How far is too far? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

filtherton · 12-13-2007, 03:00 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...5278.shtml?123

Quote:

(CBS) A gay soldier says he disclosed his sexuality to his superiors, even offering graphic proof, and was neither discharged nor reprimanded, despite the military’s "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuality.

Army Sgt. Darren Manzella appears in a Lesley Stahl report on gays in the wartime U.S. military to be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday, Dec. 16, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Manzella, a medic who served in Iraq for a year, currently serves as medical liaison for the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Kuwait, where he says he is "out" to his entire chain of command, including a three-star general. After leaving Iraq, he started receiving anonymous emails warning him about his openness that suggested he was being watched, so he went to his commander to head off an investigation he felt was coming. "I didn’t know how else to do it," he tells Stahl, acknowledging that he initiated an investigation of himself by violating the policy. "I felt more comfortable being the one to say, 'This is what is real,'" Manzella says.

He then says his commander reported him, as he was obliged to do, and then "I had to go see my battalion commander, who read me my rights," he says. He turned over pictures of him and his boyfriend, including video of a passionate kiss, to aid the investigation. But to his surprise, "I was told to go back to work. There was no evidence of homosexuality," says Manzella. "'You’re not gay,'" he says his superiors told him. This response confused him and, he says, the closest a superior officer came to addressing his sexuality was to say "I don't care if you're gay or not."

Manzella's commanders may not be the only ones who are indifferent to gays serving openly under them. Discharges of gay soldiers have dropped dramatically since the Afghan and Iraq wars began, from 1,200 a year in 2001 to barely 600 now. With the military struggling to recruit and retain soldiers, gay soldiers claim that commanders are reluctant to discharge critical personnel in the middle of a war.

Stahl spoke with several gay former military members who say they were also out openly in their units, known to be gay by as many as a hundred other service members. "They don’t care….these are our peers…the 'Will and Grace' generation," says Brian Fricke, referring to the popular television program featuring a gay character. Fricke was a Marine Corps avionics technician who served in Iraq. "They grew up with it in the media….They see gay people as people…Americans," says Fricke. "They don't see gay people as people with a disability…."

These gay former service members say they did not re-enlist because they oppose the don't ask, don't tell policy, which they say shows the military's leadership is out of step with American society and its allies. Gays serve openly in the British military and in those of the other 14 NATO countries.

U.S. Army Maj. Daniel Davis, speaking to Stahl out of uniform to emphasize that he does not speak for the U.S. military, says don't ask, don't tell is necessary to achieve cohesion among soldiers, especially those in combat. Most service members are conservative, he says, and won't readily accept gays. "If you have a moral or religious issue, you cannot order me to [bond] with that [gay] person," says Davis, a specialist in battlefield tactics. "Our purpose in the military is not social engineering….It’s about fighting and winning the nation's wars."

The story isn't that shocking. Soldier's commanding officers ignore his open gayness- this isn't really that interesting. Obviously the potential for this to occur is there, so it inevitably will.

I bolded the part i think is interesting, assuming that this guy speaks for a large number of members of the military. The purpose of the military is not social engineering, but fighting and winning wars- i don't necessarily disagree with this notion. I don't think that anyone expects the military to be on the forefront of any sort of social issues.

What i think is interesting is the apparent implication: forcing american military personel to put aside their possible distaste for homosexuality doesn't fall within the scope of "fighting and winning the nation's wars". That is to say, it is okay to ask american military personnel to kill to win wars, it is okay to ask american military personnel to put aside their possible distrust of members of other races and religions to win wars, it is okay to ask american military personnel to spend indeterminant amounts of time doing really physically and mentally uncomfortable things to win wars, it is okay to ask american military personnel to die to win wars, but it is not okay to ask american military personnel to overlook their personal distaste for homosexuals and homosexuality to win wars.

I should say that i'm not in the military and am not in a position to comment on military culture with an insider's perspective, but if this is true, what gives? It has always been my understanding that homosexuals are just as able to handle a rifle as heterosexuals, even moreso depending on the type of homosexual and the type of rifle (heh). Wouldn't allowing homosexuals to serve actually help us win wars? Why is so much respect given to homophobia while so little given to racism? If the american military is as disciplined as it claims to be, would it really be that difficult to train american soldiers to ignore the sexual preferences of their fellow servicepersons? Is it worth depriving the military of skilled members to not do so?

Willravel · 12-13-2007, 03:16 PM

Translation: "I won't fight next to a queer". Sorry, i don't buy it. You're right in that gay men are just as proficient at soldiering as straight men. The don't ask don't tell thing was okay 15 years ago when accepting gay people was suddenly a new thing because gays were allowed. It's 2007 now. Time to man up.

ratbastid · 12-13-2007, 05:29 PM

Yes, but it's time to man up IN POLICY, not just in practice.

As practiced, this is just another piece of stop-loss nonsense.

Willravel · 12-13-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Yes, but it's time to man up IN POLICY, not just in practice.

That's exactly my point. Let them in and let it be public, for god's sake. It's an outdated policy that probably wasn't the best idea even when introduced after allowing homosexuals in the US military. In 2007 it's inexcusable policy and in practice.

Plan9 · 12-13-2007, 05:45 PM

The problem with sexuality in the military is the lack of it... or an appropriate outlet. We're not supposed to have pornography let alone engage in sex with others. The military is made up of young males. We happen to like sex a lot.

Gah, you guys try being in an all-male unit for a year in the desert with only contraband porno to remind you that women even exist. Makes ya a little crazy. At first I didn't even know what to do with my then wife on midtour, but I was pretty sure it involved my junk in her box and wild hip thrusts.

The military establishes order by segregating the genders, it doesn't know how to deal with same-sex crap. Homosexuality fucks this obvious and paint-by-the-numbers system up in that it isn't a visible trait that can be put in an Excel spreadsheet.

How does this apply to homosexuality? If straight guys can't have sex while deployed... neither should gay guys. What does that mean? Segregation.

I'm all for having whatever-human-you-are and whatever-you-like-to-fuck in the military... but in practice? Equality doesn't blend well in combat zones. Not very many transvestites make the cut. The Israelis tried that co-ed thing and it failed. Gays and lesbians need to keep a low profile due to how the military already segregates the genders physically and with policy.

Sometimes gender and sexual preference segregation works... especially in those times when people are trying to blow your limbs off and shoot at you.

Focus, focus.

As much as it sucked... I'm glad that I didn't have a pair of tits in ACUs distracting me while I was tinkering with roadside bombs in Afghanistan. I'm also glad that some guy wasn't fantasizing about plugging my backside at the same time. Crude? Yeah, but that's the military. We do real dangerous work and that means not having equal rights.

casual user · 12-13-2007, 06:14 PM

i agree with the bolded part. the military is overwhelmingly conservative, and i'm sure many of them are kind of on the anti-gay side. if you let things be and just don't go into that aspect of a person's life it allows that touchy subject to be bypassed. everyone wins

personally, i never understood certain people's need to broadcast their sexuality to anyone and everyone, going to every length save wearing a billboard to make it known...that goes either way

filtherton · 12-13-2007, 06:16 PM

crompsin: So it's just a matter of keeping people from fucking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by casual user

i agree with the bolded part. the military is overwhelmingly conservative, and i'm sure many of them are kind of on the anti-gay side. if you let things be and just don't go into that aspect of a person's life it allows that touchy subject to be bypassed. everyone wins

I was under the impression that good service people followed orders. Couldn't you just order them to get over it? I've willfully put up with people whom i didn't care for and i'm very far from a disciplined person. You're telling me that american military personnel are incapable of putting aside their uncomfortability with homosexuals for the greater good?

Quote:

personally, i never understood certain people's need to broadcast their sexuality to anyone and everyone, going to every length save wearing a billboard to make it known...that goes either way

I'm all for discretion, but i don't think it should be the threshold for continued service.

superposition · 12-13-2007, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casual user

the military is overwhelmingly conservative, and i'm sure many of them are kind of on the anti-gay side.

The military may be overwhelmingly conservative, but that is predominately fiscal conservatism with a big shot of foreign policy. On social issues military are extremely open minded. They live in foreign countries and marry foreigners - most military children are racially mixed. The army desegregated long before the rest of America did. Gay people have always been in the military, and the military probably would have dealt with the issue quietly and on its own terms if it hadn't had Don't Ask, Don't Tell rammed down its throat by the Clinton Administration. Truth be told, most military people don't care if there are gay people there and wouldn't do a damn thing about it if they didn't have to enforce Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Plan9 · 12-13-2007, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

crompsin: So it's just a matter of keeping people from fucking?

As a guy who spent two tours overseas in an all-male unit where females (medics, support personnel) were rare creatures and invited over whenever possible to engage in consensual but illegal crotch-slamming... there is a good reason for our gender segregation. We'll fuck anything after about 6 months and it causes problems. Homosexuality could very well cause the same problems.

The military is made up of US citizens and some who aspire to be US citizens. There is your demographic for grading military professionalism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by superposition

The military may be overwhelmingly conservative, but that is predominately fiscal conservatism with a big shot of foreign policy. On social issues military are extremely open minded. They live in foreign countries and marry foreigners - most military children are racially mixed. The army desegregated long before the rest of America did. Gay people have always been in the military, and the military probably would have dealt with the issue quietly and on its own terms if it hadn't had Don't Ask, Don't Tell rammed down its throat by the Clinton Administration. Truth be told, most military people don't care if there are gay people there and wouldn't do a damn thing about it if they didn't have to enforce Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Righteous.

Elphaba · 12-13-2007, 07:44 PM

I think Crompsin's post and experience is closer to what can be expected in the real world of deployment. I've never experienced it, but it surely isn't what we would expect of each other back home.

That said, why are gays anymore a liability to the military as it was once believed women and blacks to be in the past? Gays who spoke Farsi were dismissed due to their sexual preference, and I can't think of a more critical function in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is there any evidence at all that gay men rape their fellow soldiers, or is it simply the homophobic fear of gays at work here?

JustJess · 12-13-2007, 08:00 PM

I believe there's some homophobia, but really, it's practical. Sex is distracting. If you can fuck your fellow man, that's distracting. The whole "don't ask don't tell" thing I think was a misguided effort to allow all men to serve without the added confusion of who they like to fuck added into it. As in - don't tell me you like other men, it will distract both you and me. Don't think about fucking anyone right now!! Right now, we're making war!

Vincentt · 12-13-2007, 08:09 PM

Don't []'s mean the guy didn't really say it?
The writer put some fairly loaded words into that sentience...

with out [bond] and [gay], it could have been anything..

Plan9 · 12-13-2007, 08:18 PM

Yeah, what the hell do I know, anyway?

Redlemon · 12-15-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincentt

Don't []'s mean the guy didn't really say it?
The writer put some fairly loaded words into that sentience...

with out [bond] and [gay], it could have been anything..

He probably said something unprintable, which was replaced with those words.

Illuminaire · 12-21-2007, 11:32 AM

In related news:
<embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/videoplayer/flvplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="355" flashvars="file=http://www.theonion.com/content/xml/65102/video&autostart=false&image=http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/PRECIOUS_GAYS.jpg&bufferlength=3&embedded=true&title=%27Gays%20Too%20Precious%20To%20Risk%20In%20Combat%2C%27%20Says%20General"></embed><br/><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/gays_too_precious_to_risk_in?utm_source=embedded_video">'Gays Too Precious To Risk In Combat,' Says General</a>

It's been such a stigma for so long, it's difficult for the military (as an uberconservative establishment) to be on the forefront of changing it. Turning a blind eye was the easiest solution they could find, I guess.

12-13-2007, 05:45 PM	#5 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	The problem with sexuality in the military is the lack of it... or an appropriate outlet. We're not supposed to have pornography let alone engage in sex with others. The military is made up of young males. We happen to like sex a lot. Gah, you guys try being in an all-male unit for a year in the desert with only contraband porno to remind you that women even exist. Makes ya a little crazy. At first I didn't even know what to do with my then wife on midtour, but I was pretty sure it involved my junk in her box and wild hip thrusts. The military establishes order by segregating the genders, it doesn't know how to deal with same-sex crap. Homosexuality fucks this obvious and paint-by-the-numbers system up in that it isn't a visible trait that can be put in an Excel spreadsheet. How does this apply to homosexuality? If straight guys can't have sex while deployed... neither should gay guys. What does that mean? Segregation. I'm all for having whatever-human-you-are and whatever-you-like-to-fuck in the military... but in practice? Equality doesn't blend well in combat zones. Not very many transvestites make the cut. The Israelis tried that co-ed thing and it failed. Gays and lesbians need to keep a low profile due to how the military already segregates the genders physically and with policy. Sometimes gender and sexual preference segregation works... especially in those times when people are trying to blow your limbs off and shoot at you. Focus, focus. As much as it sucked... I'm glad that I didn't have a pair of tits in ACUs distracting me while I was tinkering with roadside bombs in Afghanistan. I'm also glad that some guy wasn't fantasizing about plugging my backside at the same time. Crude? Yeah, but that's the military. We do real dangerous work and that means not having equal rights. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 12-13-2007 at 05:52 PM..

12-13-2007, 07:44 PM	#10 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I think Crompsin's post and experience is closer to what can be expected in the real world of deployment. I've never experienced it, but it surely isn't what we would expect of each other back home. That said, why are gays anymore a liability to the military as it was once believed women and blacks to be in the past? Gays who spoke Farsi were dismissed due to their sexual preference, and I can't think of a more critical function in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is there any evidence at all that gay men rape their fellow soldiers, or is it simply the homophobic fear of gays at work here? __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

12-13-2007, 08:00 PM	#11 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	I believe there's some homophobia, but really, it's practical. Sex is distracting. If you can fuck your fellow man, that's distracting. The whole "don't ask don't tell" thing I think was a misguided effort to allow all men to serve without the added confusion of who they like to fuck added into it. As in - don't tell me you like other men, it will distract both you and me. Don't think about fucking anyone right now!! Right now, we're making war! __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

12-13-2007, 08:09 PM	#12 (permalink)
Vincentt Addict Location: Tokyo, Japan	Don't []'s mean the guy didn't really say it? The writer put some fairly loaded words into that sentience... with out [bond] and [gay], it could have been anything.. __________________ .

12-13-2007, 08:18 PM	#13 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Yeah, what the hell do I know, anyway? __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

12-13-2007, 03:16 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Translation: "I won't fight next to a queer". Sorry, i don't buy it. You're right in that gay men are just as proficient at soldiering as straight men. The don't ask don't tell thing was okay 15 years ago when accepting gay people was suddenly a new thing because gays were allowed. It's 2007 now. Time to man up.

12-13-2007, 05:29 PM	#3 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Yes, but it's time to man up IN POLICY, not just in practice. As practiced, this is just another piece of stop-loss nonsense.

12-13-2007, 06:14 PM	#6 (permalink)
casual user Crazy Location: everywhere and nowhere	i agree with the bolded part. the military is overwhelmingly conservative, and i'm sure many of them are kind of on the anti-gay side. if you let things be and just don't go into that aspect of a person's life it allows that touchy subject to be bypassed. everyone wins personally, i never understood certain people's need to broadcast their sexuality to anyone and everyone, going to every length save wearing a billboard to make it known...that goes either way

12-21-2007, 11:32 AM	#15 (permalink)
Illuminaire Upright	In related news: <embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/videoplayer/flvplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="355" flashvars="file=http://www.theonion.com/content/xml/65102/video&autostart=false&image=http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/PRECIOUS_GAYS.jpg&bufferlength=3&embedded=true&title=%27Gays%20Too%20Precious%20To%20Risk%20In%20Combat%2C%27%20Says%20General"></embed><br/><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/gays_too_precious_to_risk_in?utm_source=embedded_video">'Gays Too Precious To Risk In Combat,' Says General</a> It's been such a stigma for so long, it's difficult for the military (as an uberconservative establishment) to be on the forefront of changing it. Turning a blind eye was the easiest solution they could find, I guess. __________________ "Noteable and witty quotes go here."