Lets dispell this gay myth

[mainerjohnthomas]

The problem with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is that it forces people to live in secrecy - demands them to suppress who they are in order for a few homophobes to feel more comfortable with themselves. As a woman in the military, I spent my basic training sharing a mod tent with 10 men and 3 other women. I had to change in front of them every day, and have been in some pretty close quarters, both in garrison, and in the field, having to use the washroom in front of men, get changed, and do all sorts of "personal" stuff.

Have you ever been to a swimming pool in Europe (most parts)? You'll find that, very often, the shower facilities are co-ed. Also, the prevalence of nude and topless beaches throughout Europe show that they are not nearly as repressed with regards to nudity as North Americans are. Heck, Janet Jackson showed part of a breast for a fraction of a second on television and it made worldwide news (I still can't figure out why - they're fake anyway). If North American society were as liberal and open with nudity, I would be able to accept the idea of co-ed showers. If North American men were able to divorce the idea of nudity and sex, I think it would be a pretty huge leap for our society in general, and would also do a great deal to kill off a lot of the homophobia going around.

Perpetuating a status quo that attempts to segregate minorities does nothing to help the problem. If people's attitudes are to change (and make no mistake that this is a form of discrimination as real and dangerous as racism and sexism) - shutting them out or forcing their beliefs under wraps is not the way to solve it. You seem to defend perpetuating the problem instead of solving it.

  According to statistics, several of the men I served with were gay (if you go by percentages).  Since I managed to go through several years of close quarters without it becoming an issue, then I guess the "don't ask, don't tell" works.  If they don't make an issue of their sexuality, then why should I?  As far as that goes, I served along side many women, in fact, on one memorable exercize, I had an all female detatchment (my favorite, actually).  As we living in quite close quarters in the field, with the usual (non-existant) body modesty, it was only professionalism that kept our heterosexuallty from becoming an issue.  Sexual harassment is unprofessional reguardless of orientation.  If you respect each others boundries, then sexuality is a non-issue.  If a guy is gay in the showers, its none of my business.  If I guy is making a point about oggling someone, then I guess he's going to get his a$$ kicked.  If I made an a$$ of myself oggling any of the women I served with, I would expect them to call me on it, and bring my butt up on charges, because that is unprofessional.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote from Combat Medic,
Perpetuating a status quo that attempts to segregate minorities does nothing to help the problem. If people's attitudes are to change (and make no mistake that this is a form of discrimination as real and dangerous as racism and sexism) - shutting them out or forcing their beliefs under wraps is not the way to solve it. You seem to defend perpetuating the problem instead of solving it.

Nice thoughts, I wish that you hadn't blown any credibility you had with it when you spouted this one.

If North American men were able to divorce the idea of nudity and sex, I think it would be a pretty huge leap for our society in general, and would also do a great deal to kill off a lot of the homophobia going around.

 

[Trinity]

easily enough fixed

If North American VALUES were able to divorce the idea of nudity and sex, I think it would be a pretty huge leap for our society in general, and would also do a great deal to kill off a lot of the homophobia going around.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The phrase is fixed but not the attitude that is prevalent there........

 

[c4th]

Perpetuating a status quo that attempts to segregate minorities does nothing to help the problem.

The CF and by extension the combat arms is not a social experiment.  Nowhere in our mission statement does it state (I double checked):

The Canadian Forces will promote the Canadian Governments perceived and stated social agendas in order to bring about change to the status quo.

Group dynamics force conformity onto the members of the group.  Walk into any mess in the country.  Those who talk the same, dress the same, drink the same are sitting together.  The one guy who is different will probably be sitting alone.  Since it is unlikely that the homosexual member is going to suddenly change his orientation in order to conform to the group it is more likely that he is going to be the one guy alone. 

As far as I can see here we are talking only about gay men (not women) in close quarters or the combat arms.  If I'm right, we are talking about an incredibly small percentage of soldiers.  The frequently used statistic of 10% of the population being homosexual does not correlate to 10% of the combat arms being homosexual.  If this were the case, of the hundreds of soldiers I have personally known, I would probably have known more gays than I do.  From my personal experience 0% is a much more accurate statistic.  To parallel GO!, if someone can give any reason owing to operational requirements why the status quo of don't ask don't tell should change, lets hear it.  Even better if someone can tell us for certain that there is anything to tell, lets hear that too

 

[Kat Stevens]

The CF and by extension the combat arms is not a social experiment.  Nowhere in our mission statement does it state (I double checked):

The Canadian Forces will promote the Canadian Governments perceived and stated social agendas in order to bring about change to the status quo.

In theory, no. In practice, the CF has been a petri dish for social engineering for a very long time. SHARP and son-of-SHARP told us one thing: All soldiers are equal, but some soldiers are more equal than others.  As soon as we allowed identifiable groups to modify dress, speech or behavior, the word "uniform", in all of its definitions, became irrelevant.  Beginning to ramble here, BAAAAD hangover, but I hope my point sticks....

CHIMO,  Kat

 

[Infanteer]

Group dynamics force conformity onto the members of the group.  Walk into any mess in the country.  Those who talk the same, dress the same, drink the same are sitting together.  The one guy who is different will probably be sitting alone.  Since it is unlikely that the homosexual member is going to suddenly change his orientation in order to conform to the group it is more likely that he is going to be the one guy alone.

I know that it has been mentioned before and that the circumstances are a bit different due to the issue being one of sexual preference rather than gender or race, but these were the exact things said about letting Blacks and women into the working ranks of the US Military.

Look now, the US is ably served (and better off) with Black Generals and women doing their share (and dieing) in Iraq (although not in Combat Arms MOS, but that is irrelevent these days).

The "Cohesion"/"Social Experiement" arguement just falls short - sometimes the Military has to roll with the times, whether the ranks like it or not, and it seems to come off better for it.

As far as I can see here we are talking only about gay men (not women) in close quarters or the combat arms.  If I'm right, we are talking about an incredibly small percentage of soldiers.  The frequently used statistic of 10% of the population being homosexual does not correlate to 10% of the combat arms being homosexual.  If this were the case, of the hundreds of soldiers I have personally known, I would probably have known more gays than I do.  From my personal experience 0% is a much more accurate statistic.

This I agree with - the statistics make this a real non-issue.  The combination of self-selection factors involved in becoming a soldier will most likely mean a very small percentage of gay soldiers in the Combat Arms where contact is up-close and personal.  For those that do, a serving solder who happens to be gay is probably going to recognize the circumstances and be discreet about his/her preference, knowing that it will more than likely create issues in our current society.  Notice the story that touched this debate off, the two soldiers getting married - they kept their name private because they just wanted to live their lives and do their job.

To parallel GO!, if someone can give any reason owing to operational requirements why the status quo of don't ask don't tell should change, lets hear it.  Even better if someone can tell us for certain that there is anything to tell, lets hear that too

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is not a Canadian policy - it is a US one (I'm sure you know that, just clarifying).  Anyways, here is an article from the Journal Parameters concerning the subject (if anyone is interested):

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03summer/belkin.pdf

 

[Britney Spears]

Look now, the US is ably served (and better off) with Black Generals and women doing their share (and dieing) in Iraq (although not in Combat Arms MOS, but that is irrelevent these days).

<http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/10/1070732282843.html?oneclick=true>Gay ones too</a>

 

[c4th]

I know that it has been mentioned before and that the circumstances are a bit different due to the issue being one of sexual preference rather than gender or race, but these were the exact things said about letting Blacks ...working ranks of the US Military.

Turns out that Canadian CO's used the same arguments in WW1 until the reinforcements were needed.  Operational requirements eventually dictated.

The "Cohesion"/"Social Experiment" argument just falls short - sometimes the Military has to roll with the times, whether the ranks like it or not, and it seems to come off better for it.

I think the military will roll with the times whether it wants to or not, and from what I see it is leaps and bounds ahead of the private sector in terms of employment equity do to the rules we have in place and the fact the we more than any other business or government body is concerned about the well being of our people at the lowest level.  Unit cohesion is every commanders concern.  Thinking that the CF can be utilized as some social experiment or driving force representing a cross section of society is foolish. 

 

[GO!!!]

No where in the CF rules (QR+O, CSD et al) does it say that you will be entitled to air your preferences and not be ostracised by your peers for them. (note: ostrasized â “ not harassed)

â Å“A few homophobesâ ? is not the issue, nor is fear â “ that's what the â Å“phobeâ ? suffix means. It is my right not to feel uncomfortable at work, and knowing that I can rely on the remainder of my team to work well together.

I think that you are also confused as to the definitions of â Å“repressedâ ? and â Å“progressiveâ ? as well. Because  I do not wish to shower with members of the opposite sex, I am repressed? How about modest â “ or even shy? Because we do not allow pornography to be used in mainstream advertising (like those â Å“progressiveâ ? Europeans)? Acceptance of alternative lifestyles is not an indicator of any sort of advance â “ it is an indicator of the power of the special interest group that represents them.

Homophobia does not need to be â Å“killed offâ ?, just as homosexuals are not a persecuted minority. If you make it known to your peers that you are indeed gay â “ that was your choice â “ no one chose for you â “ as is the case for women and visible minorities. Once again (I think this is #3) Don't ask â “ don't tell.

Also, as has been pointed out here â “ there are very few homosexuals in the Cbt Arms, and to be quite blunt â “ they are not needed â “ no operational requirement. There is no law that gives gays an inaliable right to serve in any portion of the army they choose to. And if they do, they are never asked and forced to answer any questions about their sexual orientation. Don't ask â “ don't tell.

And as I stated before â “ is there any precedence for a regular western infantry unit deployed with openly gay members? I'm listening.

 

[48Highlander]

There is no law that gives gays an inaliable right to serve in any portion of the army they choose to. And if they do, they are never asked and forced to answer any questions about their sexual orientation. Don't ask â “ don't tell.

Well, it's not a law per-say, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states

"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

As for the ol' don't ask don't tell argument, that's right out of 'er.  What if I'm offended by Jews or Muslims?  Does that mean you shouldn't discuss your religion either, or wear any religious symbols?  What happens when I start cracking racist or religious jokes around you?  Make light of the holocaust in front of a jewish member of the CF?  In the end it's the same thing - either you're open minded and accepting of the beleifs and preferences of others, or you're not.  I don't care if you descriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, or sexual preference, none of them should be allowed, and all of them will tarnish the proffesional image we try to display.

 

[Infanteer]

Well, it's not a law per-say, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states

"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

That's what I was looking for.

GO!!!, it's funny that you would mix:

It is my right not to feel uncomfortable at work

and....

No where in the CF rules (QR+O, CSD et al) does it say that you will be entitled to air your preferences and not be ostracised by your peers for them. (note: ostrasized â “ not harassed)

Soooo...which is it?

Contradictory, don't you think?   Or is it only the hetero soldiers that deserve the right not to feel uncomfortable at work?

Personally, I think that Section 15.1 of the Charter overrides your "right not to feel uncomfortable".   "Right not to feel uncomfortable" in the military sounds quite ridiculous - it can probably be extended to demanding a tent, hot water, and three meals a day while in the field.

I agree with you on ostracism - there is a natural order to fighting units which attracts alpha males and there are major links between violence and sexual selection (see Ghiglieri, The Dark Side of Man) - gays and women may find this a tough nut to crack into and tight male groups centered around aggresive bonding aren't required to open up socially (as opposed to professionally) with outsiders.   However, this social idea doesn't allow us to override professional obligations that the CF requires us to uphold.

Your raising a good issue, but in my opinion the line of your argument sucks.

 

[Fry]

I don't think this thread will ever end.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

And as I stated before â “ is there any precedence for a regular western infantry unit deployed with openly gay members? I'm listening.

I didn't mean to engage on this thread and will back off after this post.  However, I had to add (since it sounded like a challenge) that I can name at least three without thinking about it...two in the Canadian Regular Army (one infantry), one in the NZ Army.  I also know - from first hand experience - that both the Dutch and the Danes have gay members in their combat units.

And before anyone asks for "evidence" or "proof", I'm not saying who or providing any more details.  On this one, you'll have to take my word for it.  Suffice it to say that it wasn't (and isn't) an issue for me, including on operations.

TR

 

[Trinity]

I don't think this thread will ever end.

And thats not a bad thing Fry... not in the least

So GO... what about lesbians..  So you don't shower with them...
And they still serve in many roles including infantry.  Are we allowed
lesbians but not gay males because it doesn't make you feel uncomfortable?

 

[48Highlander]

Aw, stop with the showering argument.   The large majority of new recruits are UNcomfortable to be using group showers around straigt men even, but they stil have to do it - so comfort obviously isn't a factor for men.

On the other hand women generaly not only shower away from the men, but in their washrooms they have seperate shower stalls because of their "needs" - which really just means we want to make them more comfortable.

Really, we shoulda done it the way the Brits did when they allowed women into the combat arms, and made everyone shower together.   Sure maybe the guys would get excited at first, but they'd get used to it fast, and as soon as one of the women got to "that time", most guys would lose all interest in looking at them again

 

[Trinity]

Aw, stop with the showering argument.  The large majority of new recruits are comfortable to be using group showers around straigt men even, but they stil have to do it - so comfort obviously isn't a factor for men.

The shower defense seems to be the biggest argument of the opposed side yet it really
doesn't seem to hold water... (pardon the pun).... but they still cling to it 14 pages later.

 

[Fry]

Yep, the showering bit is a big arguement, but what can ya do? Yes, the sexes were divided and supposed to shower seperatly and stuff, but what can you do about the situation now? The only thing I can see, is to brand everyone'[s sexual orientation on their forehead, and make them walk into showers with peers they aren't attracted to, lol. Totally stupid, and illogical.

What I'm saying, is that I've realized that we can argue over who's right and who's wrong... but the problem will never be resolved. We'll all just have to go on living our lives, treat everyone with the respect they deserve... despite on what some of us may believe.

 

[Infanteer]

As I mentioned to 48th, you're all probably uglier than me, so I don't want to see any of you in the shower, gay or straight.

 

[neuromancer]

As I mentioned to 48th, you're all probably uglier than me, so I don't want to see any of you in the shower, gay or straight.

and as a spokesman for all the ugly hairy neanderthals out there... we dont want to see you either!  ;D