Gays in the Military Options

[USCavalry]

I think legally and publicly accepting gays into our armed forces is a step forward in a modern military. Though I can imagine some of the potential drawbacks, the benefits outweigh them in my mind.

What do you think?

[Blyat]

I thing they should have the same equality overall but basically like itanium said, if they keep with the "don't ask don't tell" rule, they prolly will be fine

But looking one step back, they still do that sometimes with women in the military too.

correct me if I'm wrong

[karmakiller]

I thing they should have the same equality overall but basically like itanium said, if they keep with the "don't ask don't tell" rule, they prolly will be fine

But looking one step back, they still do that sometimes with women in the military too.

correct me if I'm wrong

Can you explain what you're talking about here? I wasn't aware that women used to hide their sex, haha.

[heyo-captain-jac...]

Can you explain what you're talking about here? I wasn't aware that women used to hide their sex, haha.

It happened all the time. Women would cut their hair and bind their chest, and could often pass as male that way. Of course, as far as I know it never happened in the US military, but other armies with no real rigorous entry programs is where it was common.

[karmakiller]

It happened all the time. Women would cut their hair and bind their chest, and could often pass as male that way. Of course, as far as I know it never happened in the US military, but other armies with no real rigorous entry programs is where it was common.

Highly, highly unlikely that a woman disguised as a man would pass a physical and not be caught, whereas a gay man can easily say and pretend he's straight so that he can serve. So I guess I fail to see the comparison. Sure, there's still prejudice against women who do serve, but I don't necessarily think that's comparable with openly gay and lesbian people who serve.

There's a big risk with being openly gay and serving. And, if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" gets changed I don't men in the military are going to automatically accept and not target gays. Congress could pass laws to protect openly gay and lesbian people in the service, but that's not going to help much when you're on a submarine and being targeted by your fellow servicemen.

[synapse]

Highly, highly unlikely that a woman disguised as a man would pass a physical and not be caught, whereas a gay man can easily say and pretend he's straight so that he can serve. So I guess I fail to see the comparison. Sure, there's still prejudice against women who do serve, but I don't necessarily think that's comparable with openly gay and lesbian people who serve.

There's a big risk with being openly gay and serving. And, if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" gets changed I don't men in the military are going to automatically accept and not target gays. Congress could pass laws to protect openly gay and lesbian people in the service, but that's not going to help much when you're on a submarine and being targeted by your fellow servicemen.

Congress has already passed laws for the GLBT community. Whether they're in the military or not, they're still protected from hate crimes and discrimination.

[Blyat]

Congress has already passed laws for the GLBT community. Whether they're in the military or not, they're still protected from hate crimes and discrimination.

So not allowing gays to be in the military, Doesn't that technically count as discriminating them (if they are supposedly protected by that)

[mipadi]

So not allowing gays to be in the military, Doesn't that technically count as discriminating them (if they are supposedly protected by that)

Yes, but the Supreme Court ruled in Rostker v. Goldberg that "Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than 'equity.'" In other words, the rights of individuals take a backseat to what is considered to be best for the military, so the military has certain legal protections to discriminate based on criteria that are illegal in the civilian sector.

[Blyat]

Yes, but the Supreme Court ruled in Rostker v. Goldberg that "Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than 'equity.'" In other words, the rights of individuals take a backseat to what is considered to be best for the military, so the military has certain legal protections to discriminate based on criteria that are illegal in the civilian sector.

Oh I see, gotcha
that's quite a loophole there imo