previously a slave)
4) Taking a stand against terrorism (yeah right…)
5) Personal prestige, people will blindly see you as a hero (why else wear your BDU’s to the mall?)
6) It’s the only legal way to kill a human being
7) Socially inept and/or outcast, needs structure and/or heavy discipline
Get to yell at foreign strangers
9) “blow shit up”
10) Because you hate brown people, aka “towel heads”
There are two types of soldiers always present in our military.. Healthy and dysfunctional. Times of peace favor one style, times of conflict favor another. The United States enters conflict with an incorrect balance of these two fundamentally different people.
There are great people in our military, obviously. There are a few on my list that you would expect to be diplomatic, maybe less concerned about their comrades sexuality. The disordered individuals on the list are the true liability - not homosexual soldier.
The Homosexual Conduct Policy does offer protection for our gay soldiers. Soap beatings would be the least of their worries without it. However, this policy breeds mistrust and deceit upon entry and all function in the military, everything our military stands against. Should there be a law?
Survival and the ability to do a job well is solely based on character, not sexuality.
Carl Newman (Carl Newman) says:
(Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:35 pm)
Look at all of the genuine debate you sparked. All I get is Charlie repeating “Boom, Bitch.” Like a demented parrot.
Jeff Brandt (Jeff Brandt) says:
(Posted May 7th, 2008 at 3:30 pm)
Militarism is a disease. Any institution that forces people into secrecy about their true identity is unconstitutional.
Liam Reed (Liam Reed) says:
(Posted May 7th, 2008 at 4:16 pm)
Who’s to say that the constitution is the end all be all of what’s “right?” So much of it is outdated. Not that I’m against the right to bear arms, but wasn’t the second amendment created in order to ensure that we have a militia? The constitution is becoming the new Bible in that it’s a document written in another era and being applied to a way of life that is entirely different.
Jeff Brandt (Jeff Brandt) says:
(Posted May 16th, 2008 at 5:20 pm)
OK, now you’re arguing about something unrelated because you couldn’t think of any other other rebuttal to my statement.
So you don’t like the First Amendment? Having free speech should be something of the past that we don’t follow anymore, like having militias?
If that’s what you’re arguing, then I completely disagree with you. There are parts of the constitution that seem outdated, but the First Amendment will never be one of them.
Liam Reed (Liam Reed) says:
(Posted May 18th, 2008 at 3:11 am)
Oi. Fine, I’ll look at your comment again then.
Part 1) Militarism is a disease.
Militarism is when a nation believes it should have a military in order to protect the nation’s interest, correct? If so, I disagree that it is a disease. But maybe I just have this disease and therefore believe that the U.S. does indeed need a military. Do I agree with a war on oil? No. But our government believes it is in the best interest of our nation. Will I continue to protest against them and make it clear to them that I disagree? Yes. But I’m not going to show my soldiers any less respect because of it. I respect them because they are fighting for their nation in a physical aspect, something I would not be willing to do. It’s not a disease.
Alright, the first amendment. No, I like free speech. I mean, clearly, at the same time that I am saying the army deserves our respect I’m also saying that most of them are ignorant and cannot handle being around gays. Clearly I like this freedom.
However, I also realize that the army is a voluntary organization. They have reasons for the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. Sure, you can write whatever you want as a response to this blog, but since it clearly is involved with the university, do you think I’m not supposed to watch what I write? The217 is voluntary in that I have to follow guidelines as well. Whoever is in power makes the rules, and since gays are stripped of very basic freedoms, it’s pretty clear that they’re not the ones in power. Maybe some day, but we’re still under Bush right now, baby. There’s still a lot of work to be done before the army can convince all of the voluntary conservative soldiers that working alongside a gay man will not be dangerous to their health.
No, I’m not arguing that the First Amendment is outdated, but I believe that a lot of the constitution is, just as much of the Bible is, and therefore I dislike when people say something is unconstitutional. I’d rather hear “it infringes on basic human rights” rather than “this one document from 300 years ago says this shouldn’t be so!”
Jeff Brandt (Jeff Brandt) says:
(Posted June 8th, 2008 at 8:24 pm)
Okay. But “basic human rights” are subjective.
Add your comment
the217
Sections
Buzz Magazine
Liam Reed
1987 model, runs fairly well, few dents, starts in cold weather, no baggage, loves flea markets and canned soup. Send all hate mail, love mail, and sexual advances to withtongue@gmail.com
Kevin McLoughlin (Kevin McLoughlin) says:
(Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 7:05 am)
I’m always puzzled by the argument that dodging gunfire will convince the gays to ignore their sex drives, but not conservative straight men to ignore their homophobia. According to Eric Alva, there is actually an increasingly large percentage of soldiers saying that they wouldn’t mind soldiering up with a queer - apparently when you’re getting shot at, the last thing you’re worrying about is if the dude next to you is checking out your ass.
I am also puzzled by the idea that asking our soldiers to change their views about queers is somehow a bad thing. Would he have made such arguments against integrating our once racially segregated troops?
It wasn’t until WWII that black and white soldiers began to train and fight together. I’m sure that made people uncomfortable then, but they - and our nation - survived. The men in power realized the intense injustice of asking someone to die for their country while also implying that they did not deserve equal treatment and recognition.
If my government asks for my life, they’re going to get it - but they’re going to get all of it, and that includes my boyfriend’s picture in my bunk.