US Army to Sgt. Stout: "Thanks for the blood, now get the hell out."

Mystech

Adult Supervision Required
Registered Senior Member
WASHINGTON - An Army sergeant who was wounded in Iraq wants a chance to remain in the military as an openly gay soldier, a desire that's bringing him into conflict with the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.


http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_gay_040805,00.html?ESRC=army.nl

It's really nothing new, war time or no, we've still got to get rid of our servicemen if we find that they're a bunch of peter-pumpers.

A recent congressional study on the impact of "don't ask, don't tell" said that hundreds of highly skilled troops, including many translators, have left the armed forces because of the rule, at a cost of nearly $200 million, mostly for recruiting and training replacements for 9,500 troops discharged between 1994 and 2003.

Is there any price too high to pay to satisfy the fragile ideals of what manhood and fitness for duty really are held by the frightened and ignorant men in Washington and wearing the brass?

Sgt. Robert Stout, 23, says he has not encountered trouble from fellow soldiers and would like to stay if not for the policy that permits gay men and women to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret.

Even after being hit by shrapnel from a Grenade, Stout is ready and willing to go back into action, and serve country that wouldn't have him; too frightened by the prospect of the fact that different in some ways, though he may be, he's still a human being, and still identifies as a patriotic American willing to put his life on the line for us all. It's quite a shame that neither his willingness nor his ableness, and not even his prior service or proof of dedication to the cause have anything to do with the consideration of his discharge.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the military, said a better way to avoid the cost of replacing soldiers who are discharged for being gay is to make it very clear to people who enlist in the military, including Stout, that they are ineligible to serve if they are gay.

"I honor and respect his service to this country, but the fact that he's wounded really doesn't change the underlying fact. ... He is not eligible to serve," Donnelly said, adding that there are many reasons why people aren't eligible to serve. "This is just one of them."

Well I've got to hand it to fellow sciforums poster, Baron Max. It seems that his dog-dumb anti-analysis summation that rules are rules, and are somehow beyond any reach of logic reason or assessment seems to be catching on. I must be getting old; the idea that rules were to serve some sort of purpose seemed to be much more prevalent when I was young.

Mrs. Donnelly's assessment of the situation, as absurdly fatalistic and unthinking, though it may be, causes a little smile to creep across my face each time I read over it. It reminds me of an episode of the Cartoon Network's "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" In which Frylock asks Shake if he finds it at all odd that their friends Meatwad and Carl were washing the car at midnight - Ever dense and dismissive, Shake just shrugs and says "People do things, It's a fact!" and creeps away, satisfied that the situation has been adequately addressed. Though the scene may lose a bit of humor in translation to text, I assure you that the delivery on the show is simply hysterical. Kind of a shame that our country's leadership shares the spirit of message with a talking milk shake, though.

Stout said he suspected while in high school that he was gay but didn't acknowledge it until later. "Then I noticed that it wasn't a phase or anything. This is me," said Stout, who enlisted in the Army after graduating in 2000.

A familiar story, my own discovery of my homosexuality was fairly similar, lots of odd feelings in highschool that I just considered a phase, and gradual acceptance later on. Stout is only a year older than me, if things had gone different I could have been in the same place as he's in now. I was wondering how to pay for college, and my parents and I were thinking that serving in the army might just be a good way to go about it.

Indeed a few of my highschool buddies have been over in Iraq. They've killed, and been shot at, they've come back changed, and seeming a lot older than they were last I saw them. One of my classmates, one year my junior returned from his third tour recently. He went back to my old highschool, which my little sister now attends. He spoke to the students, told 'em what life was like out there. He was treated as an honored guest of the school, hailed as a hero. Just as Stout was, when he was Awarded his Purple Heart.

The discovery, however, of one rather trivial piece of information - simply who he was thinking about back home to keep him going each day, to kill when he had too and stay focussed on his job transformed him from a hero into an exile, and anathema. We honored him, he's ever god-damned kid we think of when we tie those yellow ribbons around our mailboxes, and put the stickers on our cars saying that we support our troops. Now, though all we've got to say to him is "Thanks for the blood, Stout - yours and theirs, now get the hell out of our sight, you make us sick."

I can think of no final words of incense and disgust. I'm going now to seek strong drink, and put on Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut". There are times when I can't bear to admit that this is America.
 
Being an old Army combat man, I wonder how I'd feel if I knew that someone like Stout were "watching my back" .....or would he be checking out my ass or the bulge in my pants instead of watching for the enemy???? ....and get me killed??

And should I have to take showers with a guy who's gay? And sleep in the same barracks with a guy who's gay? And them "checking me out" for in the hope of a possible late night cocksucking?

No, gays are just not the same as straight men ...no matter what y'all want to say. It ain't much different to putting a few men in the same barracks as the women and expect that the men wouldn't want to look and maybe do something? Would you advocate that? Would the women go along with it without some protest?

Gays are different. They admit that they're different. So why should they want to be considered as the same??????????? ...ain't quite got that thru my head!!

Baron Max
 
Back in the early 90's there was an interview with an elderly black man in the local Tucson newpaper (the Daily Star?). I'm sure he's deceased by now, he had served in the cavalry in southern Arizona in the late teens - early twenties. He had many interesting stories, stories that it seemed impossible for a living person to have experienced.

The whole "Gays in the military" flap was in full force at the time. They asked him about it, and he said something like this: "There were funny men in the Army back then. You knew who they were. If you left the funny men alone, they left you alone."

It's really just that simple. You can be sure that you served with at least a few gay men Baron. Fortunately for your fragile sensibilities you were ignorant of that fact. You paranoia reeks of insecurity. Gay men don't "get" anyone who doesn't want to be gotten. Yes, if one tries to pick up on you it can be disconcerting. I'm not such a beefcake that it happens all of the time, but it has. Express your lack of interest, and they move on. It's just that simple.
 
Repo Man said:
Gay men don't "get" anyone who doesn't want to be gotten. Yes, if one tries to pick up on you it can be disconcerting. I'm not such a beefcake that it happens all of the time, but it has. Express your lack of interest, and they move on. It's just that simple.

Well, couldn't the same thing be said of women? So why don't we put women in the same barracks and showers as all the men? Paranoid insecurities, perhaps?? ...LOL!

I did serve with some gay men and you're right ....they didn't bother me and I didn't bother them. BUT ...and when they were "found out", they were kicked out of the military. Hey, gay men are different ...they admit that they're different, so why should they be accorded the same as straight men? That part I just don't get.

And no, I'm not paranoid nor am I insecure -- I'm too fuckin' old for either of those to mean anything! ...LOL! But that doesn't mean that I support gays in the SAME military as the straight guys. Gays are different and should be treated differently .....just like the military treats women differently from the men.

Baron Max
 
Given a choice, Baron, I'd rather do away with all the soldiers in the world and keep the homosexuals.

I'm glad I'm not a soldier and never have been. I sure wouldn't want to entrust my life to someone who has time to resent my sexuality while we're taking fire. Call me an armchair theorist, but it seems it would be better to have someone beside me on the line who has their priorities straight. Of course, that opinion is developed in part by listening to combat veterans talk about the nature of combat. It would be ... um ... interesting ... to think that they were all lying.
 
Baron Max said:
Hey, gay men are different ...they admit that they're different, so why should they be accorded the same as straight men? That part I just don't get.

Well mostly because that difference doesn't exactly mean a whole lot. Most of us end up getting over the drama of it all eventually and feel ready to just move on with our lives as scheduled. Kind of a shame that bitter and spiteful old goons such as yourself can't do the same.

Have you ever stopped to consider that a gay pride parade is really all about you, Baron Max?

"We can't keep hiding the fact that there's gay people in the military and they aren't causing any harm," said Stout, who says he is openly gay among most of his 26-member platoon, which is part of the 9th Engineer Battalion based in Schweinfurt, Germany.

Luckily it seems that Stout's own platoon didn't seem to particularly care about the issue as much as you do, Max.
 
Last edited:
tiassa said:
...but it seems it would be better to have someone beside me on the line who has their priorities straight.

Well, that all depends on their priorities, wouldn't you say?

I think you're just an armchair theorist! ...LOL!

Baron Max
 
Mystech said:
...just move on with our lives as scheduled. Kind of a shame that bitter and spiteful old goons such as yourself can't do the same.

Well, I'm not a bitter and spiteful old goon, but I am "moving on" with my life. In some 10 or 12 yrs I'll be dead and gone and y'all can have this whole planet to yourselves to try to fuck it up as bad as my generation did. Good luck ....you're gonna' need it. :)

Mystech said:
Luckily it seems that Stout's own platoon didn't seem to particularly care about the issue as much as you do, Max.

I wonder how you know that for sure? From that silly little press release? And you believe it? ...LOL!

Mystech said:
Have you ever stopped to consider that a gay pride parade is really all about you, Baron Max?

I have no Earthly idea what that means????? I've read the words, I know all the words, but when ya' put 'em together, I ain't got no idea what it means. Can you enlighten me? Or are you gonna' let me die with that unanswered question hanging over me like a dark, ominous cloud? :)

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Well, that all depends on their priorities, wouldn't you say?

You mean, like their priorities as an individual member of the armed forces? Novelty idea. So why base a blanket ban on certain people because of some rediculous projected idea about what their priorities just must be?

I have no Earthly idea what that means????? I've read the words, I know all the words, but when ya' put 'em together, I ain't got no idea what it means. Can you enlighten me? Or are you gonna' let me die with that unanswered question hanging over me like a dark, ominous cloud?

I might write up another thread about it sometime, or work on an audio rant on the topic (Trying to develop a good speaking voice) but until then I'll just say that your lack of comprehension speaks volumes. It would be kind of off topic to discuss it any further here.
 
Mystech said:
You mean, like their priorities as an individual member of the armed forces?

So you think that everyone in the military has exactly the same priorities? What a ridiculous thing to say! And implying that those priorities can't change from time to time and from situation to situation?

Ye're funny though, I have to give you credit for that.

Baron Max
 
Look, Baron, if the guy beside me on the line is worried about Private Eddie's privates and whether the Private is thinking indecent thoughts about other Privates' privates, he's not thinking about the guys shooting at him, or me, or the next guy.

So, when it really counted, when the enemy was shooting at you, what were your priorities? Were you scheming to steal a popcorn machine from a cinema back home? Were you lusting over Marlene Dietrich or Marilyn Monroe? Were you worried that the guy next to you was staring at your ass instead of covering it? Or were you worried about bullets and bombs and life and death?

Of course, I could be wrong. But considering how snotty and rude lots of combat vets get around peaceniks--"You don't understand, you've never seen combat!"--and the things those angry vets try to explain, really, it hadn't occurred to me that they were actually lying. They seemed so sincere, so genuinely affected by their experiences that I never stopped to think they were all a bunch of pantywaist liars hiding the reality of war, that it is so luxurious that you can afford to waste your resources in combat worrying about superstitious, bigoted nonsense.

Man, that's it. No more funding for the freakin' V.A. Those stinking liars, right Baron?
 
tiassa said:
Look, Baron, if the guy beside me on the line is worried about Private Eddie's privates and whether the Private is thinking indecent thoughts about other Privates' privates, he's not thinking about the guys shooting at him, or me, or the next guy.

Exactly!! So we should solve that problem LOOOONNNG before they get onto the battlefield, huh? And how do we do it??? Oh, gee, I know .....oooh, what an idea, huh? ...LOL!

Read that sentence above again, Tiassa ...read it carefully aand think about what it says, what it means. Then get back to me if you'd like.

tiassa said:
So, when it really counted, when the enemy was shooting at you, what were your priorities?

Killing as many of the little, yellow bastards as possible!

Tiassa, one of the problems with explaining combat is that it's like many things in life ....you just can't! Each has their own ideas, thought, concerns, worries, etc., etc. and trying to nail it down to one thing is like farting into the wind.

Combat also affects different people in different ways at different times. One guy will be horrified that he killed someone and stop shooting and start crying like a baby. Some will love the action, the death, the explosions, the enemy being blown to bits or burned to death. Some will be just regular combat soldiers doing a job, then when it's all over, they fall apart like rag-dolls. Some are "heroes" in the war, then come home and THEN fall apart! All different, just like y'all.

But one thing that I never had to concern myself with was that some queer was looking at me with those of sticking his dick in my asshole or suck my dick!! Now add that little tidbit to all of the rest of combat worries and concerns and it just might be the straw that broke the camel's back. But just read over, carefully, what you said in that first sentence above ...then think about it in light of the issue at hand. then tell me what you think.

tiassa said:
...so genuinely affected by their experiences that I never stopped to think they were all a bunch of pantywaist liars hiding the reality of war,...

Well, most of the soldiers who were in Vietnam were NOT in combat at all. Many of them shot their weapons only on the target range. I forget the percentages, but it's pretty low ....like less than 20% of the Viet vets ever saw combat. So what do those people talk about? I don't know! ...LOL! To me, their service seemed like a big party for them or something. ...LOL!

But if you want to know what combat was really like, go check out some of the Vet hospitals and care centers ....talk to the ones with no arms and no legs and only half of a face. They might tell you the truth ....tho' I doubt that they'd even talk to you!

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:

Exactly!! So we should solve that problem LOOOONNNG before they get onto the battlefield, huh? And how do we do it??? Oh, gee, I know .....oooh, what an idea, huh? ...LOL!

Read that sentence above again, Tiassa ...read it carefully aand think about what it says, what it means. Then get back to me if you'd like.

Nothing like entrusting the country's defense to those whose best option is to give over to stupidity.

Think about the poor light you're casting soldiers in.

But one thing that I never had to concern myself with was that some queer was looking at me with those of sticking his dick in my asshole or suck my dick!! Now add that little tidbit to all of the rest of combat worries and concerns and it just might be the straw that broke the camel's back. But just read over, carefully, what you said in that first sentence above ...then think about it in light of the issue at hand. then tell me what you think.

I think you do a disservice to your fellow service-members. You make them sound like the dumbest people on the face of the planet.

But if you want to know what combat was really like, go check out some of the Vet hospitals and care centers ....talk to the ones with no arms and no legs and only half of a face. They might tell you the truth ....tho' I doubt that they'd even talk to you!

What do you think they would say if I told them a former combat vet was telling me they had such luxury in combat that they could worry about who's looking at their ass?

As Mystech rightly pointed out: Sgt. Stout's fellows have more important things to worry about.

I think your point is a bunch of hot air puffing up your abuse of the reputation of the combat vet. And frankly, I find it disgusting. After all, you seem to think combat veterans wouldn't like me, but that's fine; I have more respect for them than you do, it seems.
 
Baron Max said:
Exactly!! So we should solve that problem LOOOONNNG before they get onto the battlefield, huh? And how do we do it??? Oh, gee, I know .....oooh, what an idea, huh? ...LOL!

And what ever happened to personal accountability? Now it's someone else's problem that you can't stay focussed, and have some obsessive fear that you're going to be analy raped? Sounds a lot like a personal problem, if you ask me.

On a side note, why is it always the dumbest ugliest sons of bitches who worry that some fag thinks they're hot?

Baron Max said:
But one thing that I never had to concern myself with was that some queer was looking at me with those of sticking his dick in my asshole or suck my dick!! Now add that little tidbit to all of the rest of combat worries and concerns and it just might be the straw that broke the camel's back.

You know, the more you speak the more I slowly begin to think that you're actually making some sense here. Along this same vein of reasoning, and in the spirit of your fear of sexual distraction on the front lines (which must certainly be an eminent and very realistic concern) what if the US were to begin castrating all of it's soldiers. I mean, the last thing I want, as one of the helpless civilians back at home that our boys are defending, is for some soldier to be sitting in a hole, and jerking off when he should be keeping an eye out for the bad guys!

Seriously, though, if your fear that homosexuals are getting hard-ons over you and every other guy around them then I don't think a ban on homosexuals in the military should be necessary. Think about it, if some guy kept getting a boner and trying to play kissy-face with other recruits during every exercise and drill he'd be ruled a section 8 long before he ever had a chance to get anywhere near active duty.

How about we start treating people like people, and start getting angry at them as individuals for thinks they've actually done as opposed to being angry at a whole bunch of people we don't even know because of vague unsubstantiated and rather absurd fears.

Seriously, Baron Max you’re delving into the realms of a clever parody of blindly ardent homophobes. I’m fairly certain I could adapt some of your posts into a comedy routine (while staying remarkably close to your original words, of course) and get a roaring ovation.

tiassa said:
Man, that's it. No more funding for the freakin' V.A. Those stinking liars, right Baron?

Deep in my heart, and for all these years, I secretly suspected that grandpa never really had my nose. Now I know it to be true.
 
Last edited:
I have a bone to pick with Baron Max.

Being an old Army combat man, I wonder how I'd feel if I knew that someone like Stout were "watching my back" .....or would he be checking out my ass or the bulge in my pants instead of watching for the enemy???? ....and get me killed??

Do you really think he'd be more interested in your ass than winning the battle? Do you really think you'd even have a bulge in your pants while combating?

And should I have to take showers with a guy who's gay? And sleep in the same barracks with a guy who's gay? And them "checking me out" for in the hope of a possible late night cocksucking?

Whoever doesn't want that shouldn't serve.

No, gays are just not the same as straight men ...no matter what y'all want to say. It ain't much different to putting a few men in the same barracks as the women and expect that the men wouldn't want to look and maybe do something? Would you advocate that? Would the women go along with it without some protest?

I would be okay with that, since it would get rid of sexism.

Gays are different. They admit that they're different. So why should they want to be considered as the same??????????? ...ain't quite got that thru my head!!

So you think that you can treat all of them differently just because some of them say they're different?

Repo Man said:
Gay men don't "get" anyone who doesn't want to be gotten. Yes, if one tries to pick up on you it can be disconcerting. I'm not such a beefcake that it happens all of the time, but it has. Express your lack of interest, and they move on. It's just that simple.
Well, couldn't the same thing be said of women? So why don't we put women in the same barracks and showers as all the men? Paranoid insecurities, perhaps?? ...LOL!

Again, what's wrong with putting men and women in the same barracks?

I did serve with some gay men and you're right ....they didn't bother me and I didn't bother them. BUT ...and when they were "found out", they were kicked out of the military. Hey, gay men are different ...they admit that they're different, so why should they be accorded the same as straight men? That part I just don't get.

Repeating yourself doesn't strengthen your argument.

And no, I'm not paranoid nor am I insecure -- I'm too fuckin' old for either of those to mean anything! ...LOL!

I doubt you aren't paranoid or insecure.

But that doesn't mean that I support gays in the SAME military as the straight guys. Gays are different and should be treated differently .....just like the military treats women differently from the men.

And while we're at it, let's make them ride in different tanks. I mean, separate but equal, right?

Mystech said:
Luckily it seems that Stout's own platoon didn't seem to particularly care about the issue as much as you do, Max.
I wonder how you know that for sure? From that silly little press release? And you believe it? ...LOL!

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

tiassa said:
Look, Baron, if the guy beside me on the line is worried about Private Eddie's privates and whether the Private is thinking indecent thoughts about other Privates' privates, he's not thinking about the guys shooting at him, or me, or the next guy.
Exactly!! So we should solve that problem LOOOONNNG before they get onto the battlefield, huh? And how do we do it??? Oh, gee, I know .....oooh, what an idea, huh? ...LOL!

Oh God, why am I on this battlefield? Someone's gonna shoot me! I'm gonna die out here. How the hell am I gonna-- Oh my, look at that ass! *Gets shot*

You are being unrealistic. It's annoying.

tiassa said:
So, when it really counted, when the enemy was shooting at you, what were your priorities?
Killing as many of the little, yellow bastards as possible!

Do you really need to look like a homophobe and a racist?

Tiassa, one of the problems with explaining combat is that it's like many things in life ....you just can't! Each has their own ideas, thought, concerns, worries, etc., etc.

Therefore, you cannot be worried about all gays in the military looking at the bulge in your pants, since each has their own ideas, thoughts, concerns, worries, etc.

Combat also affects different people in different ways at different times. One guy will be horrified that he killed someone and stop shooting and start crying like a baby. Some will love the action, the death, the explosions, the enemy being blown to bits or burned to death. Some will be just regular combat soldiers doing a job, then when it's all over, they fall apart like rag-dolls. Some are "heroes" in the war, then come home and THEN fall apart! All different, just like y'all.

You're undermining your previous argument, and it's fun to watch.

But one thing that I never had to concern myself with was that some queer was looking at me with those of sticking his dick in my asshole or suck my dick!! Now add that little tidbit to all of the rest of combat worries and concerns and it just might be the straw that broke the camel's back.

You're insecure.

But if you want to know what combat was really like, go check out some of the Vet hospitals and care centers ....talk to the ones with no arms and no legs and only half of a face. They might tell you the truth ....tho' I doubt that they'd even talk to you!

Are you saying that you don't know what combat was really like? If that's what you're saying, then you can't know for sure how a few gays on the battlefield would affect anything. Therefore, you have no base to your arguments.

Now, as for how I see this whole, banning gays from serving in the military is actually a step in the right direction. Why not just ban everyone from serving in the military? Not have a military at all? Just mind our own business like we did before the first World War? Isn't that a novel idea? I think so.
 
Athelwulf said:
Repeating yourself doesn't strengthen your argument.

Repeating all of the same old lines in favor of gays in the military also does NOT strengthen YOUR argument.

If a gay soldier makes other, straight soldiers nervous or concerned, it might get them killed. A soldier has enough to worry about it combat and shouldn't have any more worries piled onto them ...even if that worry is unfounded!

Having gays in the same unit and barracks with straight men is no different to having women in the same unit and barracks with straight men. How can y'all not see that? And would you advocate that? Would women go along with that?

Gays and lesbians are different to straight men and women and should be treated differently. How can y'all not see that?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:

If a gay soldier makes other, straight soldiers nervous or concerned, it might get them killed. A soldier has enough to worry about it combat and shouldn't have any more worries piled onto them ...even if that worry is unfounded!

So train better soldiers. Preferably smarter soldiers. Why, especially when something like warfare is on the line, should we lower our expectations to meet the least-intelligent among us?

Oh, right. Smart people don't like wars. Imagine that.

Our nation's finest what?
 
What's the matter Tiassa, can't think of anything really pertinent to post? ..so you resort to "wars are bad things" and "soldiers are stupid for fighting"? ..LOL!

Baron Max
 
Back
Top