One thing that I think will come out of these wars is that "don't ask, don't tell" will be repealed. Most of the troops don't care one way or another. There are a handful at the top that pull the "good order and discipline" but there is civilian leadership above them. Anyone else who does have issues should be able to realize that the "twinks" aren't going to join.
Point blank: If you want to serve this great nation, I don't care where you "stick it".

I know I'll probably get a lot of flack about this post but I'm going to say it anyway because it needs to be said.

I spent over 20 years in the Navy beginning in the late seventies. I've never had any animosity toward gays, I just don't care what someone else is doing in private. When I joined the Navy, I started to get a bit irate with them. Certain heads, (bathrooms) were just covered with gay graffiti and they even went to the extent of cutting holes in the stainless steel partitions. That was disgusting. I have never understood the bathroom thing with gay men. But you have to realize how close you live together on a ship in those times. There was literally a six inch space between my rack, and the one next to me and at that time, there wasn’t even a curtain between you. When somebody rolled over in their sleep, you might get an arm across your face. In that environment, if a guy was gay, he’d be real smart to keep it a secret. When you have open showers and six guys getting dressed in a three foot wide space, the last thing you want to see is that seaman schmuck is over there sportin wood. I have always wondered if those people who have no problem with gays in the military would advocate co-ed berthing and showers. Because that’s what you’re doing when you have someone sexually attracted to the other people living in the same small berthing space. It does cause problems because we are human. I have seen male on male rapes on ships and other cases where there was a secret sexual relationship between two guys and when it went bad, all hell broke loose and the rest of us are just staring at each other wondering what the hell is going on. But the problem with the Navy was actually a lot less with the men than with the women.

Women in the Navy tell me that about forty percent of the women who join the Navy are lesbians. And some of them can get pretty aggressive. Senior women would sometimes coerce younger junior females into sex and it was a real problem, one which the Navy will never ever admit happens. I only found out about it when I was working the Missile test center at Pt Mugu and as a part-time thing, I had to do some counseling. I had several very pretty very young girls come to me crying that there were four of them in one barracks room and the other three were lesbians and aggressively trying to get her into it. I was pretty surprised by this because it just never occurred to me that this was a problem. As I talked to senior women in the military, I discovered there was a whole world of women in the Navy that I didn’t know about. They tell me that if there are twenty women living in one berthing space and one woman moves in who is more ‘dominant’ that the rest of them will have a change in their cycles to match hers! I thought they were pulling my leg. What kind of scary Vampirella shit is that!?!

In the military, you are supposed to follow your seniors orders and respect their rank. When sex is involved, there can be a lot of room for manipulation and coercion, that’s the same for heterosexuals too, but they are not bunking next to each other.

Again, I don’t really care what people do with their personal life, I have friends in San Diego that are gay, I don’t care, the only persons sex life I’m concerned with is mine and the woman I’m dating. I don’t like it when they start pushing it in your face. Why is there this desire among certain gays to force everybody to accept what they do in bed? I’m sure they wouldn’t like what I do in bed, but it’s NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS! Why do they insist on making their sex life my business. Which brings us to exactly what the resistance to ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell’ is about. I belive some of them want to be annoyingly flamingly gay in the work space and be able to charge someone with discrimination if they don’t like it. That’s the bottom line. I really don't have a problem working with gay people, I have many times. We had a gay guy in my last office job, he was a FLAAAAAAAAAMER. This is a guy representing the federal govt and he comes to work in see thru lacy shirts and embroided pants?? That's just not appropriate. That's the kinda thing that I think they are trying to avoid by 'Don't ask, don't tell.'

Oh, yeah, Bikerken, you're going to get the pain:

Why is there this desire among certain gays to force everybody to accept what they do in bed?

That must be convenient considering everybody already accepts what you do in bed. And broadcasting your sex life, while tasteless and trashy, is not an exclusively "gay" trait. (I could cite an example, but I'm not in the mood to argue about it right now).

This is a guy representing the federal govt and he comes to work in see thru lacy shirts and embroided pants?? That's just not appropriate.

So, again, the issue is appropriateness, no homosexuals.

That's the kinda thing that I think they are trying to avoid by 'Don't ask, don't tell.'

Well, in reference to the clothes, that's why we have uniforms. But I'll tell you firsthand that women in uniform can act like tacky sluts in front of god and everybody. So I'm not sure how discrimination against gays solves the issue of people parading their sexuality like parade floats.

Women in the Navy tell me that about forty percent of the women who join the Navy are lesbians. And some of them can get pretty aggressive. Senior women would sometimes coerce younger junior females into sex and it was a real problem

Considering that I have been on a panel concerning (generally male) commanders forcing their (generally female) subordinates into sex, I can't see how, again, this is exclusively a gay issue. It's a command issue.

That’s the bottom line. I really don't have a problem working with gay people

Yeah, just so long as they don't act outside of your expectations as to how gays are "supposed" to act.

When you have open showers and six guys getting dressed in a three foot wide space, the last thing you want to see is that seaman schmuck is over there sportin wood.

Sure, sure, as if you had to look. I'm curious why you would think that erection had anything to do with the given situation, as if erections were voluntary or something. And, oh noes!...you had to see a hard cock....so what? It is what it is...I've seen my own; it doesn't disgust me.

So, in summary:
1. You have a problem with gays who flaunt their sexuality (and so do I) but you seem to think that they're the only ones who do it.
2. You don't have a problem working with gays (how benevolent and tolerant of you!) so as long as they don't act "too" gay or anywhere outside of your comfort zone.
3. The close proximity that men live/work/sleep with each other means that homosexuals are naturally going to jump your bones. right...as if all gays are rapists or uncontrollable sex hounds or something.

This is a guy representing the federal govt and he comes to work in see thru lacy shirts and embroided pants?? That's just not appropriate. That's the kinda thing that I think they are trying to avoid by 'Don't ask, don't tell.'

Agreed, Bikerken. In the private sector, it seems as if it doesn't matter so much, but in military or federal government, there are going to be people on both sides of the issue who are going to cry "Foul!"

(In one of my first office jobs, one of the gay guys took a liking to me, for whatever reason, and used to help me pick out outfits to wear to work, and for a night out; taught me some really great makeup tricks, and even braided my hair for me! I still to this day cannot make a French braid in my hair as tight as his. o_O)

Personally I couldn't care less if the guy backing me up was gay, female or klingon for that mater. I need to know two things. Is he a good shot, is he going to plug me in the back due to bad aim. Is he/she/it going to run and leave me hanging with my nuts in the wind.

With regards to the same sex relationships last I checked there were VERY specific regulations on any intra military relationships. If the person is willing to defy military regs then you don't want them in your unit and that has nothing to do with who the get nasty with in their spare time.

"'Go back to work. You're not gay," We all know that everyone puts a specific spin on that word to suite their own prejudices. There are a group of men who regularly engage in man love (that kind of man love) but are adamant that they are not gay. I saw the History channel special on it but I'm at work so can't go looking around.

If the person is willing to defy military regs then you don't want them in your unit and that has nothing to do with who the get nasty with in their spare time.

That's a contentious point; regulations are generally considered a guideline, not hard-and-fast (no snickering!) rules. They are tailorable and flexible to a given situation.

Policies, laws and the UCMJ, on the other hand...

What AR and Vlad said. Most servicemen and women today would be perfectly fine with gays serving openly. In general, Americans born in the 1970s or later seem to have very different attitudes toward homosexuality. I suspect it's because we grew up with neutral and positive images of openly gay people in media and culture and earlier generations didn't. If our only exposure to gays growing up were Liberace and the uncle on Bewitched we might have some odd attitudes too.

"regulations are generally considered a guideline, not hard-and-fast (no snickering!) rules." Up to a point yes but I don't think that forcing/coercing your junior to give up the nasty is considered a guideline. At least I really hope not.

I had one problem with the article:

"So, what you did, in effect, by telling him, was trigger the investigation you feared was underway?" Stahl asks.

That's not how it works. he triggered the investigation by telling his command. The command investigates and (laughably) finds no evidence he's gay. There was no shadowy investigation going on behind his back, trust me. We're not that interested in conducting witch-hunts.

I am hoping, however, that he's learning good civilian work in the process, because if and when the war(s) grind to a halt, you can be we're going to go back to bad old "gay investigations".

Bikerken has good points - and AR isn't reading carefully enough. Or has never been in a deployed military unit.

If you are in a deployed military unit, you are living very close to one another. This is true whether its the navy, the marines or the army. It's a bit less so for the air force, for obvious reasons.

If you have a bunch of people living in each other's pockets, one of the biggest problems is keeping the tension under control. All the more if the people are actually in danger.

Sex is a big source of conflict and tension. If you could just eliminate sexual tension, all the better. In a unit of people all the same gender, all heterosexual, you have done just that. For that reason, the military would prefer not to have gays at all.

Since the military was explicitly forbidden to do that, they adopted the lousy "don't ask, don't tell" compromise. It is meant to at least mean that the heterosexuals don't have to be bothered by the fact that their sgt or officer has the hots for them.

Yes, these problems exist in mixed commands of men and women. But such commands are generally large enough to have separate facilities for the two genders. They don't have to shower and sleep together.

Gays should be forbidden in deployable units - for the reasons outlined above. Why? The same reason you would forbid a paraplegic - they are physically handicapped in a way that makes them unsuitable for the job. If they can hide their sexual preferences enough not to get caught - well, that's what "don't ask, don't tell" is about. But "telling" ought to be an immediate discharge.

Since the military was explicitly forbidden to do that, they adopted the lousy "don't ask, don't tell" compromise.

No, congress adopted the lousy "don't ask, don't tell" compromise and told the military it was now their policy. I think most military commanders would tell you they'd rather congress would crap or get off the pot and give them a clear policy one way or another.

they are physically handicapped in a way that makes them unsuitable for the job

Please. Women serve in deployable units and they operate just fine. Yeah, sex is a source of tension in military units, but they have a little thing called professionalism that allows them to handle it. Deployed soldiers aren't a bunch of half-assed kids on a camping trip, they're professional warriors. They're perfectly capable of handling situations a whole lot more stressful than sleeping or showering with a gay person in the romm.

Those men and women are already sleeping and showering with gays, every one of them knows it, and they're the finest combat force the world has ever seen. The idea that allowing the gay men and women already serving to do so openly is going to lead to unmanageable chaos is ridiculous. There may be tensions, but my opinion is that the military would be much better off discharging homophobes than homosexuals.

"And broadcasting your sex life, while tasteless and trashy, is not an exclusively "gay" trait. (I could cite an example, but I'm not in the mood to argue about it right now)."

I appreciate the sentiments Ayn. I'll provide you with a much desired update. I was told yesterday, "To look at that innocent face who would believe you are so nasty?" Now that's romance!

". Women serve in deployable units and they operate just fine."

Umm, no. Right now, where water is a commodity, women in Iraq are rotated back form advanced locations due to personal hygiene issues. Men won't rot if they don't bathe. Women will. So "just fine" needs an asterisk.

Amy will see I'm rehashing something I've said before, but here it is again: a military tactical or strategic position is not a place to be conducting social experiments or allowing sexual issues even to be discussed. Preparing for battle is not a place to even think about individual rights or privileges, period. Whether you are arming a nuclear warhead or an F-16, you need to pay attention to what you are doing because if you don't you will kill yourself and others.

Now, about discipline: I served on two nuclear subs from 1980 to 1986. On those boats, and in such close quarters, you know who is, who isn't, and who's thinking about it, but there is an amazingly powerful credo which determines whether you are worth a damn by how you do your job, and not so much anything else. I have no problem with people when they serve The Boat. If you see somebody going on about themselves, make no mistake: that's not serving their unit, their country or you.

It sounds like Manzella was being a moron. What I got out of the story was that after introducing his "boyfriend" he got emails telling him to turn it down (the flame). Those sound like friendly warnings, like "hey, your fly is open", Warning him to not be so non-chalante (sp?).

They did the investigation, the result: "You're not gay, get back to work." meaning: "We are going to overlook this, just shut up and... get back to work!" so he's complaining on TV. What a dumbass...

i dont know if many of you are in the military, but i am. being gay and wearing this uniform is one of the hardest things that i have ever done. knowing that if you say to much that you will be under a command investigation is scary. even worse- EVERYBODY will know why you are being investigated. the story of the medic, is an everyday story. all of the guys that i work with know im gay. not because i have a lisp or walk with a limp wrist. its just that sometimes you have to be a complete rock to not know. i havent had a girlfriend sice ive been inor even talked about having sex with a girl. but i didnt mention having sex with boys either. it is a very fine line about what you cna and cant talk about. and i have sat around with the guys from work in the office and they started talking about "the slut from the bar." i just tell them its not appropriate for work and they stop.

and blackjack-

ive been deployed on ship for six months. when youre in close spaces surrounded buy 200 other guys, you see alot of guys sportin wood. its a chemical things. you get that many guys in a small area and the smell of each others testosterone over powers the senses and you naturally are more easily aroused. not because you are attracted to men, but its a animalistic instinct. but i know how you feel. even as a gay man, when somebody is trying to get passed you in three feet of space, and yo feel a hardon rub across oyur back, its a really awkward feeling.

Thanks so much for posting that, mikey b.