PDA

View Full Version : Mr Obama to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell"



Captain Blight
10-10-2009, 08:13 PM
As reported in the Wally (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125522141307378387.html).


About damn time, too. Stupid regressive policy, leading to untold agita.

Phillip Allen
10-10-2009, 08:22 PM
I never paid any attention to the whole thing...it just didn't seem important one way or another...don't know why folks make a fuss...

Kaa
10-10-2009, 08:24 PM
I never paid any attention to the whole thing...it just didn't seem important one way or another...don't know why folks make a fuss...

I'm guessing you're straight..? :D

Kaa

Phillip Allen
10-10-2009, 08:31 PM
I'm guessing you're straight..? :D

Kaa

I prefer "normal" (I certainly never have bothered any homosexual people...even counted one man as a friend to be visited at opportuinity...did I mention that I like people?)

Paul Pless
10-10-2009, 08:34 PM
About damn time, too. we agree

Paul Pless
10-10-2009, 08:36 PM
"normal" uh oh... <<winking at kaa>>

Bruce Taylor
10-10-2009, 08:36 PM
Excellent, if it happens.

Kaa
10-10-2009, 08:47 PM
I prefer "normal"

With the implication that people unlike you are "abnormal"?

Kaa

Phillip Allen
10-10-2009, 08:54 PM
With the implication that people unlike you are "abnormal"?

Kaa
if a basket ball player is seven feet tall...he is abnormal I suppose...yesterday I saw a woman (apparently in her 30's or 40's) who had to be less than four feet tall...I doubt she was to be considered normal... :)

Paul Pless
10-10-2009, 08:56 PM
oooh... a phillip allen/kaa arguement.... this should be entertaining

Phillip Allen
10-10-2009, 08:59 PM
I don't see anything to argue about...

BrianW
10-10-2009, 09:03 PM
"I will end "don't ask-don't tell,'" Mr. Obama said at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-civil-rights advocacy group. Mr. Obama reaffirmed his commitment to end the ban, but did not give a timetable or the specifics that some activists have called for.


He expressed strong support for the Human Rights Campaign agenda -- ending discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people -- but stopped short of laying out a detailed plan for how to get there.


Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton's administration on gay and lesbian policy, said Mr. Obama delivered "a strong speech in tone, although only vaguely reassuring in content."

"The president and Nobel winner came and paid his respects, but tomorrow many will ask: What's his plan, what's his timetable?"


You guys believe this stuff?

He was talking to a gay and lesbian audience... what the heck did you think he was gonna say?

He's a politician. "Change you can believe in", if you try hard enough.

Phillip Allen
10-10-2009, 09:07 PM
I neither believe nor disbelieve...I wait for whatever to happen actually happens...promises are like clouds...they give shape to our sky but none will hold you up

BrianW
10-10-2009, 09:09 PM
I neither believe nor disbelieve...I wait for whatever to happen actually happens...

Wise.

Phillip Allen
10-10-2009, 09:11 PM
Wise.

I'm working up a hot load I can stand to shoot for that 45-70...maybe next year?

Captain Blight
10-10-2009, 09:12 PM
You guys believe this stuff?

He was talking to a gay and lesbian audience... what the heck did you think he was gonna say?

He's a politician. "Change you can believe in", if you try hard enough.
Yes, I do believe this stuff. I thought, in answer to your second question, that he would speak on topics that the audience considered important. You wouldn't have expected him to deliver this announcement at, for example, the annual NRA Convention, for example.

BrianW
10-10-2009, 09:24 PM
I thought......that he would speak on topics that the audience considered important.

Oh, we both could guess the topic. I referred to what he actually said, which was nothing.


You wouldn't have expected him to deliver this announcement at, for example, the annual NRA Convention, for example.

What announcement?

What was new? A time line, legislation, new rules?

Change you have to really swallow hard to believe...

Tom Montgomery
10-10-2009, 09:27 PM
I'm working up a hot load I can stand to shoot for that 45-70...maybe next year?

I love it when you talk dirty.

Captain Blight
10-10-2009, 09:45 PM
Oh, we both could guess the topic. I referred to what he actually said, which was nothing.



What announcement?

What was new? A time line, legislation, new rules?

Change you have to really swallow hard to believe...I think all the swallowing was done by the people Bush put on their knees.

YWWAB? Sure. Also a good question: What about Bush? As far as missing timelines go, I have but two words:

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED."

Anyone who believed that at any time can probably be considered a fool always.

BrianW
10-10-2009, 09:56 PM
Can I assume your last response, which has nothing to do with this thread, is a sign of defeat, booze, or weed?

Phillip Allen
10-11-2009, 09:32 AM
I love it when you talk dirty.

yep...thinking of using black powder :)

LeeG
10-11-2009, 09:52 AM
You guys believe this stuff?

He was talking to a gay and lesbian audience... what the heck did you think he was gonna say?

He's a politician. "Change you can believe in", if you try hard enough.

Well he could be talking to a community of religious groups about the sanctity of human life and the tragedy of abortion.

But he's not.

He could be talking to the NRA about the need for protecting the Homeland.

But he's not.

I didn't know you were so concerned about undoing the legacy of the Christian Right.

BrianW
10-11-2009, 11:12 AM
I didn't know you were so concerned about undoing the legacy of the Christian Right.

Another crazed reply.

You and Blightly passing the bong?

Paul Pless
10-11-2009, 11:14 AM
bdub... you are on fire today :D

LeeG
10-11-2009, 11:33 AM
Another crazed reply.

You and Blightly passing the bong?

I assumed your citing his lack of specifics reflected a support for ending DADT .

BrianW
10-11-2009, 11:55 AM
I assumed your citing his lack of specifics reflected a support for ending DADT .

Nope.

Just pointing out that Obama is yet another politician. He says what his audience wants to hear.

Some folks lap it up.

LeeG
10-11-2009, 12:02 PM
Wow, he's a politician. That is a revelation. All this time we were being told he was the Messiah.

BTW, you don't think DADT should be abolished?


He appears to be consistent with position stated a year ago

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/


President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military's decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.

Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.

"I think 2009 is about foundation building and reaching consensus," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The group supports military personnel targeted under the ban.

Mr. Sarvis told The Washington Times that he has held "informal discussions" with the Obama transition team on how the new president should proceed on the potentially explosive issue.

Lawrence Korb, an analyst at the Center for American Progress and an adviser to the Obama campaign, said the new administration should set up a Pentagon committee to make recommendations to Congress on a host of manpower issues, including the gay ban.

"If it's part of a larger package, it has a better chance of getting passed," he said.
..
Mr. Sarvis said not to look for the debate to begin until late next year or 2010.

"What's the reality for the new administration?" he said. "Financial crisis. Economic upheaval. Health care reform. Environmental challenges. Where does 'don't ask, don't tell' fall in all this? I would say it is not in the top five priorities of national issues."

Phillip Allen
10-11-2009, 12:07 PM
You do understand the topic?

Please, you know what's being discussed?

I hope you do.

annoys you does it? well I'm not the one that invented it nor even employs it very often...

Yeadon
10-11-2009, 12:15 PM
The right will go ape when Barry ends finally DADT. It'll be all they'll talk about for a long, long time. They're fixated on this. Has something to do with their ancient and weird desert mysticisms.

BrianW
10-11-2009, 12:25 PM
Wow, he's a politician. That is a revelation. All this time we were being told he was the Messiah.

If you've agreed with me the whole time, why the negative waves?

LeeG
10-11-2009, 12:35 PM
negative waves? Brian, you're the guy pissing in the wind.

"You guys believe this stuff?

He was talking to a gay and lesbian audience... what the heck did you think he was gonna say?

He's a politician. "Change you can believe in", if you try hard enough."

BrianW
10-11-2009, 12:38 PM
Oh, I get it.

Can't say Obama is a politician, as it angers the faithful.

Such a high pedestal.

Yeadon
10-11-2009, 12:49 PM
The gay and lesbian community, at least the pundits, are pretty torqued at Obama for not ending DADT. They say he could do it with an executive order. He could do it Monday morning. If true, why wouldn't he do that?

Conservatives have made it such a wedge issue that he'd never get anything else done for the rest of his term. They love it, the gay secks.

I think Obama will end it, but probably at the last moment as he ducks his head out the door. Truly, not exactly great leadership, but more pragmatic.

bobbys
10-11-2009, 12:57 PM
Another brilliant plan, Open up the military according to Political motives and not consult the military then send a Openly Gay army to Muslim countries.

C. Ross
10-11-2009, 01:38 PM
The right will go ape when Barry ends finally DADT. It'll be all they'll talk about for a long, long time. They're fixated on this. Has something to do with their ancient and weird desert mysticisms.

Surprisingly, not true. From a Washington Post ABC News poll last year:


Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for openly gay people to serve in the U.S. armed forces. Shortly after he took office in 1993, Clinton faced strong resistance to his campaign pledge to lift the military's ban on allowing gay people to enlist. At that time, 67 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives opposed the idea. A majority of independents, 56 percent, and 45 percent of Democrats also opposed changing the policy.

Today, Americans have become more supportive of allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the armed forces. Support from Republicans has doubled over the past 15 years, from 32 to 64 percent. More than eight in 10 Democrats and more than three-quarters of independents now support the idea, as did nearly two-thirds of self-described conservatives.

Changing attitudes on the issue parallel broader swings in public views about homosexuality. In their recent review of 20 years of polling data, the Pew Research Center reported "a major shift away from highly negative attitudes toward gays and support for punitive actions against gays." In the 2007 Pew data, for example, 28 percent said local school boards should have the right to fire teachers known to be gay; that was down sharply from the 51 percent who said so in 1987.And with respect to the ancient and weird desert mysticisms:


Fifty-seven percent of white evangelical Protestants now support allowing openly gay service members in the military, compared with 82 percent of white Catholics and 80 percent of those with no declared religious affiliation.

So who's against it?


In the new Post-ABC poll, military veterans are less apt than others to say gay people should be allowed in the military. While 71 percent of veterans said gay people who do not declare themselves as such should be allowed to serve, that number drops sharply, to 50 percent, for those who are open about their sexuality. Non-veterans, by contrast, are as likely to support those who "tell" as those who do not. This policy should go away. It's inaccurate to blame the majority of the right, or religion, for continuing it.

BrianW
10-11-2009, 01:56 PM
There's a reason 71 percent of veterans oppose it.

They know it would be discriminatory towards straight men and women.

It's against military policy for male and female service members to shower and sleep together. Wherever possible, males and females have separate sleeping quarters and bathrooms. Adding 2 more sexual orientations will complicate matters and must be addressed before a simple Ex Order is passed. Simply changing one policy, DADT, and not addressing the other, will cause nothing but problems for the military.

Until they figure out the basics of housing, they shouldn't change the current policy.

It doesn't matter what they do in other countries, we have to deal with our rules.

DO NOTE...

I've not said that homosexuals are bad, that they can't do the job, or that they haven't served with honor in the past.

I have not said they shouldn't be allowed to serve.

I AM SAYING.... there are rules that must be changed before gays can serve openly.

C. Ross
10-11-2009, 02:52 PM
Brian, I should have said...the policy doesn't make sense (and doesn't exist) in the workplaces, schools, or churches where I spend time. I've never been in the military so don't know what's right there.

I wanted to respond to the idea that majority of conservative and religious people are against changing this policy - they aren't.

elf
10-11-2009, 03:12 PM
I haven't got the references to hand, but apparently the military isn't in favor of it either at this point.

LeeG
10-11-2009, 05:12 PM
There's a reason 71 percent of veterans oppose it.

They know it would be discriminatory towards straight men and women.

It's against military policy for male and female service members to shower and sleep together. Wherever possible, males and females have separate sleeping quarters and bathrooms. Adding 2 more sexual orientations will complicate matters and must be addressed before a simple Ex Order is passed. Simply changing one policy, DADT, and not addressing the other, will cause nothing but problems for the military.

Until they figure out the basics of housing, they shouldn't change the current policy.

DO NOTE...

I AM SAYING.... there are rules that must be changed before gays can serve openly.

I don't understand your first points but the second one seems to be reflected in Obamas desire to work with the joint chiefs first before ending DADT.

BrianW
10-11-2009, 05:47 PM
I don't understand your first points...

A perfect example of why we should leave it to the experts in the field, and not at the whim of politicians.

LeeG
10-11-2009, 05:55 PM
A perfect example of why we should leave it to the experts in the field, and not at the whim of politicians.

which Obama is doing

"Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said."

BrianW
10-11-2009, 06:02 PM
which Obama is doing

"Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said."

What if they say no?

Phillip Allen
10-11-2009, 06:09 PM
I can imagine an old E7 cornering some E2 in some remote part of a ship...likely happened already though...wonder if that aspect would change?

LeeG
10-11-2009, 06:11 PM
what if they say it's about time?

BrianW
10-11-2009, 06:14 PM
what if they say it's about time?

Given current recruitment efforts, isn't it strange that they haven't already?

Might be a hint there...

Phillip Allen
10-11-2009, 06:27 PM
"we" believe what we want to believe and disregard the rest

George Roberts
10-11-2009, 06:47 PM
I agree with BrianW.

While I am in favor of gays serving - without harassment, there are details that need to be worked out.

brad9798
10-12-2009, 07:29 AM
Gays will never serve without harassment ... there will always been some dumb, backwards fool that will make sure of it.

I personally don't give a sh*t if a soldier likes sheep, as long as he/she does his/her job.

Phillip Allen
10-12-2009, 07:57 AM
Gays will never serve without harassment ... there will always been some dumb, backwards fool that will make sure of it.

I personally don't give a sh*t if a soldier likes sheep, as long as he/she does his/her job.

that's a definate yep...maybe

John Smith
10-12-2009, 08:24 AM
I never paid any attention to the whole thing...it just didn't seem important one way or another...don't know why folks make a fuss...

Do you realize how many needed language interpreters we lost after 9/11 simply because they were gay?

If you are referring to why anyone cares if these people were gay, you've got me.

I certainly don't. What puzzles me, especially after seeing Moore's new movie, is why the religious folks get so involved in keeping gays out of the military, stopping abortions, yet are so uninvolved in things like health care. Seems taking care of the "least" is part of their basic belief system.

As to gays in the military openly, as opposed to hidden, or gays getting married or living together next door, I can't see why it bothers anyone, or what impact it has on anyone.

John Smith
10-12-2009, 08:26 AM
we agree
Hearings have been underway, I believe, for a couple of weeks now.

Do not be surprised, however, if this is also filibustered in the senate.

John Smith
10-12-2009, 08:31 AM
if a basket ball player is seven feet tall...he is abnormal I suppose...yesterday I saw a woman (apparently in her 30's or 40's) who had to be less than four feet tall...I doubt she was to be considered normal... :)
"normal" vs "natural"

Sometimes we use poor words for things. Lefties where once considered not natural.

Some consider homosexuality as not natural.

I agree the concept of abnormal covers a very large area of people who are out of sync via their size, hair color, etc., or even in some of their abilities.

Einstein was not normal. People who compose symphanies are not normal. Bolger was certainly not normal, which is what made him what he was.

Sometimes, "abnormal" equals "extraordinary".

Phillip Allen
10-12-2009, 08:31 AM
Do you realize how many needed language interpreters we lost after 9/11 simply because they were gay?

If you are referring to why anyone cares if these people were gay, you've got me.

I certainly don't. What puzzles me, especially after seeing Moore's new movie, is why the religious folks get so involved in keeping gays out of the military, stopping abortions, yet are so uninvolved in things like health care. Seems taking care of the "least" is part of their basic belief system.

As to gays in the military openly, as opposed to hidden, or gays getting married or living together next door, I can't see why it bothers anyone, or what impact it has on anyone.

yep...that's where I was going too...

Phillip Allen
10-12-2009, 08:34 AM
"normal" vs "natural"

Sometimes we use poor words for things. Lefties where once considered not natural.

Some consider homosexuality as not natural.

I agree the concept of abnormal covers a very large area of people who are out of sync via their size, hair color, etc., or even in some of their abilities.

Einstein was not normal. People who compose symphanies are not normal. Bolger was certainly not normal, which is what made him what he was.

Sometimes, "abnormal" equals "extraordinary".

thanks for seeing my point...

John Smith
10-12-2009, 08:36 AM
Well he could be talking to a community of religious groups about the sanctity of human life and the tragedy of abortion.

But he's not.

He could be talking to the NRA about the need for protecting the Homeland.

But he's not.

I didn't know you were so concerned about undoing the legacy of the Christian Right.
I'm concerned with undoing the legacy of the Christian Right. I think they're nuts. They chime in on abortion, do nothing for kids already born, and have been silent on, or opposed to efforts to get health care to the poor.

They'll protect the fetus at great length, but do nothing to help mom get prenatal care.

Where do you get the right to tell a woman who is pregant and doesn't want to be that she has to stay pregnant for 9 months?

Why is someone else's abortion any of your business?

To get back to the thread topic, why is someone's sexual orientation any of your business?

John Smith
10-12-2009, 08:38 AM
Nope.

Just pointing out that Obama is yet another politician. He says what his audience wants to hear.

Some folks lap it up.
Yes, he's a polititian. Yes, this is what these folks want to hear, and why they gave him such strong support.

However, hearings on this are underway, and it will take an act of congress to change the law as it is. That act appears to be coming.

Phillip Allen
10-12-2009, 08:40 AM
It’s not any of our business unless it impinges on us personally...and directly

John Smith
10-12-2009, 08:47 AM
It’s not any of our business unless it impinges on us personally...and directly

Which it doesn't.

I think this is an example of how religion tries to keep us in the dark ages.

There are other examples that are similar to the military. A couple of years back there was a very highly honored scout leader who came out and was kicked out.

Why?

I like to believe we, as a nation, could make a lot of progress if we didn't have to fight the stupid battles. Worrying about same sex marriage, gays in the military, gays adopting kids, preventing abortions, etc., are to me, stupid arguments.

They drain a lot of time and energy from more important things.

Phillip Allen
10-12-2009, 08:53 AM
I'm with ya on the energy drain ... :(

BrianW
10-12-2009, 11:55 AM
It’s not any of our business unless it impinges on us personally...and directly

Very true.

BrianW
10-12-2009, 11:57 AM
Which it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Because homosexuality, unlike skin color, is an action. Or lifetime series of actions if you like.

BrianW
10-12-2009, 12:29 PM
I'm concerned with undoing the legacy of the Christian Right... ....and have been silent on, or opposed to efforts to get health care to the poor.

Cite please.


They'll protect the fetus at great length, but do nothing to help mom get prenatal care.

Cite please, again.

Oh, remember you've generalized, so your answer must cover all religious "right."


Where do you get the right to tell a woman who is pregant and doesn't want to be that she has to stay pregnant for 9 months?

Maybe you're the father.

Captain Blight
10-12-2009, 12:37 PM
Yes it does.

Because homosexuality, unlike skin color, is an action. Or lifetime series of actions if you like.And discrimination against The Other is also an action. Or a lifetime series of actions, if you like.

I think part of the problem is as Mr Smith has pointed out, that this is something that is religiously based... it's certainly not rooted in any sort of rationality or fact. And I think that a lot of the objection to this is that there always needs to be someone at the bottom of the pecking order. Problem is, that as things currently stand, for homosexuals, they are denied equal protection under the law (in this case UCMJ); one could make a fairly strong case that they are subject to taxation without representation.

I hope this passes, and (at least relatively) soon. It would be a *fantastic* way to get those Dominionist theocratic officers to resign their commissions; and once and for all, get out the national-defense business.

One may rant and rave about how them GD queers are always cramming things in the faces of the rest of us good, decent citizens. Well, what else are they to do? Quiet anger is all well and good; noisy anger gets faster results.

BrianW
10-12-2009, 08:07 PM
I think part of the problem is as Mr Smith has pointed out, that this is something that is religiously based...

There's nothing religious about basic housing needs.

Saltiguy
10-13-2009, 07:24 AM
Sounds like everyone's for it. I'm not. Sorry, I have nothing against gays but I see openly gay policy as divisive. I served in the Army as an enlisted man living in barracks with 50 other men. When I served, I'm sure we had gays in our outfit, but it was hidden - as it should be IMO. Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR - not like race, nationality, tall or short. It is a behavior, and if this behavior is allowed to be displayed openly, the core purpose of the unit ( which is the mission) will be compromised. There will be a new clique formed in squads and platoons. The gays will find eachother, congregate, and comprise a new element apart from the others which will divide the unit.
Picture this. You are straight, living in a barracks. You shower, return to your bunk to get dressed, and while you are bending over naked to put on your socks, you are keenly aware of the small group of gays nearby who are scoping your backside. Maybe there is a laugh, or a some little remark - like "oh, yeah".
Get the idea? DADT is a sound policy. Gays can serve, be an integrated part of the unit and nobody knows or cares. When they leave the post, they can go wherever they want and do whatever they want, but I do not believe they should be allowed to meet and congregate in the military.

ljb5
10-13-2009, 08:24 AM
Picture this. You are straight, living in a barracks. You shower, return to your bunk to get dressed, and while you are bending over naked to put on your socks, you are keenly aware of the small group of gays nearby who are scoping your backside. Maybe there is a laugh, or a some little remark - like "oh, yeah".

You seem to be confused about the difference between homosexuality and sexual harassment.

Harassing behavior (such as making unwelcome comments about people's bodies) should not be allowed... not by anyone, gay straight or lesbian.

But not all gays participate in sexual harassment.... and we know for a fact that not all straights abstain from it.

Why should all gays be excluded from service just because you're afraid some might harass you? Would you apply the same logic to straights?

Seneca
10-13-2009, 08:36 AM
It would appear that there are a couple of issues: (1) Women are soon to be allowed to serve on submarines as they do on ships, which negates I think the discussion on housing; why should gay men/women be subject to separate housing, per an earlier post, irrespective of their orientation? It's behavior that counts, not interests. (2) More importantly, however, is the question of how to protect those who come out in the service from their less enlightened co-servicemen/women. Let us not forget what happened to Pvt. Winchell ( I think that was his name) in Kentucky where he was bludgeoned with a baseball bat only a short time ago as well as a more recent incident. And Winchell was dating a male to female transsexual, which didn't even make him gay. While the DADT policy is clearly nonsensical and discriminatory, changing it means a lot of education for a lot of people to avoid incidents such as those.

switters
10-13-2009, 08:55 AM
it would be interesting to see two polls on this. One poll of prior active duty military and one poll of civilians.

I for one think it is a bad idea, which is probably enough to label me homophobic, but I know the mindset of the 19 year old marine. I've openly disagreed with the president because he didn't overturn the patriot act which is enough to label someone racist these days. There is reason that enlisted men and women do not share quarters. Sexual harassment is a huge problem in the enlisted military. When they figure out the way to solve that then open gays should be integrated, but not before. And I dont know what the answer is. 4 hours of lecture once a year it is not. The bottom line is that there is a lack of maturity in the barracks, and that is going to be tough to overcome.

BarnacleGrim
10-13-2009, 08:58 AM
Picture this. You are straight, living in a barracks. You shower, return to your bunk to get dressed, and while you are bending over naked to put on your socks, you are keenly aware of the small group of gays nearby who are scoping your backside.
I think the problem here is that you have too high of an opinion of your backside.

I'm just as prejudiced as you guys, but in the opposite direction. Every gay person I've ever met has been very respectful and made me feel at ease. The same can't be said for the straight people. Ever sat in on a circle jerk in the armed forces? Now that's a congregation reserved for straights.

BarnacleGrim
10-13-2009, 09:20 AM
I for one think it is a bad idea, which is probably enough to label me homophobic, but I know the mindset of the 19 year old marine.
What mindset the 19-year-olds may have is besides the point. If the commanding officers can make the teenagers stand up straight they can make them stop harassing each other as well. But it has to start at the top of the chain of command.

Saltiguy
10-13-2009, 09:32 AM
One thing that seems to be lost in the debate is the core purpose of the military. You who have served will understand these basic elements
1 . Unit cohesion
2. The Mission

If you have served as an enlisted man, you will understand the concern about these basic concept being eroded by an elimination of DADT.

BTW - I've liked every gay I've ever met, and I'm entirely sympathetic to their minority status. I also believe that they should not be discriminated against.
However - military life and military purpose is different. DADT is the correct policy IMO. Gays can serve with honor and distinction if they want to. Just don't talk about it.

Kaa
10-13-2009, 09:36 AM
One thing that seems to be lost in the debate is the core purpose of the military.

To kill people as safely and efficiently as possible..? :D


...you will understand the concern about these basic concept being eroded by an elimination of DADT.

I think your argument applies much better to women in military.

Kaa

switters
10-13-2009, 09:38 AM
What mindset the 19-year-olds may have is besides the point. If the commanding officers can make the teenagers stand up straight they can make them stop harassing each other as well. But it has to start at the top of the chain of command.

I notice you list Sweden as your home, did you serve? I know very little about Sweden but I think that service is compulsory there for most men, or was.

BarnacleGrim
10-13-2009, 09:42 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FKEJ7PF2L._SL500.jpg

Nothing wrong with either unit cohesion or the mission here! :D

BarnacleGrim
10-13-2009, 09:50 AM
I notice you list Sweden as your home, did you serve? I know very little about Sweden but I think that service is compulsory there for most men, or was.
I'm actually in Sweden as a Norwegian draft dodger :rolleyes:

And I guess that makes me a bit of a know-it-all, but really, it doesn't matter whether you're on an aircraft carrier or a backwater bulk freighter. The captain is ultimately responsible for not only the ship, but also the well-being of the crew. Openly gay crewmembers is not an excuse to neglect one's responsibilities as a commander.

LeeG
10-13-2009, 10:16 AM
Just don't talk about it.

and sex, those young men shouldn't talk about sex either.

ljb5
10-13-2009, 10:45 AM
One thing that seems to be lost in the debate is the core purpose of the military. You who have served will understand these basic elements
1 . Unit cohesion
2. The Mission


The same argument can (and has) been used to justify discrimination against blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists, Muslims and women.

No matter where you look, there's always someone who is a little different than you.

You can always use the "unit cohesion" argument to complain that not being just like you is reason enough to exclude them.

Keith Wilson
10-13-2009, 10:51 AM
Exactly the same arguments were used in 1948 to justify continuing a segregated military. After all, boys from Alabama couldn't possibly fight effectively alongside black folks, right? Yet they did, and still do.

switters
10-13-2009, 10:58 AM
so everyone is in favor of co-ed barracks?

It is okay if a hypothetical someone had a hypothetical 19 year old daughter sharing an open squadbay and head with a few other women and men? about 40.

It is just my opinion but the race comparison is not valid.

Saltiguy
10-13-2009, 11:11 AM
The race/ ethnicity/religion comparison is NOT valid.

Those are not behaviors. Homosexuality is a behavior.

BarnacleGrim
10-13-2009, 11:17 AM
The race/ ethnicity/religion comparison is NOT valid.

Those are not behaviors. Homosexuality is a behavior.
Yeah, ever since the military was desegregated we have nothing but car jacking and crack smoking in the barracks. Now they're going to start inhaling poppers too! :rolleyes:

Kaa
10-13-2009, 11:18 AM
The race/ ethnicity/religion comparison is NOT valid.

Those are not behaviors. Homosexuality is a behavior.

Huh? Homosexuality is not a behavior. Homosexuality is a sexual preference.

Screwing is behavior -- common to heterosexuals and homosexuals, strangely enough :D

Kaa

Seneca
10-13-2009, 11:39 AM
Also, it is generally agreed that preferences start in utero, while environmental factors may or may not play an additional role. Why anyone, including the military, cares what people do in their private lives is beyond me. I can barely keep up with my own life. One can assume that the same standards of conduct would apply in the military for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation and that should be all that matters.

I love woodenboat forum!

John of Phoenix
10-13-2009, 11:41 AM
The Greeks, Romans, British Navy and hundreds of other armed forces have made it work over the eons. The basis for the original rule was as a potential security breach - blackmail the gay guy into turning over all the secrets and you'd loose the war for sure. It smells of McCarthy but I'm not sure.

Gays should have as much right to kill and be killed as any other citizen.

oznabrag
10-13-2009, 11:43 AM
What bothers me about dadt is after ten fifteen years of service, someone else outs them. there goes a life time of service and benefits. So unfair.

It seems to me that the one doing the 'outing' has, by definition, 'told', and their career/benefits should also be terminated. :cool:

Paul Pless
10-13-2009, 11:43 AM
ya had to throw the british navy in there didn't ya

ljb5
10-13-2009, 11:43 AM
Huh? Homosexuality is not a behavior. Homosexuality is a sexual preference.

Some would argue that Judaism is a behavior (they have the option of converting to Christianity!)

While it's true that they could convert, it doesn't support the conclusion that they ought to convert. And it sure as hell doesn't support the conclusion that the government ought to take an active role in promoting one "behavior" over another.

Even if homosexuality were a behavior (like Judaism), there's no justification in discriminating against the people who practice it. This used to be called individual liberty.

oznabrag
10-13-2009, 11:52 AM
Yes, but they may only have a short time in service. No big loss to them as compared to ones retirement and other benefits.

So you fine the 'outer' an amount equivalent to the loss of the 'outee'.

Fair enough?

Phillip Allen
10-13-2009, 12:02 PM
ya had to throw the british navy in there didn't ya

Yeah, I got a laugh outa it too :)

ljb5
10-13-2009, 12:16 PM
On further reflection, we must acknowledge that heterosexuality also poses a huge risk to unit cohesion.


I'd wager that the majority of bar fights stem from an argument over women.
Two men might fight over the same woman.
Two women might fight over the same man.
A rejected lover of either gender might harass their former partner.
A superior might try to coerce a subordinate of the opposite sex.
A subordinate might try to garner favor from a superior using sexual favors or extortion.
A man or a woman might be distracted from their duties by attention to another.


Unless and until we can resolve all the pitfalls of human sexuality, there's no justification for discriminating against one form of sexuality while permitting another which is also known to be detrimental.

Paul Pless
10-13-2009, 12:19 PM
I'd wager that the majority of bar fights stem from an argument over women.I'd wager that the majority of bar fights stem from a lack of sobriety.

John of Phoenix
10-13-2009, 12:22 PM
I'd wager that the majority of bar fights stem from a lack of sobriety. DAMHIKT
That's better. ;)

Paul Pless
10-13-2009, 12:25 PM
> :D

Actually, I've never been in a bar fight... I have however ran from a few bars. . .

Seneca
10-13-2009, 12:26 PM
As Winston Churchill reportedly remarked to an old Admiral when he [Churchill] wanted to make some changes in the navy and the Admiral waxed on about traditions; so said Churchill:

There are three traditions in the British Navy: Rum, the lash and sodomy.

oznabrag
10-13-2009, 12:44 PM
As Winston Churchill reportedly remarked to an old Admiral when he [Churchill] wanted to make some changes in the navy and the Admiral waxed on about traditions; so said Churchill:

There are three traditions in the British Navy: Rum, Sodomy and the Lash. (Bold mine)

Also the title of the second album from The Pogues.

Here's my fave from that disc:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP3tlRTTpbI

Always brings a tear. A stream of them if I'm drunk.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 12:47 PM
Unless and until we can resolve all the pitfalls of human sexuality, there's no justification for discriminating against one form of sexuality while permitting another which is also known to be detrimental.

The rules require the military prevent sexual harassment to the best of their ability.

Therefore wherever possible, they separate the sleeping and bathroom facilities between men and women.

Adding 2 more sexual orientations without major changes in the current housing situations will certainly increase the number of sexual harassment cases.

That's not an acceptable outcome.

bobbys
10-13-2009, 12:48 PM
> :D

Actually, I've never been in a bar fight... I have however ran from a few bars. . ..

I fought over the Peanuts and Pretzels a few times and got punched for screaming at the Band to play some Cowsills and Manilow!

BrianW
10-13-2009, 12:53 PM
Nice to note that everyone here agrees homosexuals should be able to serve.

It appears that most who have served approach the topic in a very realistic 'hows it gonna work in day to day living?' mindset.

Captain Blight
10-13-2009, 03:38 PM
The rules require the military prevent sexual harassment to the best of their ability.

Therefore wherever possible, they separate the sleeping and bathroom facilities between men and women.

Adding 2 more sexual orientations without major changes in the current housing situations will certainly increase the number of sexual harassment cases.

That's not an acceptable outcome.Only to you. Look, no one has ever said it would be easy. No one has ever said that this will be a seamless, painless transition.

You know what it's going to take? Not any sort of special treatment for those of the lavender persuasion, but simply being allowed to take their lumps and do their pushups like everyone else. And I guarantee you, there's going to be more than a few SuperStraight©® enlistees who get their asses thoroughly kicked by "fags" during hand-to-hand training. Going to be a few high scores and Expert quals in marksmanship training going that way, too. That's the sort of thing that wins respect; and how much better off we will be as a society, 20 years from now, when Dad's old Army buddy shows up to the unit reunion, with his husband in tow.

We all bleed red. Whom we love has absolutely no impact on that.

Keith Wilson
10-13-2009, 03:42 PM
and how much better off we will be as a society, 20 years from now, when Dad's old Army buddy shows up to the unit reunion, with his husband in tow. Amen. http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif The end of racial segregation in the military in 1948 was the beginning of the end for legal segregation in general, and today the armed forces are more racially integrated and colorblind then most of civilian society. May it be so with gays and lesbians as well.

ljb5
10-13-2009, 04:05 PM
Therefore wherever possible, they separate the sleeping and bathroom facilities between men and women.

I do not agree with your premise that sharing sleeping facilities or bathrooms equates automatically to harassment.

I believe it is possible that gays can go to bed when when the lights go out and resist the urge to leap unwelcome upon the nearest straight guy's bum.

Moreover, the assertion that they cannot resist that urge is a presumption of guilt. That's poor justification for restricting the rights of a huge number of people.

In the civilian world, we don't have segregated bathrooms for gays and straights. With the exception of a Republican senator from Idaho, we don't seem to have many problems with it. :D

I suppose it's possible that a gay man glanced at my wee-wee once or twice whilst I was peeing in the trough, but I guess I got over it.

Since there's no reason to take special precautions to segregate gays from straights in the bathroom at Penn Station or Yankee Stadium or Sea World, I see no reason why the military should have a problem with it.

I confess that I've glanced at a woman's chest or rear from time to time. Does that make either her or me unfit to serve my country?

BrianW
10-13-2009, 04:15 PM
Only to you. Look, no one has ever said it would be easy. No one has ever said that this will be a seamless, painless transition...

...We all bleed red. Whom we love has absolutely no impact on that.

This part of your post is real, the rest was feel good banter.

This is not about warm fuzzy feelings, it's about real issues.

Where is Obama's plan? Didn't he think this through before he was making campaign promises on the issue?

BrianW
10-13-2009, 04:23 PM
I do not agree with your premise that sharing sleeping facilities or bathrooms equates automatically to harassment.

It's not my premise, it's the way things are in the military. Not just for homosexuals, but for straights too. That's why we have the current policy to separate individuals who may have a sexual attraction to each other.

ljb5
10-13-2009, 04:24 PM
BTW, Brian, in the civilian world, there are numerous jobs which require coworkers to share living quarters, sleeping rooms and shower facilities.

Firefighters, paramedics, sailors on ocean-going ships, teammates on professional sports teams, archaeologists working in the filed, mountain guides, etc...

Since the military is the only organization in which COs can literally command their subordinates to face death, it seems silly to suggest that they cannot figure out a way to share the bathroom.

ljb5
10-13-2009, 04:26 PM
That's why we have the current policy to separate individuals who may have a sexual attraction to each other.

How come there are no "Gays Only" bathrooms in any civilian buildings?

Somehow, every civilian organization in the country seems to have figured out a solution to this conundrum, yet you would have us believe that the US Military (which has the finest command and discipline structure in the world) is unable to resolve it?

You're telling us that a US marine can be ordered to take a bullet for his country, but can't take a whiz next to a gay guy?

BrianW
10-13-2009, 04:29 PM
...it seems silly to suggest that they cannot figure out a way to share the bathroom.

So where's the plan?

BrianW
10-13-2009, 04:33 PM
How come there are no "Gays Only" bathrooms in any civilian buildings?

Actually, a "gays only" bathroom wouldn't work. You have a situation in which people who are sexual attracted to each other are forced into a potentially awkward situation.

Phillip Allen
10-13-2009, 04:35 PM
Actually, a "gays only" bathroom wouldn't work. You have a situation in which people who are sexual attracted to each other are forced into a potentially awkward situation.

give it up Brian...he already knows that

Captain Blight
10-13-2009, 04:35 PM
Actually, a "gays only" bathroom wouldn't work. You have a situation in which people who are sexual attracted to each other a forced into a potentially awkward situation.This is a logical fallacy, in that it assumes that ALL gay men are attracted to ALL men at ALL times. This is demonstrably and provably false.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 04:36 PM
I fully understand Obama's reticence to eliminate DADT by fiat, rather than waiting to do it via an act of Congress.

I don't think he's serious about it at all, or he would have presented a plan rather than asking the Pentagon to look into the issue.

Captain Blight
10-13-2009, 04:37 PM
I don't like this just because I don't like this and there is no logic behind it at all.
Or other words to that effect.

ljb5
10-13-2009, 04:38 PM
Actually, a "gays only" bathroom wouldn't work. You have a situation in which people who are sexual attracted to each other are forced into a potentially awkward situation.

Reality is a bitch, ain't it? :rolleyes: And yet, somehow, we all seem to muddle through. Gay men do go to the bathroom, even though you say it couldn't work. :rolleyes:

You do realize that gays can be surgeons, right? Gay men can perform surgery on straight men. They can even be proctologists and urologists.

Straight women can be nurses for men and women, as can gay men, straight men and lesbians.

Straight men can be gynecologists as can lesbians.

I've personally given mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to both men and women. I once touched a woman's breast (in an appropriate manner) while performing chest compressions.

Straight men can perform mammograms. I once had a woman perform a procedure on my parts.

The element you're missing is called "professionalism." In the US military, it's enforced through discipline.

Why do you have such a low opinion of the discipline and professionalism of the US military?

Captain Blight
10-13-2009, 04:38 PM
I don't think he's serious about it at all, or he would have presented a plan rather than asking the Pentagon to look into the issue.Or maybe his plan all along was to have the Pentagon look into the matter, and he would make final decisions based on their findings. That's a plan, too, you know.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 04:40 PM
This is a logical fallacy, in that it assumes that ALL gay men are attracted to ALL men at ALL times. This is demonstrably and provably false.

No, it isn't. I simply know that a certain percentage of individuals, straight and gay, simply haven't figured out the sexual harassment is wrong.

I never said it would happen all the time.

How many times is acceptable to you?

BrianW
10-13-2009, 04:43 PM
Why do you have such a low opinion of the discipline and professionalism of the US military?

The "stop beating your wife yet" question.

That's when I know your reaching the end of logical debate.

But for your info, I've served, so I know of what I speak.

How about you?

BrianW
10-13-2009, 04:45 PM
Or maybe his plan all along was to have the Pentagon look into the matter, and he would make final decisions based on their findings. That's a plan, too, you know.

Exactly. An easy way out, if the military says "no thanks."

Keith Wilson
10-13-2009, 04:45 PM
I simply know that a certain percentage of individuals, straight and gay, simply haven't figured out the sexual harassment is wrong.This is true. It's true in civilian life as well as the military. But it's not a sufficient reason to keep gay folks out of the armed forces.

ljb5
10-13-2009, 04:45 PM
But for your info, I've served, so I know of what I speak.

How about you?

I never served, but as I just mentioned above, I exist in the civilian world where professionalism allows us to fulfill our professional responsibilities without problem.

Why do you think the US military can't have the same level of professionalism as a nurse?

Doctors and nurses routinely preform examinations and procedures on patients of the opposite sex, without issue. The US military, with all of its discipline and command structure ought to be able to achieve the same level of professionalism.

Remember: we're not asking them to perform rectal exams on each other. We're talking about members of the same unit who are expected to fight and die for each other. You really think they can't take a whiz into the same trough?

Kaa
10-13-2009, 04:46 PM
No, it isn't. I simply know that a certain percentage of individuals, straight and gay, simply haven't figured out the sexual harassment is wrong.

True. Any special reason you're willing to accept straight sexual harassment but are unwilling to accept gay sexual harassment?

Kaa

BrianW
10-13-2009, 04:48 PM
Well, what are the statistics?...
...Compared to how many heterosexual assaults?

I think we'd find that it's a non-problem. Heterosexual assault IS a significant problem in the military. Maybe we should ban women?

Yep, there are still sexual assaults, even given the rules to prevent close quarter contact between the sexes in barracks and bathrooms.

There's no way that will improve if those restrictions are removed.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 04:52 PM
I never served...

Enough said....

seanz
10-13-2009, 04:54 PM
Enough said....

But we're pretty sure he votes..............

BrianW
10-13-2009, 04:54 PM
co-ed showers, because not all men are attracted to all women all the time.

Probably the closest answer to the true issue.

Removing all the barriers is the only equal way to handle the situation.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 04:55 PM
True. Any special reason you're willing to accept straight sexual harassment but are unwilling to accept gay sexual harassment?

Kaa

Really Kaa... :rolleyes:

ljb5
10-13-2009, 04:55 PM
There's no way that will improve if those restrictions are removed.

Interesting hypothesis.

I'm sure there are a lot of women who would feel safer in a submarine full of gay men then in one full of straight men. :eek:

Indeed, I would posit that women and gays have much more to fear from straight men than straight men have to fear from gays.

One need not look very far to find instances of straight men attacking women, gays and lesbians. Instances of lesbians or gays attacking straight men seem to be much more rare. (With the possible exception of that Republican Senator from Idaho).

Kaa
10-13-2009, 04:59 PM
Really Kaa... :rolleyes:

Well, you don't seem to have major problems with women serving in the armed forces. The appearance of women in what used to be purely male organizations surely led to a large amount of problems, tensions, sexual harassment, and the like. Still, it turned out these problems are not insurmountable. You don't think the continued existence of hetero sexual harassment and hetero sexual assault are good enough reasons to exclude women from the military, do you?

But homosexual harassment -- that's quite a different thing, according to you, a problem that the US armed forces just cannot deal with. Why is that?

Kaa

Seneca
10-13-2009, 05:01 PM
A recent captain of Harvard's Water Polo team is gay and was out while he was at Harvard and on the team. In fact, he was elected captain after coming out and you know they showered together. For anyone who has ever played water polo, additionally,anything is legal that you can't see below the water. A councilman in an unamed, but southern jurisdiction where I lived, was out and swam in the public pool every day; he also showered with everyone else and nobody in the locker room ran out screaming, fearful for their virginity. I swam competitively and there were gay swimmers on the team(s) and nobody could have cared less. Get serious; you've showered with them too and just didn't know it. Inappropriate behaviour/ attention is just that. Most people don't do it.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 05:04 PM
But homosexual harassment -- that's quite a different thing, according to you, a problem that the US armed forces just cannot deal with. Why is that?

Kaa

What I've said, is that there are real issues to deal with first.

To deal with women in the military, they added separate bathrooms and sleeping quarters.

Why then, and not now?

Captain Blight
10-13-2009, 05:09 PM
Actually, a "gays only" bathroom wouldn't work. You have a situation in which people who are sexual attracted to each other are forced into a potentially awkward situation.I've taken a leak at the Gay 90's in Minneapolis. The men's room there is a horse-trough urinal with a mirror just above, so those so inclined can check out each others' junk. I had no problem doing this, even though I knew that there were guys in there checking out my package. When presented with an offer, I politely declined, zipped up, and left, to go back out on the dancefloor with my girlfriend. Do you mean to tell me that other service members (heh) are unable of doing the same?

They are subject to UCMJ. They will do what they're told to, especially if the orders come from CIC.

High C
10-13-2009, 05:09 PM
....To deal with women in the military, they added separate bathrooms and sleeping quarters.

Why then, and not now?

It is possible to separate heterosexuals.
It is not possible to separate homosexuals.

The military brass should decide.

ljb5
10-13-2009, 05:12 PM
What I've said, is that there are real issues to deal with first.

To deal with women in the military, they added separate bathrooms and sleeping quarters.

You seem really hung up on the idea of bathrooms. As I've already pointed out to you, the civilian world seems to have resolved this problem.

Somehow, miraculously, gay men are able to expel their urine and feces. I know it seems impossible, but it does happen.

I wonder if you're correct about adding bathrooms. Surely, there must be some place in the US military where there's just one bathroom and everyone has to figure out how to share it.

Do they have separate bathrooms on the space shuttle?

What do they do if one of the bathrooms on base is out of order?

Do you really the entire military establishment is going to grind to a halt because men and women won't be able to get along with just one bathroom while they fix the plumbing?

Do you really think segregated plumbing is the keystone of the American military?

High C
10-13-2009, 05:16 PM
....I wonder if you're correct about adding bathrooms. Surely, there must be some place in the US military where there's just one bathroom and everyone has to figure out how to share it.

Do they have separate bathrooms on the space shuttle?

What do they do if one of the bathrooms on base is out of order?

Do you really the entire military establishment is going to grind to a halt because men and women won't be able to get along with just one bathroom while they fix the plumbing?

Do you really think segregated plumbing is the keystone of the American military?

Have you ever even spoken to a woman? :p

Saltiguy
10-13-2009, 05:26 PM
The problem is not so much individual behavior, but the fact that they can identify eachother readily, and form a separate clique within the unit, a situation that would be divisive and incendiary.

Unit Cohesion

Kaa
10-13-2009, 05:27 PM
The problem is not so much individual behavior, but the fact that they can identify eachother readily, and form a separate clique within the unit, a situation that would be divisive and incendiary.

Why, that's just like black people! :D :D

Kaa

BrianW
10-13-2009, 05:29 PM
They are subject to UCMJ. They will do what they're told to, especially if the orders come from CIC.

Did you see the stats Norman posted.

Apparently not, if you posted the above quote.

You and lil'Jay crack me up about this "they will do what they're told" mentality.

Guess there's no Leavenworth in your world. ;)

Oh, the offer you received in the bathroom is sexual harassment and would be punishable under the UCMJ. That would never happen in a military bathroom, right?

Seneca
10-13-2009, 05:30 PM
sorry saltiguy, but that's nonsense.

switters
10-13-2009, 05:35 PM
You seem really hung up on the idea of bathrooms. As I've already pointed out to you, the civilian world seems to have resolved this problem.

Somehow, miraculously, gay men are able to expel their urine and feces. I know it seems impossible, but it does happen.

I wonder if you're correct about adding bathrooms. Surely, there must be some place in the US military where there's just one bathroom and everyone has to figure out how to share it.

Do they have separate bathrooms on the space shuttle?

What do they do if one of the bathrooms on base is out of order?

Do you really the entire military establishment is going to grind to a halt because men and women won't be able to get along with just one bathroom while they fix the plumbing?

Do you really think segregated plumbing is the keystone of the American military?

I see your strawman and raise you a "you dont know what the hell your talking about":)

The nurse argument is stupid also, if we were training 22-23 year olds with 4 years of higher education then there would be several fewer problems with alcoholism, sexual harassment and general immaturity.

Women serve, why not homosexuals. Well there are several problems with women serving, so why not throw more gas on the fire since it is already burning eh?

screw it, I think the whole military should be leftwing and gay or tolerant. Then you can serve only the commanders you chose to and obey only the orders that are politically correct and presented in a pleasing manner.

At some point in time there will be gays serving openly, after a bitter integration policy, and after some ground rules are laid out about straight and homosexual behavior. Some real life examples of other integrated armed forces would be welcome to this discussion. Did they do anything different? What are the problems? How is unit cohesion and how does that compare with similar units in the US military?

you want to sell this, give some examples.

John of Phoenix
10-13-2009, 05:35 PM
At one of the first VHPA reunions I attended in the early 90's, there was a table with a sign "Gay pilots may register here." Who knew?

I read a post on a pilots' forum from a guy I flew with in Vietnam named Paul who is now Paula. No one ever suspected a thing.

There was a big flap when women were brought into combat support jobs in the 70s'. That seems to have worked out.

There is a natural resistance to change in everyone. With some folks there's an UN-natural resistance.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 05:38 PM
There was a big flap when women were brought into combat support jobs in the 70s'. That seems to have worked out.

Did they use the men's bathroom and sleeping quarters, or where new arrangements made to accommodate them?

switters
10-13-2009, 05:51 PM
I've decided to do a bit of research and found this on wiki,

The militaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military) of the world have a variety of responses to gays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay), lesbians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian) and bisexuals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexual). Most Western military forces have now removed policies excluding sexual minority members; of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO), more than 20 permit open lesbians, gays, or bisexuals to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council), two (United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) and France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France)) do so. Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) excludes all gays and lesbians during peacetime but allows some gay men to serve in wartime (see below), and the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) (see Don't ask, don't tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell)) technically permits gays and lesbians to serve, but only in secrecy and celibacy.

interesting. What is tough is to find is how it is working out, other than a short blurb on gay Israeli men having the right to shower alone if they request it.

I assume the foreigners will be along shortly to explain to us how it all works. If we are lucky it will be from one that has first hand experience in the matter and not just an opinion.

Bob Smalser
10-13-2009, 06:33 PM
Y'all are missing some key points. If not all of them.

1) The troops will make it work. Hell, these days they make it work in school and the workplace well before they join as a matter of routine. It will work in military units as well. Will there be problems? Sure. But there are problems now....and well-practiced procedures to deal with them based on over 30 years of experience with gender-integrated units.

2) It's the Flags who don't want it. Namely Jones and Mullen (and Gates supporting them), both of whom Obama is afraid of because they serve as political cover. The Flags don't want it because it may negatively impact recruiting in their predominately small-town and rural, traditional-value markets. Those are where their hard-to-come-by shooters come from. Large urban areas where homosexuality is more accepted produce a lot of support troops, but fewer shooters. While a recruiting impact may not happen, that's how the Generals and Admirals see it, and don't want to take the risk knowing they may have to cough up 50k more troops for what may be a decade or more of continuous rotations into Afghanistan.

3) Obama himself isn't all that interested in gay rights. The gay vote is almost a given for him, but the black and hispanic vote is less so. Look at the Prop 8 vote stats in California, or attend some traditional black and hispanic churches and talk to their congregations. Blacks generally don't support gays (church-going blacks are largely baptist-methodist and are often actively anti-gay), nor do catholic hispanics. (70% of blacks and 60% of hispanics voted against gays in Prop 8.) Wish that one away as you will, but ask Obama mentor Jeremiah Wright for his opinion first.

oznabrag
10-13-2009, 06:36 PM
I'm very glad to see you, Mr. Smalser.

High C
10-13-2009, 06:40 PM
I'm very glad to see you, Mr. Smalser.

Indeed

ljb5
10-13-2009, 06:56 PM
Guess there's no Leavenworth in your world. ;)

Of course there is.... that's where they send the stupid pukes who don't follow orders and break the law.

You really think anyone is going to elect to go to Leavenworth, rather than serve with openly gay people?

Heck, if they're that dumb, we're better off with them in Leavenworth. The army is for people who follow lawful orders. If it's okay to order a soldier into combat, it's okay to order him to share a bathroom with a gay guy. (Not just any gay guy.... an American soldier in good standing in the US Army.)

If he can't or won't follow either order, he doesn't deserve a place in the army.


Oh, the offer you received in the bathroom is sexual harassment and would be punishable under the UCMJ. That would never happen in a military bathroom, right?

If anyone is guilty of sexual harassment (gay or straight), they should be tried under the UCMJ. But if someone isn't guilty of it, there's no sense in assuming they will be.

Bob Smalser
10-13-2009, 07:04 PM
If he can't or won't follow either order, he doesn't deserve a place in the army.



As usual, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

McChrystal and Gates just boxed in Obama in the most interesting "General's Revolt" I've seen in 40 years service. You think if this isn't handled right, resistance to an new and unpopular policy won't be every bit as sophisticated and effective when conducted by soldiers and Noncoms?

ljb5
10-13-2009, 07:06 PM
MacChrystal and Gates just boxed in Obama in the most interesting "General's Revolt" I've seen in 40 years service.

Got a copy of the Constitution handy?

I don't know much about how the army works, but I refuse to believe it's an appropriate place for revolts, insurrections, insubordination, dereliction of duty and disregarding lawful orders.

Maybe that's the type of army you want. Maybe we'd be better off without you in it.

Just saying.

Captain Blight
10-13-2009, 07:09 PM
Y'all are missing some key points. If not all of them.

1) The troops will make it work. Hell, these days they make it work in school and the workplace well before they join as a matter of routine. It will work in military units as well. Will there be problems? Sure. But there are problems now....and well-practiced procedures to deal with them based on over 30 years of experience with gender-integrated units.

2) It's the Flags who don't want it. Namely Jones and Mullen (and Gates supporting them), both of whom Obama is afraid of because they serve as political cover. The Flags don't want it because it may negatively impact recruiting in their predominately small-town and rural, traditional-value markets. Those are where their hard-to-come-by shooters come from. Large urban areas where homosexuality is more accepted produce a lot of support troops, but fewer shooters. While a recruiting impact may not happen, that's how the Generals and Admirals see it, and don't want to take the risk knowing they may have to cough up 50k more troops for what may be a decade or more of continuous rotations into Afghanistan.

3) Obama himself isn't all that interested in gay rights. The gay vote is almost a given for him, but the black and hispanic vote is less so. Look at the Prop 8 vote stats in California, or attend some traditional black and hispanic churches and talk to their congregations. Blacks generally don't support gays (church-going blacks are largely baptist-methodist and are often actively anti-gay), nor do catholic hispanics. (70% of blacks and 60% of hispanics voted against gays in Prop 8.) Wish that one away as you will, but ask Obama mentor Jeremiah Wright for his opinion first.Good points. Though i disagree with point 3; I think Mr Obama is personally committed to equality for all under the law, those of similar background to his probably aren't. In my limited dealings with the uban Black population, there is a definite conflation between having served time in prison and machismo, and it's a point of pride among many black men to have had a 'bitch' in the joint.


How's the house coming along?

Captain Blight
10-13-2009, 07:15 PM
Oh, the offer you received in the bathroom is sexual harassment and would be punishable under the UCMJ. That would never happen in a military bathroom, right?No, the offer was... just an offer. Had the point been pressed after I'd politely declined; or if there were an imbalance of power involved, that would make it "harassment." Nothing illegal went on; and mind you, Minnesota is a state where ogling a woman for too long can be construed as sexual asault. Can you imagine? "Hey, officer, I was drainin' the lizard in the Men's Room at the '90s and some guy offered to help me shake it off! I demand he be arrested!"

I reckon good common sense will prevail. Except amongst the knuckle-draggers who have none anyway.

Bob Smalser
10-13-2009, 07:23 PM
Got a copy of the Constitution handy?

Yes. Perhaps you should read it. That and acquire a few decades of the sophistication that comes from experience in these matters.

We swear an oath to the constitution....not the President.

Obeying the orders of those appointed over one always plays second fiddle to accomplishing the mission. Especially when they are delivered with the big kid's equivalent of a wink and a grin. If the boss really isn't happy, one resigns and retires. When that happens, you'll know there's a serious conflict.

Bob Smalser
10-13-2009, 07:29 PM
.... I think Mr Obama is personally committed to equality for all under the law....

...there is a definite conflation between having served time in prison and machismo, and it's a point of pride among many black men to have had a 'bitch' in the joint.




I think Mr Obama is first and foremost a politician who will go with the flow.

70% of blacks and 60% of hispanics voted against gays in Prop 8. In liberal California. Those weren't macho felons voting, either.

ljb5
10-13-2009, 07:30 PM
Yes. Perhaps you should read it.

I like the part about the President being the Commander in Chief and Congress disciplining the armed services.

That's the rule of law.


That and acquire a few decades of the sophistication that comes from experience in these matters.

I'm losing respect for your experience in these issues. You seem a little too eager for revolt and insubordination and a little lax in the discipline and chain-of-command arenas.


We swear an oath to the constitution....not the President.

Good. Obey it.


Obeying the orders of those appointed over one always plays second fiddle to accomplishing the mission.

That sounds like insubordination. There's a new Commander in Chief in town. Lawfully elected. Duly empowered by the Constitution. Deal with it.


If the boss isn't happy, one resigns and retires.

Sure, that's always an option. You really want to throw away your career rather than obey a lawful order to integrate? It's your career. Go for it.

Captain Blight
10-13-2009, 07:36 PM
70% of blacks and 60% of hispanics voted against gays in Prop 8. In liberal California. Those weren't macho felons voting, either.Never said they didn't, or weren't.

ljb5
10-13-2009, 07:40 PM
I think Mr Obama is first and foremost a politician who will go with the flow.

70% of blacks and 60% of hispanics voted against gays in Prop 8. In liberal California. Those weren't macho felons voting, either.


The thing about being a leader is sometimes you chart a course that's different from where people are already going.

That's why it's called "leading," not "following."

Keith Wilson
10-13-2009, 07:42 PM
Ah, Bob, good to see you back. Points #1 and #2 are excellent. About #3, I have my doubts. While you're quite right about the attitudes of Hispanics and religious African-Americans toward gays, Obama would just about have to join the KKK to lose more than a minuscule percentage of the black vote. The Hispanic vote is more problematic, but the Republican party has been industriously shooting themselves in the foot with Hispanics on immigration issues until they don't have any toes left. Even Since Pete Wilson hitched his wagon to anti-immigrant sentiment in the '90s, they've had great success ensuring that few people named Rodriguez will vote Republican for a generation. To his credit, Bush understood this and tried to correct it, but was unable to get around the hardliners in his own party.

Bob Smalser
10-13-2009, 07:52 PM
I like the part about the President being the Commander in Chief and Congress disciplining the armed services. That's the rule of law.I'm losing respect for your experience in these issues.You seem a little too eager for revolt and insubordination and a little lax in the discipline and chain-of-command arenas.Good.Obey it.That sounds like insubordination.There's a new Commander in Chief in town.Lawfully elected.Duly empowered by the Constitution. Deal with it.Sure, that's always an option.You really want to throw away your career rather than obey a lawful order to integrate? It's your career.Go for it.

Yada yada yada. More unreal gibberish.

What can I say? The working world of adults simply doesn't work that way. The military may dress and talk funny, but really aren't any different.

Moreover, the tipping point here are the Noncoms. Foremen and production supervisors if you like....only with the equivalent of sinecure or strong union support. The folks like Brian who translate the thinking of eggheads like Petraeus to the guys like Blight who actually kill people and break things as part of a closely-knit team. Write all the orders and policy and threats and hollering and tantrums you like....if you don't win over those Noncoms so they want to make this happen, they will neatly hand you your ass with even greater skill than Gates' and McChrystal.

Paul Pless
10-13-2009, 07:56 PM
Ah, Bob, good to see you back.Yes it is.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 07:58 PM
The thing about being a leader is sometimes you chart a course that's different from where people are already going.

That's why it's called "leading," not "following."

Bob,

Hope you're taking careful notes about leadership, from the guy who never served.

:D

Joe (SoCal)
10-13-2009, 07:59 PM
I'm very glad to see you, Mr. Smalser.

pssssssssssssst Bobs never been a big fan of Obama case ya didn't know :p

Bob Smalser
10-13-2009, 08:02 PM
.... Obama would just about have to join the KKK to lose more than a minuscule percentage of the black vote....



First time around, yes.

The second time around will....to paraphrase Carville....will be about jobs and pocketbooks, stupid. Neither portend well for Mr Obama.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 08:04 PM
...if you don't win over those Noncoms so they want to make this happen, they will neatly hand you your ass with even greater skill than Gates' and McChrystal.

Which why I wonder if Obama ever had a real plan.

If the military wanted openly gay people to serve, they'd have figured out a way already. The fact he went to the military to figure out a solution is telling. He's gonna let them poo-poo the plan, then shrug his shoulders and say "I tried." His supporters will grant him a "promise kept" and blame everyone else.

Keith Wilson
10-13-2009, 08:04 PM
Hope you're taking careful notes about leadership, from the guy who never served. Brian, leadership is by no means exclusive to the military.

Bob, did the noncoms want to integrate the military in 1948? My understanding is that the sentiment against black soldiers was at least as strong as it is against gays today, yet it happened.

I disagree with you about Obama's chances with African-Americans in 2012. They'll vote for him whatever happens; the ones he needs to convince are the middle-of-the-road whites who gave him a pretty good margin last time, and with them it will be all about "the economy, stupid".

BrianW
10-13-2009, 08:07 PM
Brian, leadership is by no means exclusive to the military.

It is when military leadership is the topic. ;)

When it's time to discuss the finer points of being the gymnastic team captain, we'll ask ljb5. :D

Keith Wilson
10-13-2009, 08:11 PM
It is when military leadership is the topic.But it isn't; the topic is the interface between military and civilian authority, which is both political and military and sometimes very complicated. Bob's military experience contributes a great deal to the discussion. Points made by others are good or bad on their merits.

Joe (SoCal)
10-13-2009, 08:14 PM
Neither portend well for Mr Obama.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha :D He just won the Nobel Peace prize, he has some of the highest approval rating in history , he won a landslide victory and yer still saying it doesn't portend well for Obama ROTFLOL :D :D :D Bob yer a pip. Good thing the REST OF THE FREAKING UNIVERSE doesn't even remotely agree with you .

Love your wood work Bob but politically your clueless, you were predicting McCain when it was hopeless. I didn't forget that one. :rolleyes: Didn't portend well for the freaking Maverick did it LOL :D

Bob Smalser
10-13-2009, 08:15 PM
Bob, did the noncoms want to integrate the military in 1948? My understanding is that the sentiment against black soldiers was at least as strong as it is against gays today, yet it happened.



After a lot of footdragging, by the time integration actually happened to any degree, we were losing our ass in 1950 Korea and race became a remote consideration compared to skills.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 08:24 PM
But it isn't; the topic is the interface between military and civilian authority, which is both political and military and sometimes very complicated. Bob's military experience contributes a great deal to the discussion. Points made by others are good or bad on their merits.

You a politician too?

Sorry! That was uncalled for! ;)

oznabrag
10-13-2009, 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oznabrag http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2349797#post2349797)
I'm very glad to see you, Mr. Smalser.





pssssssssssssst Bobs never been a big fan of Obama case ya didn't know :p

Mr. Smalser may give his political blessing to whomsoever he should like, Joe. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a big fan of the US, and proud to be one of her citizens. It is abundantly clear to me that Bob Smalser may not be necessarily a fan of Obama, but he does certainly respect the office of the President, and is willing to do what is required of him to further the goals of our new, duly elected leader. To pull at his oar as the Captain says.

I've never met the man, but he seems to be acknowledged as a man who's viewed a great number of years of internecine US military politics from the level of upper middle management, and he has chosen to contribute that unique perspective to this conversation.

I, for one, believe you owe him your gratitude and respect.

You may even learn something! :)

purri
10-13-2009, 08:37 PM
Cough,

It works in other nation's forces, look at NATO. FWIW I worked for the green machine in a MIL/CIV ("integrated workforce') for 10 years and 2 services. Army had their act together. Quite a few "gay" service folk around, no hassles except from a few heteros from half corporals to NCO ranks. SNCO's and officers had the take that whoever was then it was their own business as long as they did their job well. Furthest up the food chain I was told of was a half COL.

As for NAVY then there was this "dedicated" vessel known as the "Fluffy Duck" for the "gender preferenced".

PatCox
10-13-2009, 08:38 PM
Bob Smalser, you hit on something that coincidentally just occurred to me today. The rural red states have been hit hard by the exportation of all manufacturing, and by the rise of big agribusiness. The young in those areas have few options, the military is a major one, and yes, the parents are afraid of sending their kids off to serve alongside homosexuals, that is a part of it, isn't it?

BrianW
10-13-2009, 08:45 PM
It's a valid point Pat.

How many in 'mom & pop America' would send their daughters off to the military if they thought they'd be taking showers with men?

Kaa
10-13-2009, 08:51 PM
How many in 'mom & pop America' would send their daughters off to the military if they thought they'd be taking showers with men?

How many in 'mom & pop America' would send their daughters off to the military if they saw the statistics quoted by Norman in post#136?

Kaa

Bob Smalser
10-13-2009, 08:52 PM
Cough,

It works in other nation's forces, look at NATO.



None of which have even remotely the personnel pressures we are currently experiencing. Or have since WWII, for that matter.

Regular line units are only getting one year stateside before redeployment. Some National Guard combat units are only getting two years stateside. One of my old units now part of the 10th Mountain Division has spent almost 6 years in active, infantry combat in eight years of war.

While I don't necessarily agree with Jones, Mullen and Gates, I'll defer to them as the guys who have to pull this off for perhaps another decade in Afghanistan. And it seems clear they don't want any more surprises resulting from campaign promises.


....the parents are afraid of sending their kids off to serve alongside homosexuals, that is a part of it, isn't it?

I don't see it that way. But Gates' thoughts on it and what I described above are driving the train.

Kaa
10-13-2009, 08:55 PM
...the guys who have to pull this off for perhaps another decade in Afghanistan.

Perhaps that should be a good incentive NOT to spend another decade in Afghanistan...

Kaa

ljb5
10-13-2009, 09:02 PM
After a lot of footdragging, by the time integration actually happened to any degree, we were losing our ass in 1950 Korea and race became a remote consideration compared to skills.

Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it.

How are things going in Iraq and Afghanistan?

We have lost skilled people because of a stupid discriminatory policy that's way behind the times.

There are parallels here.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 09:03 PM
How many in 'mom & pop America' would send their daughters off to the military if they saw the statistics quoted by Norman in post#136?

Kaa

Exactly.

Do you think those numbers will improve by allowing people who are sexually attracted to take showers together?

BrianW
10-13-2009, 09:05 PM
Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it.

So how many wars has the US lost because of DADT policy?

ljb5
10-13-2009, 09:07 PM
The numbers support the silly notion that when you place the youth in a restricted space or enviroment, for sure sexual acts will take place.


So said Bristol Palin to her mother. :D

So what? Young adults like to have sex. It's pretty normal.

Straight guys like to have sex with girls. Gay guys like to have sex with guys.

So long as it doesn't interfere with their ability to do their jobs, what's the big problem?

If a gay guy wants to have sex with you, but you're not into it, just say, "No thanks."
If a straight girl wants to have sex with you, but you're not into it, just say, "No thanks."

This really isn't so complicated and it shouldn't keep honorable Americans from serving their country.

bobbys
10-13-2009, 09:16 PM
I have heard the point made about losing qualified gay Arabic speakers but i have never heard the point made young Muslim people might not join if they have to serve with homosexuals.

ljb5
10-13-2009, 09:20 PM
So how many wars has the US lost because of DADT policy?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29683-2003Dec2


a Government Accounting Office study reported that the Army faced a critical shortage of linguists needed to translate intercepts and interrogate suspects in the war on terrorism....

Confronted with a shortage of Arabic interpreters and its policy banning openly gay service members, the Pentagon had a choice to make....

In the past two years, the Department of Defense has discharged 37 linguists from the Defense Language Institute for being gay. Like Glover, many studied Arabic. At a time of heightened need for intelligence specialists, 37 linguists were rendered useless because of their homosexuality....

LeeG
10-13-2009, 09:21 PM
It's a valid point Pat.

How many in 'mom & pop America' would send their daughters off to the military if they thought they'd be taking showers with men?

how many would like to send their gay sons off to make men of them?

Bob Smalser
10-13-2009, 09:32 PM
Sexual Trauma in the Military Reserves and the National Guard

27% of men have experienced military sexual trauma
60% of women have experienced military sexual trauma
3.5% of men have experienced military sexual assault
23% of women have experienced military sexual assault
11% of women have experienced rape
1.2% of men have experienced rape
Service branch with the highest percentage of women reporting sexual trauma: Marine Corps
20% of women seeking care at VA facilities have experienced sexual trauma
1% of men seeking care at VA facilities have experienced sexual trauma
8.3 percentage of women report lifetime PTSD related to MST
More than half of the incidents took place at a military work site and during duty hours
The majority of the offenders in these cases were military personnel
Factors that increase risk of sexual assault for active duty females include presence of officers who condone or allow sexual harassment and unwanted sexual attention


Source, Norman? Anyone?

27% of National Guard men have experienced sexual trauma in the military workplace? One in three?

And one in ten women forcibly raped?

Hmmmmmmmm. Chad?

ljb5
10-13-2009, 09:46 PM
Moreover, the tipping point here are the Noncoms. Foremen and production supervisors if you like....only with the equivalent of sinecure or strong union support. The folks like Brian who translate the thinking of eggheads like Petraeus to the guys like Blight who actually kill people and break things as part of a closely-knit team. Write all the orders and policy and threats and hollering and tantrums you like....if you don't win over those Noncoms so they want to make this happen, they will neatly hand you your ass with even greater skill than Gates' and McChrystal.

Bob, you seem to have a good understanding of how noncoms can support this policy or derail it.

It seems to me that you ought to be spending more time thinking about how to support it and less time thinking about how to derail it.

Call me naive if you want, but I still believe in chain of command. I believe you when you say that command can be circumvented, but I'm just not convinced it's the right thing to do.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 10:03 PM
Bob, you seem to have a good understanding of how noncoms can support this policy or derail it.

It seems to me that you ought to be spending more time thinking about how to support it and less time thinking about how to derail it.

It's actually very simple. Have a good policy.

One that doesn't discriminate, such as letting certain sexually attracted personal shower together, but not others. That kind of double-standard will not fly.

A plan that doesn't encourage sexual harassment, but takes active steps to avoid placing people in those situations. "Just say no" didn't work for Nancy, it's not going to work for Obama.

The question should be "what is Obama's plan?"

ljb5
10-13-2009, 10:17 PM
It's actually very simple. Have a good policy.

One that doesn't discriminate, such as letting certain sexually attracted personal shower together, but not others.

Wow, you have a really tortured definition of "discrimination."

Keeping gays out of the military so that they don't have the opportunity to take showers together. I suspect that sounded strained even to you.

You still seem really hung up on this idea of showers and bathrooms. I hate to break it to you, but there's a whole lot more to sexuality and relationships than just bathrooms.

I'm totally in love with my wife, but I don't like to go to the bathroom with her. It's just not about the bathrooms, so I think you should let that go.

Captain Blight
10-13-2009, 10:17 PM
So said Bristol Palin to her mother. :D

So what? Young adults like to have sex. It's pretty normal.

Straight guys like to have sex with girls. Gay guys like to have sex with guys.

So long as it doesn't interfere with their ability to do their jobs, what's the big problem?

If a gay guy wants to have sex with you, but you're not into it, just say, "No thanks."
If a straight girl wants to have sex with you, but you're not into it, just say, "No thanks."

This really isn't so complicated and it shouldn't keep honorable Americans from serving their country.There's also the (unspoken) argument that certain young men will be able to act on desires long suppressed by their small-town religious upbringings. To which I give a resounding SFW?

This is something that will, I think, add to unit cohesion (albeit after a long period of readjustment). Think of how willing any of you would be to fight for the safety of your wife; or your neighbor's wife; or her husband (assuming he's not a complete and total tchotchbag). Let's say LCPL Anderson and SGT Henderson are "involved." And you've played Hearts with them in garrison, maybe got into a scuffle or two at the local bar with the townies; and you've come to realize that except for what they do behind closed doors, they are just like you. You know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will fight like fury to lay down covering fire, that they can hump the same load up the mountain in that thin dry air, that they're both good men to have behind you in an assault stack. You might give them a ration of static about chuggin c*ck, but more than likely they will give you the same static right back.

The military is perhaps the best example of a true meritocracy around. How much better off we as a society will be if those who derve it can continue to be rewarded for drive and ambition and talent, instead of being removed from field of play simply because of whom they love? My God, there's so little love in this world-- who are we to be so arrogant as to say, You can love this person but not that person?

BrianW
10-13-2009, 10:29 PM
Keeping gays out of the military...

Gays are allowed in the military right now.


I hate to break it to you...

There's nothing on this topic that you can teach me. You've never been in the barracks.

Captain Blight
10-13-2009, 10:32 PM
I have.

Bob Smalser
10-13-2009, 10:33 PM
Call me naive if you want.....



Naive?

Youngster, I think you're setting yourself up to be a quick snack if you ever leave whatever cocoon you work in. Spending so much time here isn't helping.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 10:34 PM
This is something that will, I think, add to unit cohesion... ...Think of how willing any of you would be to fight for the safety of your wife; or your neighbor's wife...

It's interesting that this same argument has been used against having women in combat. Now it's used to support openly gay couples being assigned to the same unit. Let the double-standards begin. ;)

ljb5
10-13-2009, 10:34 PM
There's nothing on this topic that you can teach me. You've never been in the barracks.

And you act like you've never been out of the barracks.

I'm telling you dude, there's a whole world out here where they've already resolved these problems.

Gays and straights can take a leak right next to each other at Sea World and Shea Stadium and Disneyland and even the Vatican.

Gay guys shower at the gym and no one even notices.

Straight guys can be gynecologists and women can be nurses.

I've never been in the barracks. I live in the real world where we aren't confused about how to handle this stuff.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 10:37 PM
I have.

I know, which is why I listen to your input. Lot's of it ideological, not so much practical.

But at least you know the drill.

Captain Blight
10-13-2009, 10:37 PM
E-Wow. I think this is my first 5-pager.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 10:41 PM
This is always a good one.

Practically cheating. :)

Captain Blight
10-13-2009, 10:41 PM
It's interesting that this same argument has been used against having women in combat. Now it's used to support openly gay couples being assigned to the same unit. Let the double-standards begin. ;)

It's also been used to support the idea of women in combat. No double standard applies.

BTW, a little inconsistency isn't necessarily a bad thing. "One size fits all" almost never fits everyone perfectly.

BrianW
10-13-2009, 10:44 PM
It's also been used to support the idea of women in combat. No double standard applies.

Really?

Everything under the sun is on the internet now, so I'm sure there's an argument like that out there.

ljb5
10-13-2009, 10:49 PM
Really?

Everything under the sun is on the internet now, so I'm sure there's an argument like that out there.

That's funny. I was just going to ask you to support your assertion.

Captain Blight
10-13-2009, 10:50 PM
Really?

Everything under the sun is on the internet now, so I'm sure there's an argument like that out there.
I actually remember Robert Heinlein using it in several of his "future history" books, as well as Haldeman in The Forever War. It's been around for a while.

Seneca
10-14-2009, 11:16 AM
it seems that this is a matter of fundamental civil liberties; the military arguments regarding cohesiveness don't hold when held up against history of other countries' approaches.

all that will really change is that some servicemembers will choose to tell some other servicemembers of their orientation. i'd bet not many do so, at least at first.

the military will figure out the rest on how to prepare the troops and what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate behaviour regardless of orientation.