I can say that it is not uncommon for two junior enlisted people to get married for the benefits. It is not something that happens all the time, but I would say (as a total ballpark guess) that maybe 1% of all the young sailors I see marry each other. The success rate of the marriage is obviously very low, seeing as how the couples are usually around 20 years old, about to be separated (possibly on different ships, possibly in different cities, coasts, or continents), and probably not ready for a relationship anyway.

However, I can see why they do it. Before I became an officer, I was a young enlisted sailor. Barracks life sucked.... waking up for PT, room inspections, shitty room mates, shitty food. On the other hand, the married guys got to live off-base, got a tax-free housing and food stipend (which, compared to E-3 pay, was HUGE), and basically got a good deal any time a good deal was to be had (choice of port, not having to work on holidays, etc.) If I "thought" I was in love, I probably would have considered marriage as a viable option to vastly improve my living circumstances.

But, I very very highly doubt there would be many (if any) males who pretend to be gay and get married for benefits. I don't see anything wrong with being gay, but at the same time, I definitely wouldn't want my friends and/or family thinking I was.

12/29/2010 11:31:11 AM

Quote :

"I don't see anything wrong with being gay, but at the same time, I definitely wouldn't want my friends and/or family thinking I was."

then obviously you see something shameful about it.

12/29/2010 10:51:58 PM

so you wouldnt see anything wrong with sucking a cock then?

12/30/2010 2:32:57 PM

^^ Yeah man, that's horrible logic.

12/30/2010 3:07:51 PM

There isn't anything shameful in sucking a dick but a lot of people will treat you differently, unfortunately.

12/30/2010 3:14:20 PM

^^^i wouldn't if i were gay, which i guess is what i presumed he means. but if all he means is that he wouldn't want his family or friends thinking that if it weren't true, then yeah i agree. I wouldn't want my family to misinformed about me on lots of things.

12/30/2010 8:16:22 PM

Quote :

"But, I very very highly doubt there would be many (if any) males who pretend to be gay and get married for benefits."

at least not until DOMA is repealed, as it stands now the military must consider same-sex couples to be unmarried

12/30/2010 8:36:09 PM

there are a decent number of enlisted people who get married (to people of the opposite sex) to get the housing and pay benefits that come with being married.

[Edited on December 30, 2010 at 11:36 PM. Reason : .]

12/30/2010 11:34:58 PM

^ source?

1/1/2011 11:50:58 PM

people i know in the military who get married really early so they can get benefits? there is also a pay raise associated with simply being married. you are also allowed to live in separate housing facilities which other enlisted people are not.

there are some stats here that i found from a google search implying that while people enlisted are less likely to be married when they enter, they typically get married much younger than their civilian counterparts:

http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=72&articleid=526§ionid=3616

1/2/2011 12:14:39 AM

i've had friends get married to take advantage of extra benefits, that much i can understand. but why would anyone pretend they were gay and marry someone of the same sex when they could just have a fake marriage (or quicky forced marriage that seems like a good idea at the time) to someone of the opposite sex? that's the logical leap I'm not following.

1/2/2011 12:24:45 AM

^^^ dude, it's common enough knowledge that it doesn't really need a source. It's probably not super common for people who aren't actually involved at all to get married just to move out of the barracks and get paid (although I'm sure it happens some, and could probably find examples of it if I cared to). What's definitely relatively common is for people who've been at least briefly dating to rush down to the courthouse and get married due to the extra pay and benefits.

^ well, what if you already live off-base with a couple of roommates? That's been what I've done for most of my time in the military. I already get the "with dependents" pay because of my daughter, but if you had a roommate and no dependents, you could just get married on paper and each of you score a few hundred bucks per month in extra pay.

[Edited on January 2, 2011 at 1:19 AM. Reason : ]

1/2/2011 1:16:38 AM

do you have to live with your spouse to receive benefits? i still can't see any situation where someone would pretend to be gay when they could just pretend to be married. i'm also not convinced that completely sham heterosexual marriages happen enough for this to be an issue, i think what happens much more often is that young people already in a relationship get married because it "makes sense" for them to at the time.

[Edited on January 2, 2011 at 10:42 AM. Reason : .]

1/2/2011 10:41:47 AM

I would say a far number of 'sham marriages' start out as real marriages. There is a fair amount of folk that immediately after basic training and their follow on training for their MOS, AFSC, Rate, etc...decide that they have been without the opposite sex for far too long, so they marry their high school sweetheart or perhaps a member of the opposite sex that they knew in training....these marriages usually don't work, however the two stay together for the financial benefits.

1/2/2011 10:53:33 AM

i knew several dumbasses who got married while in A-school (aka AIT school) in order to get off base housing and extra pay. maybe they thought they were going to have regular pussy too, but the chicks in question apparently had their own ideas about the whole monogamy thing.

you have to remember that enlisted service members are not equivalent to college kids. not that all college kids are particularly bright, but junior enlisted are even far less so

these kids mostly enlist at the age of 17-20, and barely (if even) have graduated high school. most of them didn't have college as an option. generally speaking they're about as sharp as a bag of hammers.




[Edited on January 3, 2011 at 12:22 AM. Reason : ]

1/3/2011 12:19:18 AM

I'm enlisted.....asshole.

1/3/2011 12:51:22 AM

i not folo this issue, but is so obviously stupid to not lets gays in anywhere. they has added bonus of not has kids which huge distraction and divided loyalty on your workforce. gays so much more srs about uniforms and line dancing, you'd think the military would love them. military is fucking gay already, at least now they can admit it. ok i srs now. i find it VERY encouraging to see the world around me becoming sane and rational: i try to help too by getting everyone on alternative energy because i love the people and the earth. good luck gays: try not to blow[up] any civilians.

1/3/2011 1:29:08 AM

Quote :

"I would say a far number of 'sham marriages' start out as real marriages. There is a fair amount of folk that immediately after basic training and their follow on training for their MOS, AFSC, Rate, etc...decide that they have been without the opposite sex for far too long, so they marry their high school sweetheart or perhaps a member of the opposite sex that they knew in training....these marriages usually don't work, however the two stay together for the financial benefits."

i define those as marriages that "make sense" at the time; i.e. two people in some kind of relationship, possibly superficial, that decide to get married because the benefits. I, too, know of this happening and now that it happens a lot.

I am defining a true sham marriage as one between two people in no kind of relationship getting married for the sole purpose of benefiting from extra advantages. It may happen, but I'm not convinced that it happens often and am certainly convinced that it doesn't happen often enough to effect any kind of policy.

And even if one were interested in a true sham marriage it seems easier to just marry someone of the opposite sex. But even still what is more likely is that they marry someone they are fucking or some girl they know from high school. So really again its not an issue that needs to be discussed in relation to DADT.

--

basically if you want to use this line of reasoning in relation to a position in favor of DADT here the distinction you need to show. its not an issue of if people are doing this or not, if it happens already or doesn't happen already, you would still need to establish that it would suddenly happen at a significantly higher rate if gays can serve

[Edited on January 3, 2011 at 2:11 AM. Reason : .]

1/3/2011 2:06:00 AM

Quote :

"I'm enlisted.....asshole"

sorry to hear that.

FTR, so was i. also note i said "these kids mostly"... "most of them".... "generally speaking they"....

you have to admit, the glove fits.

1/3/2011 1:30:11 PM

Haha, yes it does. I only enlisted because I didn't want to take out loans and I was bored with college, so I dropped out and here I am.

I consider myself on the smarter end of the spectrum of enlisted, I got my associates and will have taken pretty much ever csc distance ed course NCSU offers.

I don't regret joining, but god do I look forward to coming back to NCSU for Spring '12 semester

1/3/2011 2:45:08 PM

Here's why allowing homosexuality in the military is such as big deal, as it was explained to me:

In today's military, many units are mixed gender. We go to great lengths to separate men and women, given them their own sleeping quarters, bathrooms, etc., because we don't want to make people feel uncomfortable (e.g., guys checking out girls in the shower), and we want to cut the hanky-panky down to a minimum. When you have a woman in the unit fooling around, it hurts morale. People get angry, jealous, they don't think as highly of their co-workers as before, etc. Poor morale and/or a lousy work environment hurts mission performance. But here's the real kicker - the poor gal doesn't even have to be fooling around; as they say perception is everything. If people even think it's going on, or rumors start floating around, it has the same effect.Is this is common, widespread occurance? No, but it does happen.

Now, let's throw homosexuality in to the mix. Unlike before when it was just straight guys and gals, you can't just throw them in the same sleeping areas / bathroom facilities, because you run in to people worried they're getting check out in the shower, and so on. If you give them their own seperate sleeping arrangements and such, then you run into the same problems you had with women and nasty rumors - the perception, however unfair, will be that they're fooling around, and you once again have morale take a hit. So you're screwed either way. And it particularly affects combat arms because you're getting realy friendly with your battle buddy on a regular basis.

Bottom line, it affects mission performance, which is the end-all be-all of the military world.


And before you jump down my throat, I personally don't give a shit, someone's sexuality doesn't bother me in the least. More importantly, when it's fourteen fucking degrees outside and you're lying in a patrol base, I don't care if the person next to me is gay, straight, or has a penis protruding from their forehead, we're gonna spoon the fuck up so I don't freeze to death. I'm just saying, I see both sides.

1/3/2011 9:11:04 PM

Oh, also, whoever was asking if people in the military get married just for bennies, hell yes it happens. Get on Craigslist for any military town and you'll see people posting for contract marriages. I don't know why people are making a big deal about gay contract marriages, it's not like there's a ton of states you can get same-sex marriages in.

1/3/2011 9:17:20 PM

here is the problem with your argument, this:

Quote :

"Unlike before when it was just straight guys and gals"

is a false premise. under DADT it was simply that you weren't supposed to know, the military isn't/wasn't just straight guys and gals.

1/3/2011 10:13:17 PM

If you knew they were gay before DADT and it didn't bother you, then it doesn't change anything - since it didn't bother you, there's not a 'hostile workplace.' If it did bother you, to the point where it affected unit cohesion, then there's a problem regardless of the legality. If you didn't know before, but if you knew it would bother you, it's somewhat akin to somebody peeping on you in the shower without you knowing.

The premise is not flawed - I'm not saying someone is going to sit there and whack off to you in your presence, now that DADT is gone. What I am saying is that some people are understandably uncomfortable with the idea of someone looking at them sexually, or even thinking that they might be looking at them sexually (again, perception), when they're just trying to take care of business.

The idea that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to serve because they'll get beaten up or ridiculed is stupid - they floated that same idea for integration. But, just like it's a little much to ask a woman to not feel awkward showering with a guy, I wouldn't expect someone to suck it up and shower with a gay guy.

1/3/2011 10:33:43 PM

Quote :

"The idea that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to serve because they'll get beaten up or ridiculed is stupid - they floated that same idea for integration. But, just like it's a little much to ask a woman to not feel awkward showering with a guy, I wouldn't expect someone to suck it up and shower with a gay guy."

if you've showered at a gym, you've probably showered with a gay guy.

not realizing that otherwise is just denial. this is our military we're talking about. i would hope they wouldn't let something so petty bother them.

now if there is some sort of actual sexual advance made, that's an entirely different issue (or even if someone is obviously staring at others in the shower, that would be unacceptable). but that's why there are sexual harassment regulations in the armed services.

1/3/2011 10:49:25 PM

Ok, so your premise here is what you don't know won't hurt you - but now you will know. And just because you've inadvertently showered with a gay man before doesn't change that fact that you wouldn't want to do it knowingly. It's not like if I was a woman and unknowingly was taking a shower with a guy (I'm not sure there's anyone that dimwitted out there who wouldn't notice that), and someone brought it to my attention, I would be OK with it for future showers. Same thing.

Quote :

"On another note, The president is the Commander-in-Chief so why does Congress have to repeal a military policy? Obama could have just ordered an end to it."

No, because UCMJ is set by congress, and regulations pertaining to homosexuality are derived from the UCMJ. One could say that Article 125 - Sodomy, is the driving factor, but I'm pretty sure everyone in the military is guilty of violating article 125 at some point.

Also - ASUs suck. They took the Dress Blues, an elegant formal uniform, and destroyed it. Everyone in the world was butthurt that they didn't get all their shinies that the Dress Greens had, so they crammed it with every piece of flair imaginable.

1/3/2011 11:09:44 PM

Quote :

"One could say that Article 125 - Sodomy, is the driving factor, but I'm pretty sure everyone in the military is guilty of violating article 125 at some point."

What with Iraq and all

1/3/2011 11:13:57 PM

Quote :

"then obviously you see something shameful about it."

That's not fair or even reasonable. He just has to think that it would affect his relationship with his family and friends. I don't think there's anything shameful about my sexual practices (well, when I have any) but I still don't want my parents thinking about them.

1/3/2011 11:28:48 PM

I think he is just kind of trolling. There are obviously lots of things that fall into the category of "I don't think they are wrong but I don't want people thinking I do these things." Religion, political views, sexual orientation are just a few but there are many others.

I get very frustrated with this issue because most of the people (not all of them) do not have to live with the decision made, nor do they have any experience to go on. Issues such as the logistics thing (showering, the perception of inappropriate relationships, etc) are brushed off as being minor by many people, but I can tell you with 13 years of experience, that they are anything but minor.

Discussion is obviously a moot point now, because it's happening. Unfortunately, I am pretty sure there will be a lot of fallout, whether it is publicized or not. For every one incident that we hear about, there will probably be hundreds that we do not. It is very similar to the integration of females, but I personally think it's going to be worse. I think the benefits, which are going to be very few, are going to be vastly outweighed by the costs. But we will see, and only time will tell.

1/3/2011 11:56:38 PM

I love how modern bigotry against gays is cast as something intrinsic to militaries, as if they haven't been riddled with (often open) homesexuality for all of time

1/4/2011 12:29:46 AM

thith ith thpartaaaaaaa!

1/4/2011 1:14:04 PM

^
I know you're joking, but it's pretty funny that you would say that, considering how the Thebes put an end to the Spartans in the Battle of Leuctra. The Sacred Band of Thebes were instrumental in this battle, and were considered the elite forces of the Theban army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes

Quote :

"Plutarch records that the Sacred Band was made up of male couples, the rationale being that lovers could fight more fiercely and cohesively than strangers with no ardent bonds."

1/4/2011 1:31:40 PM

i wasnt' joking. the spartan army was quite homosexually-oriented. although, not as much so as teh Sacred Band of Thebes.



[Edited on January 4, 2011 at 4:24 PM. Reason : ]

1/4/2011 4:23:52 PM

ahh. didnt know that about the spartans

1/4/2011 4:42:21 PM

Yeah the Spartans were gay as the dickens. Same for many Samurai in feudal Japan, it was even considered to be a sign of weakness to be romantically involved with women.

1/5/2011 1:55:48 PM

Also the anti-gays-in-the-military crowd's angle drips with the insinuation that gays are irrepressible perverts who cannot contain their lust, being unable to comprehend professionalism or a soldier's duty because of their sickness.

Also funny is how terrified straight men are apparently of being hit on by gay men, a tacit admission that male seduction is predatory and frightening.

1/5/2011 1:58:37 PM

i would say they were more bisexual, although it appears that marriage was expected of the men if only to produce offspring.

a Spartan wedding for "peers" (soldiers) would be consummated by the bride cutting all her hair off to resemble a mans style, wearing rough men's clothing, and waiting in a dimly lit room for her new husband to arrive.

if it gets any gayer than that, it's just called gay marriage.

1/5/2011 2:52:58 PM

Quote :

"Also the anti-gays-in-the-military crowd's angle drips with the insinuation that gays are irrepressible perverts who cannot contain their lust, being unable to comprehend professionalism or a soldier's duty because of their sickness. "

This is a classic argument that people who oppose DADT have been throwing out for ages. It is flawed in many ways, but I really believe the people using this argument know this.

It has nothing to do with "gays being irrepressible perverts who cannot contain their lust". It has everything to do with human beings under sometimes extraordinary pressure, and how we act (whether we are straight or gay) under these circumstances. I have been happily married for 11 years now, however I know that, after months or even years away from my wife, if I was to LIVE with another female, I could see myself making an error in judgment, especially if my days were riddled with constant stress. Is this because I don't love her or because I am inherently unfaithful? No, not at all. It's just human nature, and I imagine that many, if not most people would admit the possibility of that same thing happening if they were in a similar situation.

So, the military prevents this by simply not allowing males and females to live together. But this is simply not possibly for gay or bisexual people. So if two openly gay men would "bunk" together, then these exact same pressures would be felt by them, and the odds are fairly good that they would end up screwing around.

Hell, if I wasn't married and I lived with a girl under situations like the one I described, I can say with 99% certainty that we would probably end up hooking up. I don't see myself as some sex-crazed maniac.... I am simply realistic and know if I was living in a stressful environment for months at a time with no other female companionship, then human nature takes over. Also, a huge chunk of the military is not married, and is around the age of 18-22.... it's just a given people are going to screw around with whatever sex they are attracted to, regardless if we are talking about gay people or straight people.

1/5/2011 5:51:56 PM

^
I don't get your point. Are you saying you would probably cheat on your wife if you lived in a co-ed dormitory? That seems like a personal issue.

1/6/2011 12:39:26 AM

^^ Bunking in the same barracks is hardly the only obstacle keeping people from hooking up while on deployment, given that straight people do it too. It's not like sharing quarters is the magic enabler.

Quote :

"If you knew they were gay before DADT and it didn't bother you, then it doesn't change anything - since it didn't bother you, there's not a 'hostile workplace.' If it did bother you, to the point where it affected unit cohesion, then there's a problem regardless of the legality. If you didn't know before, but if you knew it would bother you, it's somewhat akin to somebody peeping on you in the shower without you knowing. "

Then the problem is with the person, not with the policy.

Quote :

" The premise is not flawed - I'm not saying someone is going to sit there and whack off to you in your presence, now that DADT is gone. What I am saying is that some people are understandably uncomfortable with the idea of someone looking at them sexually, or even thinking that they might be looking at them sexually (again, perception), when they're just trying to take care of business. The idea that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to serve because they'll get beaten up or ridiculed is stupid - they floated that same idea for integration. But, just like it's a little much to ask a woman to not feel awkward showering with a guy, I wouldn't expect someone to suck it up and shower with a gay guy."

The armed forces teach people how to kill other human beings and condition them to be able to do so as their job. Not everyone is a natural born killer, and not everyone is naturally-born tolerant and accepting of gays. But if we can train people to kill, we can sure as hell train them to be professional in the shower and work together on the battlefield.

1/6/2011 1:11:46 AM

Quote :

"I don't get your point. Are you saying you would probably cheat on your wife if you lived in a co-ed dormitory? That seems like a personal issue."

I thought I made that perfectly clear, and I don't see how you could misinterpret what I said.

My point was (again) that anyone, regardless if they are straight or gay, is highly likely to, for lack of a better word, "hook up" if they live in very close quarters with someone they have the potential to be attracted to. There is a lot to be said about hundreds of days spent apart, long work hours, and a mutually shared experience. I don't mean to come off as arrogant, but there is no way you can imagine the stress that comes with being deployed for a long time away from family with little or no contact unless you experience it.

1/6/2011 1:21:49 AM

^
I was being slightly sarcastic. You are worried that two gay guys might be in the same dorm and might cheat on their gay partners at home? Like I said before, that is a personal issue. I understand that are stresses put upon you when you are overseas, but that comes with the job. It's not the government or the military's job to keep your marriage together.

1/6/2011 10:05:38 AM

Looks like Joe "YOU LIE" Wilson has his priorities in order:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/01/military-wilson-reinstate-dont-ask-dont-tell-010611w/

Quote :

"Wilson says he hopes to reinstate DADT The new Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s military personnel panel says he will hold hearings to look at the Pentagon’s plans allow openly gay people to serve, and he will look for chances to reinstate the ban lifted by Congress in December."

1/6/2011 7:03:49 PM

Quote :

"I understand that are stresses put upon you when you are overseas, but that comes with the job. It's not the government or the military's job to keep your marriage together."

I am going to disagree 100% with this statement. I am going to divert the discussion a bit from DADT for my post (we have beat that horse enough for the moment.) Once again, I feel that this is an issue that you can never fully understand or appreciate without actually serving in the military, but I'll do my best to explain.

The military takes huge steps to try and keep families (spouses and children) happy and functioning well. There are arguably many reasons why they do this, but the biggest one (on the Navy side for me) is that "a happy sailor is a productive sailor." Speaking from a submarine standpoint, we had a huge family night brief prior to each deployment. We had a Family Support Group specifically designed for wives, especially "new to the Navy" wives. We have an organization designed to either loan or sometimes give money to needy military families in an emergency arises. I have always been taught, and I in turn teach my men how important it is to know the people who work for you and their families. I know other branches of the armed forces have similar programs.

So yes, the military does take it upon themselves to keep families together. I wish I could say it was to be nice and because they care, but that really isn't it. If a sailor has problems at home, he often won't deploy, and if he does, he is usually pretty worthless, as he is consumed with his own issues and not at all focused on his job. In the civilian world, there are hundreds if not thousands of people just waiting for a better job, so if an employee pulls that shit, the boss can just fire him and hire the next guy. In the military, we don't have that option, because many of the jobs are highly specialized and require years of training. Commands are undermanned as it is, so we do what we need to do to keep our sailors home lives as stable as possible.

So that being said, it is in the Navy's best interest to not put males and females who could potentially be attracted to each other berth together, especially if they are married. Because, like I said before, things happen, and not everyone has a will of steel. It's the same reason why an alcoholic dumps his booze out, or someone who is trying to quit smoking should throw throw out their cigarettes, or someone one a diet shouldn't have junk food laying around. Humans, by and large, are weak. I don't care how strong a marriage is, I don't know too many people who would be 100% comfortable with their spouse living with someone of the opposite sex for a year under a stressful (or any, for that matter) environment.

1/7/2011 2:22:26 AM

Quote :

"Hell, if I wasn't married and I lived with a girl under situations like the one I described, I can say with 99% certainty that we would probably end up hooking up. I don't see myself as some sex-crazed maniac.... I am simply realistic and know if I was living in a stressful environment for months at a time with no other female companionship, then human nature takes over."

Work with us here, because it sounds like you're saying that...

1) Either you think a homosexual will have so much stress and sexual desire and whatever that he'll rape you, or
2) You think that if a homosexual tried to have sex with you under the right circumstances of stress and sexual desire, you'd submit.

Because if both of these interpretations it inaccurate, they shouldn't be brought into this discussion.

1/7/2011 2:31:27 AM

LOL no, sorry if it read that way.

What I do very strongly believe is that if two people with the potential to share mutual attraction (a heterosexual male and female or two homosexuals) that live together under stressful situations for an extended period of time are highly likely to end up having consensual sex.

My argument (opinion) actually has nothing to do with the fact that the individuals we are discussing are homosexual. It has everything to do with the fact that any human, regardless of sexual orientation, behaves differently under certain situations. Up until now, the military has been able to separate these people (to some extent) via separate berthing and bathing areas.

1/7/2011 10:56:56 AM

^^ do I detect a false dilemma?

1/7/2011 1:09:51 PM

^^
What do you think is a bigger problem?

A) Living with a member of the opposite sex that you may or may not be attracted to, with the off chance that you could cheat on your significant other. (Which I think is ridiculous. Seems like you are projecting your own lack of self control onto everyone else.)

B) Being forced to keep a very, very large part of your life hidden, because if someone finds out, you could lose your job.

I mean really, what the fuck are you on about?

1/7/2011 2:01:05 PM

http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/01/20/DADTs_9_Figure_Price_Tag/

Quote :

"A new study by the Government Accountability Office has found that enforcing "don't ask, don't tell" cost taxpayers nearly $200 million between 2004 and 2009."

Quote :

"About 96% of DADT-related expenses — or $185.6 million — was spent on recruiting and training personnel to replace service members who had been separated from the armed forces. "

As with most DADT related discussions it focuses on soldiers lost without considering soldiers never gained.

1/21/2011 2:55:09 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/02/gay.soldier.andrew.wilfahrt/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

7/5/2011 10:56:07 AM