Soldier Comes Out To Father After Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal

reply to post by gabby2011

I'm not sure of putting it on YouTube either, although I do salute him, and I'm sure there will be others.
But then again, a younger generation puts almost anything on the Internet these days.
Why not?
If you're out of the closet, why not go the whole hog?

Besides, there are two ways of being safe these days.
Either you remain private to almost paranoid extremes.
Or you go and shout from the roof tops.
For me, going half-way in the army may leave you at risk.
They may just wait to identify you and then work you out by other means, and then you can't even prove you were gay or discriminated against afterwards.
So possibly it's a celebration, but also a way to insure yourself?

Originally posted by Carseller4
Glad he is not my son. I would have been so ashamed.

Sure flamboyant. But that is there style I guess?

If you can be ashamed of your child because of their sexual preference.... You suck as a parent.


Flamboyent? How flamboyantly bigoted.

Originally posted by marg6043
I believe sexual preferences are private and should be discreet, I do not go around telling people what kind of sex I like to have.

How does telling your parents that you are gay, equate to talking about what you enjoy in bed?

I bet you are quick to point out that you are straight if some one asks what your sexual preference is. Or are you really discreet and respond by saying, " I will not answer such a question because I believe in being discreet"?

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by buster2010

 

The only discrimination I saw in the military in my 20+ years as a Marine wife was when the issue of HIV became a supposedly health problem within the military.

I have heard of several cases in which people were forced to leave the military once it was found out that they were gay. That is discrimination and the repealing of Don't ask, don't tell will stop that discrimination.

It was discrimination that people who are gay, had to hide it. Did straight people have to hide it? How many women to you think the straight soldiers talked about banging while on leave? What do you think would happen if a gay male soldier talked about the men he slept with while on leave?

Discrimination. You saw it.You just ignored it because you agreed with it.

Was your husband ever in combat? I wonder how many gay soldiers he owes his life to. More than you know, no doubt.

That said, the only thing flamboyant I have seen in this thread, is the bigotry.

My words will not change your feelings, no doubt. But hey. I tried.

Good luck to you.

Hmm... I wonder how many will think I am gay for speaking out in support of gay people. Now, ask me if I care what you think?

I'm happy for this guy - who ever he is - that he was able to tell his Dad about something so personal about himself. It obviously weighed on him. I dont think its so much about a putting picture in your parents head about your sex life, as much as it is about being open and honest about who you are. I would want my children to share this with me.

And I would love them - no matter what...

I just wonder how long it will take until somebody hoaxes something like this (or claims something like this is a hoax) in order to get discharged by provoking some reaction.
The soldier who feigns gayness or gender confusion to get out of the army (usually unsuccessfully) has been a long-standing trope and stereotype in military comedy.

Thinking conspiracy - what proof do we have this is real?

Personally I think this is real (and hopefully there will be some media out soon to confirm this).

However, one does read that the US has a substantial amount of soldiers who want out of their contracts.

Therefore I somehow feel that gay soldiers are now going to be under extra scrutiny, and may face a tougher run than others in order to deter chancers who think that mincing about the barracks will get them discharged to their girlfriend sooner.

Originally posted by Char-Lee
disgusting parades in San Francisco and gay hot tub world brought up on talk shows which just makes anyone with children and values that call for keeping our private lives private cringe.

Because tailhook was so much better than a gay pride parade......

While I agree that sexual preference is no one else business, in this case its a little convaluted because in public, its nothing to see a person walking down the street holding his girlfriends hand / vice versa.

See 2 guys or 2 girls do that, and you can see the looks, muffled talking etc...

reply to post by Xcathdra

And then they mention the families and the children - always the children.
How many Iraqi children has the world seen maimed and wounded?
Whose "family life" is sacrosanct, and whose was expendable?
No matter how one frames "just wars" or "necessary defense" - bombing and war are not friendly to "collateral damage" like children by definition!

Oh, but every member of a money-grabbing cult and religion can proclaim their beliefs openly these days.
They can even make their poor kids stand in the streets with posters about how they hate certain people that they know nothing about.
And that's OK to indoctrinate "the children"!

But oh dear, the reality that some adults are attracted to and love the same gender - oh no, the children must never know that!

reply to post by halfoldman


How bout you go back and explain how your political rant aginst the US is relevant to the topic at hand?

Or are Us soldiers being killed because Islam hates homosexuals?

Please, fill us in....

reply to post by Xcathdra

There is no rant against the US at all.

However there is a rant about double standards concerning children and what armies essentially do in warfare, and also about religions in general, who are quite happy to involve children in hate politics, or indoctrinate them with hellfire and worms eating people if they don't follow the fold to the tee (for example), or they are taught to kill for some deity.
And yet telling kids about the reality that some people are gay is considered abhorrent.

That goes for some people and groups in the US, as it does in some Islamic groups.

Since the person you initially replied to mentioned children and families in this debate in a US context, I replied to that, but it could apply to all warfare.

It just irks me that for some the very concept of gays is worse than any evil under the sun.
But do note that I mentioned "just wars", implying many countries (and many sides think they have a "just war"), and I've seen the kids of radical Muslim with their hateful posters and even fake suicide bomber belts in SA. So it was really a general comment.

The point is: mention gays, and here they come with the "save the children" arguments - often the very type of fundamentalists that have a hardline attitude to "the enemy", and that's the same in many cultures.

The issue with being gay in the military never surrounded abilities to perform in combat. It revolved around what would happen to the unit as a whole - good order and discipline.

Ironically enough the exact same argument was used sometime back, except in that case the integration of blacks into the military would disrupt the unit and cause a breakdown in good roder and discipline.

Whats the point of telling gays they arent good enough to openly serve, while going to war in other countries to secure their freedom?

reply to post by Xcathdra

That's all very true.

And of course the army traditionally set a kind of standard for masculinity.
It certainly couldn't allow openly gay soldiers if this was not allowed by the civil judiciary, and until about 3 decades ago the army in most Western countries reflected the civilian law and attitudes.

But it went further than that in some cases - it actually believed that it could "make men", or "cure" queerness.
In times of conscription many a recruiter would ignore young men who claimed to be gay in the belief that these "confused" men needed the army more than others!
At the same time some straight men got out of it by claiming they were gay (as Jim Morrison did, along with some speed).

So there is a kind of shifting in meaning of a central institution - but to me it only reflects wider changes in society (rather belatedly for the US, I'd think).

But for myself, recalling the SADF before 1994, these issues are not quite resolved.
Because being gay is not as recognizable as being black or another minority, I worry about what might happen, and it might not be the smooth sailing that many gay people expected.
The professional army of the US is large and even turns people away on minor grounds, unlike armies who essentially need everybody because they have a small population.
Well, we'll see what happens.
I wouldn't jump for joy yet.

reply to post by halfoldman


The military should not be a device of social change. It was not created for that....

To me the military violates its own standing orders and requirements by forcing people to not be who they are.
A person joins to support and defend their country.

Nothing like repaying them with contempt and saying they arent good enough....

To assume that a person cant keep their hands to themselves while under fire is ridiculous.

To not like someone because of a personal belief is one thing. To lend weight to that belief to the level of punishing people for being gay is no different than the nazis executing people they felt were not of pure genetic stiock / mental problems / etc.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Talk about forgetting our history.....

reply to post by Xcathdra

Well, I'm glad you take that view.
Fighting very oppressive people like the Nazis certainly did make people want to change the oppression they experienced when they came home, whether in the US or the colonial world.
It seemed indeed that fighting for the freedom of others made people consider their own freedoms, or lack there-of.

But the military is a product (and sometimes catalyst) of social change.
Just as it was when it first allowed black men, and much later - women.
And this is the latest example.

Its central role may not change, but who can perform roles in that system certainly does.
And as you've intimated it can be the great equalizer in society.

But to some change is difficult.
But I hope for the best.