PDA

View Full Version : The end of "don't ask, don't tell"



Keith Wilson
02-04-2010, 10:30 AM
Colin Powell says that gays should now be able to serve openly, because attitudes have changed enough that it won't cause significant problems. Powell was was one of the main ones responsible for killing the idea it in 1993. Mike McMullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates also agree. Article here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020302292.html?hpid=moreheadlines)
"Attitudes and circumstances have changed," Powell said. "It's been a whole generation" since the legislation was adopted, and there is increased "acceptance of gays and lesbians in society," he said. "Society is always reflected in the military. It's where we get our soldiers from."

At the same time, he said, "we've had a lot of experience watching what other nations have done." Of 28 NATO member countries, a small minority prohibit or restrict service based on sexual orientation.

Powell spoke in an interview the day after Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that it is his "personal belief" that lifting the ban is "the right thing to do." Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the Pentagon is preparing to repeal the law, despite significant opposition in Congress.

"If the chiefs and commanders are comfortable with moving to change the policy," Powell said, "then I support it." Public opinion polls since 2005 have consistently shown significantly more than half of all Americans supporting a repeal. I think he's right about the change in attitudes. Most young people today don't seem to have anything like the sorts of prejudices that were standard in earlier times. One example: a good friend of my daughter, a lovely six-foot blond amazon who looks sort of like a Barbie with serious muscles, decided that she really prefers women. None of her friends, men or women, even blinked (although some of the guys were no doubt disappointed). No big deal, not even to her parents. That would not have happened even twenty years ago.

Colin Powell's a good man.

Now this should be good for 250 posts, eh? ;)

Paul Pless
02-04-2010, 10:37 AM
I hope this the end of a prejudicial policy, but this is only the beginning of the process.
At the same time, he said, "we've had a lot of experience watching what other nations have done." Of 28 NATO member countries, a small minority prohibit or restrict service based on sexual orientation.
Heard an interesting comment on this subject a couple of days ago: of all the nations that now allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, not one nation changed their policy from motivations within their military. All such change occured because their society pushed them to do so.
Colin Powell's a good man.Is he now?

Paul Pless
02-04-2010, 10:38 AM
The best vignette in this controversy concerns John McCain... who, two years ago, said explicitly that if the leaders of our military asked to allow gays to serve openly, he'd agree to it.

Fast forward to the testimony before Congress the other day... when the Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs, along with the Secretary of Defense, said just that.

Can you spell 'flip-flop'? :)He said leaders, both of those positions that you mentioned are political appointees.:rolleyes:

It continually amazes me Norman, that the points of any issue that matter the most to you about anything political are whatever you can do to attempt to discredit a conservative.:rolleyes:

ccmanuals
02-04-2010, 10:38 AM
The best vignette in this controversy concerns John McCain... who, two years ago, said explicitly that if the leaders of our military asked to allow gays to serve openly, he'd agree to it.

Fast forward to the testimony before Congress the other day... when the Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs, along with the Secretary of Defense, said just that.

Can you spell 'flip-flop'? :)

John Stewart nailed this last night. It's kinda funny watching the southern hardcore conservatives digging up the old Pentagon talking points turning them into their opinion. I guess they are still running for reelection.

Here is a op article by Sen John Kerry on how this is proceeding.



Stunning. That was my reaction when I listened to a freshman Republican Congressman rebut the principled position of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and the Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, that the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needed to end and that gay members of the Armed Services should be able to serve their country without fear that just being who they are would end their service.

It was especially alarming to hear the judgment of Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates dismissed so easily as 'biased.'

Anyone who knows Admiral Mullen or Bob Gates knows damn well that neither of them say what any Administration just wants them to say.
This is, after all, Secretary Bob Gates - a lifelong Republican who was appointed to positions of high trust and leadership by President Ronald Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and President George W Bush. This is a Defense Secretary who planned to leave government and had to be talked into continuing to serve in a Democratic Administration. He is doing his duty today out of patriotism, not political ambition or partisanship.

And this is, after all, the same Admiral Mullen who was appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by President George W Bush. A four star Admiral who has spent 42 years wearing the uniform of his country. He's tough. He's independent. He speaks his mind, and he speaks the truth. Indeed, at Tuesday's hearing, when Republicans members of the Senate Armed Services Committee accused him of "undue command influence" and of obeying "directives" from President Obama, Admiral Mullen responded in just the way you would expect a man of his caliber. "This is not about command influence," he said. "This is about leadership, and I take that very seriously."

But let's test what Congressman Hunter said. Does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs just automatically sing from the same playbook as the Administration? Ironically, the last time a Democratic President tried to lift the ban on gays on the military, the Chairman of the JCS, who happened to be a Republican appointed by his Republican predecessor, broke with the President and opposed gays serving openly. His name was General Colin Powell. The Republicans back then didn't think to question the impartiality of that political appointee.

Of course, today, General Powell has changed his position and he stands with Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates.

This is not 1993. We have come a long way as a country, and we have come a long way as a military to arrive at this moment when I believe our men and women in uniform agree with the Commander in Chief and with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military is, as Admiral Mullen put it, "the right thing to do."

This has been a rocky journey. In 1993, I testified in front of Senator Strom Thurmond's Armed Services Committee in favor of lifting the ban I said then and I believe even more fervently now that, "when it comes to defending our country, we cannot afford to waste the bravery and service of a single American. This is a time to find public servants, not public scapegoats."

And it hasn't always been Democrats making the case.

Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, a conservative Republican icon, once argued: "You don't have to be straight in the military, you just have to be able to shoot straight." Not long after he retired from the Senate in 1987, he tried to warn his fellow Republicans that "eventually the ban will be lifted" and the sooner the better. Rep. Duncan Hunter may claim that he never served with anyone in the military who was openly gay, but he'd do well to read what Senator Goldwater once rightly observed, "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone."

Anyone who believes otherwise should again study Admiral Mullen's testimony about a policy which "forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend this country."

Senator John McCain, who replaced Barry Goldwater in the Senate, certainly understood the opposition to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In 2006, as he was preparing for his successful campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, McCain told an audience at Iowa State University that "the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."

Today, not just John McCain, but everyone in positions of public responsibility should understand that the moment is now - the leadership of our military are joining the Commander in Chief in saying, the time for change has come.

President Obama, in his State of the Union address last week, argued that repealing the ban on gays in the military reaffirms the American ideals of equality, unity and diversity, the very source of our strength at home and abroad, the very values Americans in uniform defend around the globe.

And this change is overdue. This policy has costs beyond the immorality of the ban. More than 13,500 people have been forced to leave the military under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And according to a Government Accountability Office report, the cost of recruiting and training their replacements had cost taxpayers $190.5 million through 2003. We have no estimates on how much more it has cost us in the six years since.

But the most eloquent and most convincing testimony against the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" comes, as such testimony usually does, from those who have paid the highest price for the policy's failings. And the most compelling I have ever read is on a tombstone in Congressional Cemetery, not far from the Capitol. It says, "When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one."

It doesn't have to be this way any longer. No more grave markers need to be etched with such painful words. Remember now the words of President Truman when - in the face of enormous outcry and opposition - he desegregated the military: ""there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin." Let's complete President Truman's mission, and wipe away the last stain of legal discrimination in the Armed Services of our nation.

Ian McColgin
02-04-2010, 10:39 AM
Someone please post in today's Wasserman cartoon from the Boston Globe !!

huisjen
02-04-2010, 10:41 AM
IIRC, all flag officer promotions must be approved by congress as well as by the Commander in Chief himself. Does that make all flag officers "just political appointees"? :rolleyes:

Dan

BrianW
02-04-2010, 10:41 AM
I mentioned this new development to a group of soldiers the other day. They had a different opinion than Powell. Of course when was the last time Powell, Mullen, or Gates lived in an 18 man tent and showered with other troops?

Just thought I share some sentiment from the troops.

BTW, everyone of them with a Trijicon scope knew their Bible verse, and loved it.

Keith Wilson
02-04-2010, 10:42 AM
McCain's facing a strong primary challenge from one J.D. Hayworth, a former congressmen and right-wing radio commentator, a fellow who is considerably farther to the right. I expect that's one reason he sounds very different than he did ten years ago. The Republican party seems to be trying to purge anyone who's even leaning vaguely toward the center

Keith Wilson
02-04-2010, 10:46 AM
The majority of troops in 1950 did not want to serve alongside African-Americans either. The last time I checked, the military is not a democracy.

I'll make a prediction. Gays will be allowed to serve openly within a year. There will be a few minor problems at first, but in ten years everyone, even conservatives, will wonder what the fuss was all about.

This one?

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/outofline/assets_c/2010/02/02.04GAYSOLDIERS%20jpg-thumb-609x477-2885.jpg

Peter Malcolm Jardine
02-04-2010, 10:51 AM
The Canadian Military has recognized and accepted gay servicepeople since 1992.

Bruce Taylor
02-04-2010, 10:55 AM
He said leaders, both of those positions that you mentioned are political appointees.:rolleyes:


My opinion is shaped by the view of the leaders of the military. The reason why I supported the policy to start with is because General Colin Powell, who was then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the one that strongly recommended we adopt this policy in the Clinton administration. I have not heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position, just like when on other issues, that people are expert and knowledgeable of, I rely on their opinion. But this is unique. These military leaders are responsible for the very lives of the men and women under their command, and that's why I am especially guided, to a large degree, by their views.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/mccain-the-day-military-l_n_446541.html

Ian McColgin
02-04-2010, 10:57 AM
Thank you Keith.

BrianW
02-04-2010, 10:57 AM
The majority of troops in 1950 did not want to serve alongside African-Americans either.

Being black is not an action. Being an openly practicing homosexual is an action. There's a difference. I don't think it's a good comparison.

Women in the military is a better, if not darn near perfect, comparison.

Paul Pless
02-04-2010, 11:00 AM
then who is left? Sheeesh!The chairman of the joint chiefs himself in Congressional testimony, said he would be crafting the policy after consulting the leaders of the various branches of the military - his words.

Did I say anything untrue, on the facts? Or is pointing out the truth somehow unfair?I'm just saying Norman, that I find it so freaking weird that we're coming to the end of a prejudicial policy, a decison that bears some celebration don't ya think; and The Best Thing about it you to you is that you caught some diabolically opposed politician in a perceived trap.:rolleyes:

You know you blast partisanship in Congress, yet its kinda hypocritical to be such a partisan yourself.

Keith Wilson
02-04-2010, 11:00 AM
Here are the countries where gays can serve openly. (Some of the Latin American countries changed very recently.) Israel is particularly interesting; no one could ever claim their military isn't very, very efficient. "Don't ask, don't care" seems to work just fine in many cases.

Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Philippines
Romania
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Uruguay

Peter Malcolm Jardine
02-04-2010, 11:07 AM
Keith, lets face it, it works everywhere. The USA is a dinosaur in this instance.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
02-04-2010, 11:09 AM
Speaking of dinosaurs....:D

Paul Pless
02-04-2010, 11:09 AM
I didn't make any comments on the merits of dropping DADT... but I'll be glad to do so, if you're interested.

The evidence of John McCain's flip-flop is incontrovertible; the videotape and quotations exist. It's not a 'perceived trap', it's just a truthful recitation of fact. Sorry if you don't like it. In a political world where accusations of hypocrisy fly around like mosquitos, one has to acknowledge that everyone will get bit. Since 'accountability' is a pretty common object thrown around nowadays, McCain doesn't deserve a pass for his own lack thereof.

In short, the guy is being hypocritical, right now, in the debate... and his statements could (although I doubt it) prevent DADT being dropped. In other words, the 'celebration of a good thing' you're talking about is being jepoardized by McCain's hypocrisy.

If you believe, as implied, that dropping DADT and allowing gays to serve openly in the military is a good thing, then you should be just as critical of McCain as I am.

nevermind you win

Kaa
02-04-2010, 11:16 AM
What I DO blast is the kind of partisanship which acts as an obstacle to governance.

Let me be more precise.

You blast partisanship when it comes from Republicans and blocks whatever the Democrats try to do.

You think partisanship is a wise and wonderful thing when it comes from Democrats and blocks whatever the Republicans try to do.

Kaa

Seneca
02-04-2010, 11:19 AM
Why do Republicans now want the government out of our financial lives (except in their own districts), lower taxes, support for business, but want to invade our bedrooms? That is not a traditional Republican principle. The whole issue of gays in the military is a non-issue. They're there and have been; they sleep, shower and fight with everyone else. The standards of behavior should be applied equally whether we're dealing with two men, two women or a man and a woman. Inappropriate behavior in the military is just that.....

Keith Wilson
02-04-2010, 11:24 AM
Could we stop the political food fight, please?

Back to the issue: Not allowing gays to serve openly is an injustice. It's simply wrong. The experience of the countries which do allow it shows that it can be done without damaging the functioning of the armed forces. The leaders of the military say the policy should be changed, including the man who stopped the proposed change 17 years ago. What's the problem? It's trivial, except for people's' prejudices. Just do it and get on with the important business at hand.

Seneca
02-04-2010, 11:27 AM
I'm not disagreeing, but the pushback comes from the right for the most part. The whole argument is spurious at best...

Kaa
02-04-2010, 11:31 AM
Could we stop the political food fight, please?

But it's considerably more fun than delving for the n-th time into the trivial and obvious issue of gays in the military, you left-wing wombat chart-believer data worshipper! :D

Kaa

John of Phoenix
02-04-2010, 11:31 AM
McCain is in the toughest race of his career and he's likely to loose. Hayworth is running a very aggressive cut-throat campaign and he's doing it in stealth mode - talking only to the base, nothing public, nothing to alarm the moderates, then come November... WHAM. McCain knows it's coming, that's why the flip-flop.

Kaa
02-04-2010, 11:40 AM
Looking to win the 'Paint it with a very broad brush' award this year?

I pick the brush to match the job at hand :-P

Kaa

perldog007
02-04-2010, 11:43 AM
I mentioned this new development to a group of soldiers the other day. They had a different opinion than Powell. Of course when was the last time Powell, Mullen, or Gates lived in an 18 man tent and showered with other troops?

Just thought I share some sentiment from the troops.

BTW, everyone of them with a Trijicon scope knew their Bible verse, and loved it.

I hear mixed reviews from the kids. My son is a corporal in the marines. Their corpsman was pretty openly gay on the last trip to the sandbox, they all survived ( literally thank goodness ) it was not a huge deal.

An 'adopted son' is a Ssgt in the USAF. He tells me that there are some stresses associated with homosexuals. Apparently the further from the action the deeper the chicken poop, so some things never change.

John Smith
02-04-2010, 11:53 AM
Yes he did and his arrow hit McCain dead on too. BTW- It's Jon Stewart, not John.

Doug
Daily Show link.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-3-2010/a-few-gay-men---women

Keith Wilson
02-04-2010, 11:56 AM
But it's considerably more fun than delving for the n-th time into the trivial and obvious issue of gays in the military, you left-wing wombat chart-believer data worshiper!Data maybe; I do like to get the facts, but worshiping? Nah. Charts are just a way of presenting a lot of information in a small space, and are no better than then information they're based on. But WOMBAT??? You wretched pragmatical lobcock, you double-poxed son of a trollop!!! :D

But you're right; it is, or should be, a trivial issue. Just do it and move on.

switters
02-04-2010, 11:58 AM
Call me a flip flopper then. Since the last discussion on the forum I have brought this up with my two teenage sons, they don't seem to think openly gay anywhere is a big deal. I've also talked to a few in the officer corps, they see it as something that will happen, and dont see a reason to fight it. There are obviously going to be some against it. I noticed that 1993 seems to be a touchstone year. Coincidentally that was the last year I wore a uniform, and thought openly gay would cause a lot of problems. I think attitudes have changed among the younger generation and now think it is time.

I hope I may be excused for making a new assessment based on changes over time.

SamSam
02-04-2010, 12:12 PM
Allowing gays could be a forerunner for re instituting the draft. You certainly can't have a good draft system with such an obvious loophole.

Kaa
02-04-2010, 12:41 PM
Of course before the current debate, there were none, absolutely no issues with gay people in the military... :D


http://i401.photobucket.com/albums/pp92/bigbdybldr/-Navy-Poster.jpg

Kaa

Michael D. Storey
02-04-2010, 12:42 PM
I notice the huge lack of personal opinions expressed here about gay and lesbian people serving and having their sexual orientations known. Ton of history dredging and name calling, but not many folk interested in supporting the notion of making the American Dream available to all.
Also, what's this 'practicing homosexual' business. If the Pope were to not be a practicing heterosexual, does that mean that he is not heterosexual?
We can not relegate anyone to a lesser opportunity afforded to others of their age and qualification status because 'it may cause problems.' We also can not predict the future.
It is time to say that it is unjust and immoral to preclude persons by their sexual orientation, and that it should be illegal to do so.

Lissen: for years the speak was about gay people 'recruiting' straight people if they were to be included into the military. I am a heterosexual man because of who I am, not recruitment. I reckon that most of the readers here fit into that category.
But the fact is, seeing that we do not have a draft, to dis-allow these 'natural-born recruiters' from the military is a great disservice to the entire military establishment, as recruitment is such a vital part of filling the military roles with qualified persons.

SamSam
02-04-2010, 12:43 PM
That has got to be one of the most far reaching, imbecilic deductions I have ever heard.

Doug
Why is that?

Kaa
02-04-2010, 12:45 PM
I...but not many folk interested in supporting the notion of making the American Dream available to all.

The American Dream is now to serve in the US military..? :eek:

Oh, my...

Kaa

Michael D. Storey
02-04-2010, 12:49 PM
Military service in our nation, and the American Dreeam are inseperably linked.

Oh, my, is that not obvious?

Oh my

Kaa
02-04-2010, 12:51 PM
Military service in our nation, and the American Dreeam are inseperably linked.

How interesting.

Are you sure you're not confusing dreams and nightmares?

Kaa

Keith Wilson
02-04-2010, 01:01 PM
Also, what's this 'practicing homosexual' business? They're going to keep practicing until they get it right! :D

SMARTINSEN
02-04-2010, 01:03 PM
Doug, what he is saying is that if we re-institute the draft, under the current status quo, anyone could claim that they were openly gay to avoid being drafted. If we do away with dadt, that loophole is closed.

Not that I think that reviving the draft is likely, at least not for the immediate future.

Chris Coose
02-04-2010, 01:06 PM
Discussion on this one is useless.

It will get to the Senate and that'll be the end of it and I hope it happens this way so the likes of our Senators will surely be exposed as pure obstructionists who have lost all sight in their roles as legislators.

Sam F
02-04-2010, 01:06 PM
Could we stop the political food fight, please?

Back to the issue: Not allowing gays to serve openly is an injustice. It's simply wrong...

Such judgmental moralizing!... and from you of all people Keith. People in the military decided that open homosexuals should not serve in the armed forces. Frankly, I'm shocked that you simply can't see that it's clear and obvious to everybody, we have to decide what we should do; we have no other choice. I completely reject arguments that we cannot choose for ourselves, but have to accept what some say is given us. Saying "It's simply wrong" is simply a fancy way of saying “you must agree with me”.

Kaa
02-04-2010, 01:08 PM
Clearly it's all a peta vegan commie atheist liberal pinko satanist plot to undermine the victorious morale of the US armed forces.

Kaa

Chris Coose
02-04-2010, 01:10 PM
People in the military decided that open homosexuals should not serve in the armed forces.

19 years ago.
Catch up..

SamSam
02-04-2010, 01:59 PM
Because one plus one does not equal 72. It might be easier for you to explain to me how you come to that solution than for me to explain to you why it's so rediculous.

Doug
'Opening up the military to gays is the only way we can reinstitute the draft and have it work because otherwise everybody will just say they're gay so they don't have to serve.' Oh yeah, now it makes so much more sense ... NOT:rolleyes:Calm down, quit making **** up. I put the big qualifier "COULD" in what I actually said. And I only brought it up as a possible alternative to why a bunch of homophobic people suddenly find a bunch of queers so lovable.

We have a nationalistic, patriotic, flag waving fundamentalist sort of country with a sacred cow military involved in expanding bogus wars that are generally believed to be long term, as in decades. We already have a Hotel California draft where you can get in but you can't get out, with extended enlistments. The Stop-Loss program is ending this year, then the biggest recruiter they'll have is the ****ty economy. If that improves, it seems that they'll have to get people from somewhere or scale down the wars. They've already lowered enlistment standards to include criminals and mentally challenged. It almost seems like re instituting the draft is about the only way to go. I mean we offer foreigners citizenship for serving, but they're still hard up for people, and it just wouldn't do to go raid other countries and steal their people for our military.

John of Phoenix
02-04-2010, 03:07 PM
I flew with a guy in Vietnam named Paul who is now Paula. Had the operation and all. No one ever suspected a thing.

I went to a VHPA reunion several years ago and saw a sign "Gay pilots sign in here" so there were obviously hundreds in the closet for years. Why not let them come out. They've been there all along anyway.

Homosexuals should have the right to kill and be killed like everyone else.

TomF
02-04-2010, 03:11 PM
Good Lord.

Does anyone find it the least bit worrisome that the most recent Rep nominee for President should be likely to lose his own party's support to contest the next election?

As to gays in the military - I was astonished back in Clinton's era that DADT was implemented. I have great troubles with some aspects of "gay culture," but then I have great troubles with some of heterosexual culture too.

Keith Wilson
02-04-2010, 04:30 PM
Does anyone find it the least bit worrisome that the most recent Rep nominee for President should be likely to lose his own party's support to contest the next election?A bit - but the interesting thing is that the Republicans are responding to Obama and their electoral losses by moving farther and farther to the right, manly by purging anyone who's even slightly moderate. I don't see the same trend in the population. Those on the right are noisier and more vehement, but I don't think the actual political center has shifted at all. I don't think this will work out well for them.

D Happ
02-04-2010, 05:17 PM
The problem I have with gays in the military is that I have to shower with them. Aren't the gay men atracted to men? I don't want to shower with them.
I'm atracted to the girls. I want to shower with the girls buit they won't let me.

Bob Smalser
02-04-2010, 06:08 PM
I hear mixed reviews from the kids. My son is a corporal in the marines. Their corpsman was pretty openly gay on the last trip to the sandbox, they all survived ( literally thank goodness ) it was not a huge deal. An 'adopted son' is a Ssgt in the USAF. He tells me that there are some stresses associated with homosexuals. Apparently the further from the action the deeper the chicken poop, so some things never change.

As today's kids deal with any issues daily in High School and college, I don't think allowing gays to serve openly makes for a hill of beans any more. None of my family currently serving seem to care one way or the other.....as it has always been, it's much more about individual character.

What's really interesting is to listen to the likes of Gates, Mullen and Powell change into their PC hats:

DADT was always a scam. All it did was codify what went on in good units for centuries....ie, if you were a guy we want standing next to us in a fight, nobody cared if you were gay. Just don't flaunt it in uniform and make a scene that might offend some of your buddies and frighten the recruiting base.

I served from bottom to top in eight Regular Army Infantry, Armor and Artillery Brigades across 33 years, and never kicked anybody out because they were gay. Nor do I recall anybody being discharged for that reason, although I suspect there were a few. Very few.

The real concern has always been the recruiting base....the parents of the working-class and middle-class, small-town and rural kids who make up the bulk of accessions. Lose the parents, and you've lost the recruit. Y'all may not like "middle-class rural values", but you're not the guy charged to achieve 320,000 accessions a year, either.

Arguments comparing the US to other countries simply don't apply. We have more Army troops at Ft Hood alone than most countries have in all their services combined, and all but a few of those countries remain either draftee armies or armies so small they don't have to seriously compete in the market for manpower.

Now that we are in a period of long-term high unemployment, it's finally safe for Gates and company to put on their white hats. If it was still 2006 with high casualties abroad and a tight manpower market at home, you'd be hearing a different party line.

BrianW
02-04-2010, 07:28 PM
Just like when women were allowed to serve, there will need to be major changes to living arrangements.

I'm interested in hearing how they deal with that issue.

Osborne Russell
02-04-2010, 07:54 PM
Just like when women were allowed to serve, there will need to be major changes to living arrangements.

I'm interested in hearing how they deal with that issue.

In that connection it would be well to remember that homosexuals have always been able to sneak into locker rooms and see naked bodies of same-sex heterosexuals. I can't remember even hearing about a case where it even came up, let alone became a problem.

Yes, I know, the difference in the military is the enforced isolation and confinement.

I knew no gays in the military, didn't know there were any -- hm. Since then I've know lots of them, male and female. I grill them quite closely on the concepts of duty and sacrifice. Their answers are as satisfactory as those of the straight ones. So much for philosophy. As to competence, the military retains them, and they should know.

So morally and performance-wise, no material difference. However, you have to give credit where due -- they volunteer knowing they will face discrimination. Whereas some straight bonehead can join up just to avoid taking responsibility for himself, as many do.

LeeG
02-04-2010, 07:55 PM
I mentioned this new development to a group of soldiers the other day. They had a different opinion than Powell. Of course when was the last time Powell, Mullen, or Gates lived in an 18 man tent and showered with other troops?


Seems to me a young man doesn't need a shower setting to have erotic thoughts, Most get a hard-on just being alive. Hey Donn, anything to add on the topic?

LeeG
02-04-2010, 07:56 PM
The Canadian Military has recognized and accepted gay servicepeople since 1992.

yeah, but you're foreigners with foreign oil.

LeeG
02-04-2010, 08:02 PM
They're going to keep practicing until they get it right! :D

don't we all, but maybe it's just a reflex

LeeG
02-04-2010, 08:03 PM
Just like when women were allowed to serve, there will need to be major changes to living arrangements.

I'm interested in hearing how they deal with that issue.

any queer guys in your workplace?

BrianW
02-04-2010, 08:06 PM
In that connection it would be well to remember that homosexuals have always been able to sneak into locker rooms and see naked bodies of same-sex heterosexuals.

Under DADT, or the previous 'no gays allowed', that was true. But openly gay dudes doing that may find the response a bit harsher. As that behavior constitutes sexual harassment in the military. In theory, just taking a shower in the mens locker room may now be bases for an Article 15.

Like I said, the proposals will be interesting. They can't just change one rule, and move on. This will require many rule changes, which like Bob mentioned, will not go over well with the public. Not to mention that sexual harassment is very wrong, and the military can not set up living conditions that would promote it.

Due to that, I still believe this issue is dead in the chocks.

BrianW
02-04-2010, 08:08 PM
any queer guys in your workplace?


Why, you trolling for queers?

Stick to the legal aspects of the topic, and stop trying to make it about feelings.

LeeG
02-04-2010, 08:19 PM
Why, you trolling for queers?

Stick to the legal aspects of the topic, and stop trying to make it about feelings.

what do you do with manly hetero men who slap towels and asses in the shower? Maybe, maybe they're really not hetero??

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

BrianW
02-04-2010, 08:32 PM
I find it interesting how most men who have problems with gay men usually assume that gay men will all be instantly and helplessly attracted to them.

Equally interesting is the attitude that gay men have such high morals, that they would never look at another naked man and feel lust.


(no offense to guys who have nice asses)

None taken, but stop staring. :)

LeeG
02-04-2010, 08:43 PM
Equally interesting is the attitude that gay men have such high morals, that they would never look at another naked man and feel lust.



oh hell, you get some young guys together and they get hard-ons for tanks, planes, guns or a pillow under a blanket. You're afraid of what people feel? I thought it was actions that matter. You could be bunking next to someone who hates white Alaskans, that would be unfortunate but what matters is what they do with that feeling.

hokiefan
02-04-2010, 08:45 PM
Equally interesting is the attitude that gay men have such high morals, that they would never look at another naked man and feel lust.



None taken, but stop staring. :)

Thing is, if they do, they already are.

This doesn't change anything about what the looker feels or thinks, only what the lookee may now feel about it.

Cheers,

Bobby

BrianW
02-04-2010, 09:19 PM
Thing is, if they do, they already are.

This doesn't change anything about what the looker feels or thinks, only what the lookee may now feel about it.

Cheers,

Bobby

And anyone with any sexual harassment training knows that "how the lookee feels" is the key factor. Sexual harassment is often about perception. Thems the rules, I didn't make them.

Bob Smalser
02-04-2010, 09:30 PM
....They can't just change one rule, and move on. This will require many rule changes, which like Bob mentioned, will not go over well with the public. Not to mention that sexual harassment is very wrong, and the military can not set up living conditions that would promote it.

Due to that, I still believe this issue is dead in the chocks.

If you're gonna have to change the policy, now is the time to do it.

320,000 accessions a year is a helluva lot easier to achieve with high unemployment in the cards for the next few years. And that number doesn't include the Coast Guard.

But although I agree the sexual harassment claims will increase, I doubt DOD will attempt to change living arrangements. Barracks are more like dormitories than ever before with 2-4 man rooms, and the shipboard types will have to work things out like they always have. Might give "hotbunking" an entirely new meaning.

Bob Smalser
02-04-2010, 09:43 PM
Thems the rules, I didn't make them.

BTW....that the PC politicos in charge are so far over their heads they need sonar, watch this short video honoring a Navy Corpseman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKIfzoC8D0

Michael D. Storey
02-04-2010, 10:29 PM
Just like when women were allowed to serve, there will need to be major changes to living arrangements.

I'm interested in hearing how they deal with that issue.
Living changes: should gay couples be entitled to married quarters?
I think that in the military the greatest issue is not showers, it is entitlement. Should a woman soldier be entitled to everything that I was, and then when it is time to ship out, there appears a baby in her tummy?
I could go on.
I will.
Back to this shower thing: It is as reasonable that a gay soldier will be attracted to every other soldier as it is that a straight man would be attracted to every woman.
The American Dream is the full franchise. Equal opportunity, equal participation.
Being next to a gay person does not make you gay.
Sexual advances in the military that are not consentual are already illegal.

It come down to this fact: there are a lotta folk here who really dislike anyone who is different than they are.
BLACK President
REPUBLICAN
DEMOCRAT
GAY Soldier
UGLY BOAT Owner

I could get carried away, here. The stuff of this dislike thing is fear. Fear of what (who) is different. It's little boy ****. It's being afraid of what could (but you have no evidence to prove it will) happen.
Time to growthefuck up.

BrianW
02-05-2010, 12:48 AM
Back to this shower thing: It is as reasonable that a gay soldier will be attracted to every other soldier as it is that a straight man would be attracted to every woman.

Exactly, which is why they don't allow men and women to shower together.


The stuff of this dislike thing is fear. Fear of what (who) is different. It's little boy ****. It's being afraid of what could (but you have no evidence to prove it will) happen.
Time to growthefuck up.

It's not fear, nor lack of being grown up. It's trying to figure out how current policy and regulation will apply to 2 new sexual orientations.

The discussion should be geared towards that issue.

BrianW
02-05-2010, 12:55 AM
Back to this shower thing: It is as reasonable that a gay soldier will be attracted to every other soldier as it is that a straight man would be attracted to every woman.

Exactly, which is why they don't allow men and women to shower together.


The stuff of this dislike thing is fear. Fear of what (who) is different. It's little boy ****. It's being afraid of what could (but you have no evidence to prove it will) happen.
Time to growthefuck up.

It's not fear, nor lack of being grown up. It's trying to figure out how current policy and regulation will apply to 2 new sexual orientations.

The discussion should be geared towards that issue.

LeeG
02-05-2010, 12:57 AM
homosexuality isn't a new sexual orientation.

Bob Smalser
02-05-2010, 01:06 AM
sorry Bob- its Navy Corpsman. Corpseman makes it sound like they didnt do a proper job and let the guy die.

Watch the video, and you'll catch on.

LeeG
02-05-2010, 01:23 AM
But I have been there. That is the difference.


You have been where?

Paul Girouard
02-05-2010, 01:43 AM
Watch the video, and you'll catch on.



Quite the speaker eh:rolleyes: Further showing he doesn't have a clue.

Joint Chiefs seem clueless as well.

Very Roman , this whole current situation.

BrianW
02-05-2010, 02:33 AM
homosexuality isn't a new sexual orientation.

Why do you insist on saying things like this? It's distracting and petty.

For the military, integrating openly practicing lesbians and gays will be new. Just like when they allowed women to serve.

LeeG
02-05-2010, 02:47 AM
Why do you insist on saying things like this? It's distracting and petty.

For the military, integrating openly practicing lesbians and gays will be new. Just like when they allowed women to serve.

acknowledging homosexuals doesn't condone them making out in the barracks.

BrianW
02-05-2010, 03:27 AM
acknowledging homosexuals doesn't condone them making out in the barracks.

The military acknowledges men and women, they don't don't condone sex between the two, AND they make the sleep and shower in different locations.

You point out the condone part, but ignore the current regulations part. This whole thread you've ignored the regulation part, and point out the obvious.

Still playing the feelings card, and ignoring the rules.

Fortunately for our troops, the military leaders can't be so simpleminded, and must assess all the affected regs.

LeeG
02-05-2010, 07:26 AM
Right, so the regulations probably already say something about inappropriate behaviour between men and women, superiors and subordinates. I would think it would be common sense, and regulations would spell it out, that displays of affection between people aren't appropriate. Do men and women soldiers make out in public while on base?

John Smith
02-05-2010, 07:35 AM
Under DADT, or the previous 'no gays allowed', that was true. But openly gay dudes doing that may find the response a bit harsher. As that behavior constitutes sexual harassment in the military. In theory, just taking a shower in the mens locker room may now be bases for an Article 15.

Like I said, the proposals will be interesting. They can't just change one rule, and move on. This will require many rule changes, which like Bob mentioned, will not go over well with the public. Not to mention that sexual harassment is very wrong, and the military can not set up living conditions that would promote it.

Due to that, I still believe this issue is dead in the chocks.
I disagree. Drop the rule and move on. Any new rules are based on unfounded fears, and will only make new problems.

How many gays have served admirably without problem and were discharged only after it was known they were gay?

Seems not rational reason to fear anything here.

John Smith
02-05-2010, 07:41 AM
to be openly homosexual in the military is a new thing.

obviously you have not served.

this isnt some sort of social experiment we are chatting about.

it is giving our country and citizens the best possible war machine possible to protect them.

I dont see openly gay folks making it the best it can be. Maybe you do. But I have been there. That is the difference.

I think you miscontrue all of this. NOTHING will change. EXCEPT gays won't be discharged for being gay. Not having to keep their orientation secret doesn't mean they have to expose it.

We've lost people with skills we desparately need, simply because the ARE gay, not because of any behavior.

Once the rules are changed. I suspect they'll serve proudly and stay on their absolute best behavior. What problems arise won't be from what the gays do, but what some straights may do to the gays.

BrianW
02-05-2010, 07:47 AM
I'm glad you like the regulations.

Lets not ignore the one which already separates sexually attracted personnel, men and women. It's in place to prevent sexual encounters, and harassment.

That reg, and the reason for its existence, can't be ignored in this process.

BrianW
02-05-2010, 07:53 AM
I disagree. Drop the rule and move on. Any new rules are based on unfounded fears, and will only make new problems.

Nobody is talking about fear, except those accusing others of being afraid. We should be talking about how the military will modify the regs to insure continued protection of our troops from sexual harassment.


How many gays have served admirably without problem and were discharged only after it was known they were gay?

Again, nobody is arguing otherwise.

Changing the rule, without careful consideration is not a wise choice.

LeeG
02-05-2010, 08:04 AM
I'm glad you like the regulations.

Lets not ignore the one which already separates sexually attracted personnel, men and women. It's in place to prevent sexual encounters, and harassment.

That reg, and the reason for its existence, can't be ignored in this process.

and that is why I asked you about any gay men at your workplace, have you experienced seeing them work as you do or are they out behind the filing cabinets and forklifts making out?

LeeG
02-05-2010, 08:06 AM
it is giving our country and citizens the best possible war machine possible to protect them.

I dont see openly gay folks making it the best it can be.


do you see this soldiers story supporting your statement that gay men lower the militaries performance?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/08/04/080804fa_fact_mcgrath

http://iraq.pigstye.net/article.php/AlanGRogers

BrianW
02-05-2010, 08:49 AM
and that is why I asked you about any gay men at your workplace, have you experienced seeing them work as you do or are they out behind the filing cabinets and forklifts making out?

I haven't even seen men and women 'making out.'

Does that mean that sexual relations, and harassment aren't real?

Sam F
02-05-2010, 08:52 AM
Saying "It's simply wrong" is simply a fancy way of saying “you must agree with me”.

You've been using that MO for years, yourself.

You missed something important Norman... The words you objected to are not my ideas. Heck, they're mostly not even my own words! :D
They are however a dandy example of double-standards, phony "morals" and gross hypocrisy.
Apparently that fact is SOP for certain leftists.

LeeG
02-05-2010, 08:56 AM
I haven't even seen men and women 'making out.'

Does that mean that sexual relations, and harassment aren't real?

Of course not, it doesn't mean a hamburger is made with whipped cream, bananas and cherry either.

ishmael
02-05-2010, 09:05 AM
I have mixed feelings about this. I've never served in the military, but I can see how people being openly homosexual could be disruptive. Probably no more so than men and women serving together. Who thought that up? LOL.

Homosexuality does carry more baggage, or so it seems to me. I haven't been around young men and locker room humor and banter for a long time, but there can be a cruelty there.

I don't think one's sexual predelictions are anyone's business. Within reason. Obviously, if you are dominating or hurting someone, are twisted in some way that is untoward, that becomes a legal matter, but other than that...

I'm gonna yawn about this new rule, and see how it plays.

Osborne Russell
02-05-2010, 10:42 AM
Under DADT, or the previous 'no gays allowed', that was true. But openly gay dudes doing that may find the response a bit harsher. As that behavior constitutes sexual harassment in the military. In theory, just taking a shower in the mens locker room may now be bases for an Article 15.

I'm not sure what you mean by "openly". I'm talking about sneaking. Homsexuals are and have been in our showers as long as there have been homosexuals, and it wasn't the law that made them behave.

I don't see how it follows that when someone enlists, they check a box for homosexual, or they mention it -- thus violating DADT -- that this will not only allow, but make inevitable, sex in the shower.

You seem to be saying that their mere presence is a problem. For whom?

If a homosexual makes unwanted advances, I trust a soldier can deal with it. I hope so, because as someone pointed out, otherwise there is doubt with regard to facing the enemy.

If a homosexual is merely present, i.e. makes no advances, what is the problem? The argument as I see it is, the straight person no longer is assured that his or her shower sharers aren't homosexual, as he/she was formerly assured by military law. But that assurance was illusory all along. The soldier who was not naive had abundant reason to believe there were homosexuals among his companions, despite military law. Now he knows there are, and he knows who they are, because they told him, if they thought it was important, or he asked them. To me that's an improvement, because facts are better than suspicions.


Not to mention that sexual harassment is very wrong, and the military can not set up living conditions that would promote it.

Again let's get real with what the law can and cannot realistically achieve, and at what cost, Mr. please-protect-me-I'm-a-helpless-liberal. You can't punish thoughts, only actions. If people are too evil to live in a barracks, they're too evil to exist.

Osborne Russell
02-05-2010, 10:49 AM
For the military, integrating openly practicing lesbians and gays will be new. Just like when they allowed women to serve.

True. Some straight people will be fearful. Even some gays. How to address their fears?

Saltiguy
02-05-2010, 11:18 AM
I served as an enlisted man and understand the dynamics of the problems that would surely follow if they eliminated DADT.

Example. I am a hethro male. I LOVE to look at women. Naked women especially. The sight of a naked man means NOTHING to me, but a female?
Put me in a barracks with 50 naked females and what would you expect me to do? Not look? Not leer? Of course I would - I couldn't help it.
Now, let's say that you add 6 males to the barracks. We would easily be able to identify eachother as "different" from the other members of our platoon, and quickly we would form a clique. What would we talk about? Would we be whispering things like " look at the *&^%$ on that one", or, "I'd like to #$%^& her". Would we leer? Would we snicker? Would we be a separate little entity in our unit? Answer - "YES" to all the above.
Would the females in our platoon, who are 18 years old, and away from home for the first time, be upset by this? Would they be angry? Confused?
Answer - "YES" again.
Would all this cause divisive behavior and disrupt unit cohesion? Would it be corrosive to moral - yes, again.

My example is NO DIFFERENT than if you take 6 OPENLY GAY males and put them in a platoon with 50 young, straight men.
DADT is the way to have it.

Keith Wilson
02-05-2010, 12:08 PM
Would all this cause divisive behavior and disrupt unit cohesion? Would it be corrosive to morale - yes, again.Other countries seem to manage. The Israelis don't have any problem, and their military is far more critical to their national survival than most countries'.

Bob Smalser's point about recruiting was very astute, the problem not being the soldiers themselves but the conservative, often rural parents of prospective soldiers. Still, I think attitudes have changed enough among young people that it'll work fine.

Bob Smalser
02-05-2010, 12:15 PM
1) All you have to do is look at all the other militaries in the world that have allowed openly gay soldiers for years.

2) When it comes to their military, I couldn't even imagine Israel putting political correctness ahead of efficiency.

1) Ridiculous comparisons. See below.

2) I certainly could. So could a number of Israeli commissions investigating IDF failures in Lebanon and Gaza.

Have you ever served along side any of these Armies? Or are you just spouting off in ignorance, like most Bilge Rats?




As today's kids deal with any issues daily in High School and college, I don't think allowing gays to serve openly makes for a hill of beans any more. None of my family currently serving seem to care one way or the other.....as it has always been, it's much more about individual character.

What's really interesting is to listen to the likes of Gates, Mullen and Powell change into their PC hats:

DADT was always a scam. All it did was codify what went on in good units for centuries....ie, if you were a guy we want standing next to us in a fight, nobody cared if you were gay. Just don't flaunt it in uniform and make a scene that might offend some of your buddies and frighten the recruiting base.

I served from bottom to top in eight Regular Army Infantry, Armor and Artillery Brigades across 33 years, and never kicked anybody out because they were gay. Nor do I recall anybody being discharged for that reason, although I suspect there were a few. Very few.

The real concern has always been the recruiting base....the parents of the working-class and middle-class, small-town and rural kids who make up the bulk of accessions. Lose the parents, and you've lost the recruit. Y'all may not like "middle-class rural values", but you're not the guy charged to achieve 320,000 accessions a year, either.

Arguments comparing the US to other countries simply don't apply. We have more Army troops at Ft Hood alone than most countries have in all their services combined, and all but a few of those countries remain either draftee armies or armies so small they don't have to seriously compete in the market for manpower.

Now that we are in a period of long-term high unemployment, it's finally safe for Gates and company to put on their white hats. If it was still 2006 with high casualties abroad and a tight manpower market at home, you'd be hearing a different party line.

ccmanuals
02-05-2010, 12:16 PM
The thing that sets the military apart from everyone else is there is a strict chain of command and their are already lots of rules that must be complied with regarding relationships, i.e. enlisted can't date officers, junior officers and date senior officers and vice versa. The mlitary has learned that they must comply with these rules or find other careers. To add the dimension of gay to the rules would just be another thing they must and would comply with.

Seneca
02-05-2010, 01:07 PM
Everything Ive read here, virtually, seems to be opinion-based without substantiation. I knew, yes personally, an enlisted man who was serving while I knew him in one of the Army's elite units out of Fort Myer. His sargent was gay and everybody knew it. He said, in order to survive, you had to be 'tough' and if you were in the eyes of the others, they didn't care what you did on your spare or free time. An Army general, who was a close personal friend and straight, indicated that not only had gay officers served under him, with distinction, but that the issue as he saw it, was protecting the gay soldiers from their less-tolerant counterparts.

It seems that the vision of gay men in the barracks being unable to control their marauding penes is rather outdated. What one's religious views are or are not has nothing to do with civil rights of others.

huisjen
02-05-2010, 01:35 PM
When I was legal officer on the ship, I saw exactly what Senaca is talking about.

We had one guy, a YNSN I think, who we had to discretely get off the ship undercover of a story about a family emergency. He was the Command MasterGrief's yeoman, and he did his job very well. But someone started spreading rumors and he decided to go to MasterGrief and the XO and explain his situation, rather than finding himself thrown down a ladder some dark night. I was sorry to see him go. He had come to his understanding of his own orientation after enlisting, and had planned to serve his time and get out honorably. Then some jerk spread rumors about who he'd seen go into a gay club in town...

There was another guy who I processed for discharge, a few years earlier, who was a total screw-up. Told to take the trash to the dumpster on the pier, he threw it overboard into SF Bay. When we found out he was gay, it made life easier for us. The discharge process and justification was so much simpler.

While processing him out, I remember having to explain to a lard assed repeat offender bigot working his way through the feast for freedom that he (lard ass) was being processed out for being a pain in the ass and would receive an other than honorable discharge, while crap for brains gay boy would get a general discharge, as what we were tossing him out for was not misconduct, but simply administratively incompatible with military service. The reason for the incompatibility was morons like lard ass, but I didn't bother to explain that.

Given a choice between tossing out the bigots and tossing out the good sailor who happens to be gay, I'll toss out the bigots. They, after all, are the real source of the admin problem.

Dan

The549
02-05-2010, 03:04 PM
Being black is not an action. Being an openly practicing homosexual is an action. There's a difference. I don't think it's a good comparison.

Women in the military is a better, if not darn near perfect, comparison.

This is why conservatives and esp religious people freak out about gayness! :D They think gayness is simply "doing gay things"....which means they think it's possible for they themselves to be gay! Scary thought.
...it's not an action btw. It's what gender you're attracted to.
Glad to see this progress in the military.

rbgarr
02-05-2010, 03:13 PM
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/04/openly_gay_soldiers_and_sailors_the_view_from_a_na vy_submarine

BrianW
02-05-2010, 08:23 PM
Everything Ive read here, virtually, seems to be opinion-based without substantiation.

My experience with the troops is everyday, today, yesterday, and for the last 20 plus years. The USMJ is not 'opinion-based' and it needs to be address prior to making this rule change.

You're partially correct, some here are only forwarding their personal desires, and not looking into the matter completely. While good intentioned, they are not doing gays or straights any favors.


It seems that the vision of gay men in the barracks being unable to control their marauding penes is rather outdated.

You may consider it outdated, however the military has some experience in dealing with young adults, sexual attraction, and the sometimes negative consequences. They set up policy to deal with it, that being separating sexually attracted personnel to the best of their ability.

I give gay men no more, or no less, credit for being able to control their sexual 'maundering' than I would straight men. Therefore the rules for gays and straights should be the same. In fact, treating them the same, as in separating sexually attracted personnel, is true equality. To not apply the same standards to all sexual orientations would be equivalent to giving gays special treatment. I don't think gay activist want to go down the 'special treatment' road.


What one's religious views are or are not has nothing to do with civil rights of others.

Has that been mentioned here, except by those not addressing the legal aspect?

Glen Longino
02-05-2010, 11:19 PM
"Or are you just spouting off in ignorance, like most Bilge Rats?" Bob Smalser

There he goes again!
Just can't contain that fine sense of superiority, can he?
Most bilge rats are ignorant, but Bob and all other homophobic, conservative bigots are not. They are all wise and knowledgeable!

SamSam
02-06-2010, 01:10 AM
It sounds like a little sexual tension has the potential to wreak havoc on the art of war and upset the balance of power. If the terrorists find out we might be literally screwed. We can call it the Sudden Sex Syndrome.

bobbys
02-06-2010, 01:43 AM
The Navy has had Gays serving since 1978 even as Admirals.

They even sang with the Village people to help recruit!!.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw&feature=channel

BrianW
02-06-2010, 02:43 AM
...but Bob and all other non-homophobic, conservative bigots are not. They are all wise and knowledgeable!

Finally, the truth comes out. :)

Keith Wilson
02-06-2010, 09:08 AM
You may consider it outdated, however the military has some experience in dealing with young adults, sexual attraction, and the sometimes negative consequences. They set up policy to deal with it, that being separating sexually attracted personnel to the best of their ability. The experience of many other countries shows that it it can be managed much more simply without significant problems. No country's military segregates gay men. American soldiers are no more or less capable of behaving themselves than British, German, Spanish, Israeli, or Canadian soldiers

Keith Wilson
02-06-2010, 09:38 AM
I'm guessing that the problem is no more acute than when the military was desegregated. I'd bet that the problem is much less acute. In 1948 the civil rights movement hadn't happened yet, all of the south was still segregated by law and much of the rest of the country by custom, blacks couldn't vote in the south, and interracial marriage was illegal in many states. Think of the attitudes of many whites toward integration ten or fifteen years later. In 1948 Strom Thurmond ran for president on a segregationist platform because Truman had endorsed integration and civil rights. He carried Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The military leaders were certainly opposed.

I think in 1948 Truman, and the military once they came around, were pretty far ahead of the country. Now it's behind most of the country.

Interestingly, one event that pushed Truman to integrate the military was that the Republican party had endorsed the idea in their platform. That was before the party shift in the south; the heirs of the Dixiecrats are now Tea Party Republicans.

BrianW
02-06-2010, 11:32 AM
I think it's incorrect to compare this issue with segregation.

But whatever. We'll all just have to wait and see.

Keith Wilson
02-06-2010, 01:23 PM
think it's incorrect to compare this issue with segregation.I think it's very similar; soldiers overcoming their prejudices while working for a common purpose. But yes, we will just have to wait and see. The fact that most of our allies have already gone this route without major problems indicates that we can too.

ishmael
02-06-2010, 01:50 PM
As I said, I've never been in a fox hole. It seems to me that I don't care who the person next to me finds sexy, can the bastard shoot straight!? Homosexual, heterosexual, all of that becomes nothing if people are shooting at you, which is a point of the military.

BrianW
02-06-2010, 07:27 PM
As I said, I've never been in a fox hole. It seems to me that I don't care who the person next to me finds sexy, can the bastard shoot straight!? Homosexual, heterosexual, all of that becomes nothing if people are shooting at you, which is a point of the military.

That would be important, except the issue is not about the job part of the military life. Remember, many of these folks don't leave work and go home to their own houses at night. They spend 24/7 with their coworkers, for months at a time.

BrianW
02-06-2010, 07:31 PM
True, blacks were never forced to deny their skin colour.

Being black was never the cause to review the policy on separating sexually attracted personnel.

It's a different situation, that can't be denied.

paladin
02-06-2010, 10:45 PM
In every situation to which I have been a party.....when men and women of the armed forces were in close operations with one another, the men were quarantined in one area, the women in another...for one reason...to make them more accessible to the ranking officers and to keep the lower enlisteds away.

BrianW
02-06-2010, 10:54 PM
...the men were quarantined in one area, the women in another...for one reason...to make them more accessible to the ranking officers...

The men, or the women? :)

ishmael
02-06-2010, 11:25 PM
I'm wondering how you know. One of my favorite bosses of all time was a Lesbian woman. Not in any way because she was Lesbian. She was smart, competent, able to get things done and fair. No one thought twice, if they knew, about who floated her boat.

I knew because we were friends. Can you do the job?

BrianW
02-06-2010, 11:37 PM
Can you do the job?

It's not about doing the job.

BrianW
02-06-2010, 11:42 PM
I'm wondering how you know.

They'll know because they live and work together 24 hours a day. The barracks lifestyle is not conducive to privacy.

I gotta be honest, questions like this tell me that the one asking just doesn't understand the situation. It's not just you Ish, but several others who act if this would be a simple change.

They just don't know the deal, but would push their agenda anyhow.

Nicholas Carey
02-07-2010, 12:19 AM
I give gay men no more, or no less, credit for being able to control their sexual 'maundering' than I would straight men.I'm willing to bet that most gay men (and women) who aren't actively in denial about there sexual orientation are rather more adept at putting -- and keeping -- a lid on things than their straight peers. Growing up in a world where a single misstep can get one beaten or killed teaches situational awareness very effectively.

Bob Smalser
02-07-2010, 09:49 AM
If..... the real issue is accession and the conservative views of parents, then this can be quite easily tested by survey.

.... I suspect that it's simply not a significant problem.

.....We all know that gays constitute some small but steady percentage of the population, and virtually everyone has had some contact or interaction with gay people, either social or commercial.



If I'm brutal about this it's because y'all have produced the usual three pages of mostly emotional drivel over what are clear-eyed business decisions taken by sophisticated people. Plus many of you are projecting your personal experience to a market base you don't apparently know or understand. And no Virginia, once you get past 100,000, the jump to 320,000 assessions at every single High School graduation is hardly just a multiplication problem.

Of course the market has been surveyed! Up, down and sideways. And by professional marketing firms hired to do it. Just like the slick recruiting adverts often seen on TV. But you haven't seen many of those ads lately, eh? Because unemployment is so bad there are waiting lists to join the Services. Hence if one has to do something to upset the market base, now is the time to do it. Mullen may be sincere in his recent blubberings about fairness, but that isn't the tune he sang for his previous 40 years of service.

And of course it's a significant problem. The Chiefs don't buck the President over trifles, let alone repeatedly. And in those circles, you better have a wheelbarrow of professional research at your fingertips when the boss asks "Why?".

And no.....even today, people who live in the small-town and rural church-going recruiting markets generally do not have contact or interaction with openly gay people.

Seneca
02-07-2010, 10:52 AM
I bet that most people in small towns DO have contact with gay people; they may just not acknowledge it or even think about it. Gay people aren't just drawn to cities; many exist in small towns or on farms, for the same reasons non-gays do...jobs/lifestyle or whatever.

BTW a two-star admiral came out a couple of years ago as well. The whole argument seems rather spurious at this point. Individuals in the military, as in society as a whole, have attractions for each other. It would seem that the same codes of behavior would govern whether one is straight or one is gay. I'd be more worried about gay-bashing than anything else, but that is a risk. There will need to be a LOT of education for the military once the policy is finalized before it is implemented as to what is, and what is not permitted. I rather doubt that the American military is much different from other countries' militaries, except that is far more heterogenious in general, which should make this somewhat easier. After all, we don't have a state religion, we're not from the same ethnic, cultural or historic backgrounds, and we've learned to tolerate each other's quirks already for the most part.

Bob Smalser
02-07-2010, 10:56 AM
....or recruiting a convicted felon (something they've done from time to time)?

....But now they are supporting the idea... evidently, it's the lower echelon of military commanders who are the holdouts. ....there's a chain of command, right?

....Well, they actually do... they just don't know it.



Felons? Not many. And not lately. But those waivers are case-by-case decisions, and one of the continuing beefs line officers have with recruiters is the numbers of these waivers the recruiters spend a fortune on to make their numbers, only for us to bounce them 6 months later for character deficiencies.

You keep bringing up this naive toy-soldier notion that when the boss says "jump", everybody salutes and jumps. Leadership is much more complicated than that, and doesn't differ all that much from the civilian world. In a largely decentralized organization like the Army or Marines, resistance is easy and often fatal to the bosses career.

You don't actually believe this 10%-of-the-population propaganda, do you? Kinsey pegged homosexuality at more like 3%, and there hasn't been an objective study that large since. And before you quote studies, do some background checking into who paid for it.

Osborne Russell
02-07-2010, 11:00 AM
And of course it's a significant problem. The Chiefs don't buck the President over trifles, let alone repeatedly. And in those circles, you better have a wheelbarrow of professional research at your fingertips when the boss asks "Why?".


Yes, it's a significiant problem. It gets to the core of what America is and what it means to be an American.

Which is not a technical question. Technology won't solve it.

BrianW
02-07-2010, 11:11 AM
But now they are supporting the idea... evidently, it's the lower echelon of military commanders who are the holdouts.

"If the chiefs and commanders are comfortable with moving to change the policy," Powell said, "then I support it."

"Although Mullen said he supports ending sexual discrimination in the military, he said it is unclear how other members of the Joint Chiefs, as well as the rank and file, would react."

"Much of the recent debate in the military has revolved around how the service might manage social issues, such as same-sex marriage, barracks co-habitation and attendance at military social functions, officers said.

link for 2 quotes above (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020200251_2.html?sid=ST2010020201834)

It's obvious that Mullen and Gates are trying to appease Obama. But by taking the time to review the change (and rightly so) they can do the math, review the regs, and say "nope, it don't work".

The "lower echelon" isn't resisting, their being asked if it will work.

I equate it to the Obama health care reform, in which which Obama laid the responsibility, and failure, on Reid and Pelosi. The Admiral and Gates can say "we tried, but it didn't work."

It's too bad. Gays should be able to serve. The best chance I see is completely open universal barracks, latrines, and showers.

Osborne Russell
02-07-2010, 11:11 AM
I'd be more worried about gay-bashing than anything else, but that is a risk.

To pick someone out, identify him as gay, and harass him, only to find out that he's not gay, is quite common. From time to time they beat one to death. It's all very dog-like, very baboon. They need an outsider to persecute in order to forge an identity and maintain their morale. Gays are officially designated scapegoats. "If they're like us, how come they don't treat 'em like us? Get 'em boys! F'in queers!"

Knowing this gay people join the military nevertheless.

As we speak, a gay guy is in the showers with a straight guy. The proposed change is that they can ask and tell.

BrianW
02-07-2010, 11:16 AM
Ozzy the drama queen strikes again.

Paul Girouard
02-07-2010, 12:53 PM
Would you like to be the only straight guy in this berthing space?

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/Jan27th.jpg

I can pretty much guarantee IF and / or when openly gay service members are deployed, they will "find each other" and various parts of ships will become "gay zones". The Joint Chiefs are as disconnected from reality as is the POTUS.

Very Roman indeed. Good luck with this one!

Paul Girouard
02-07-2010, 03:56 PM
That was either the picture that spoke a thousand words or everyone's watching The Super Bowl pre-game shows?? :confused:

What ya think BrianW? :D

Paul Girouard
02-07-2010, 07:24 PM
Personally I wouldn't give a damn either way.

Me either I've done my time and have no kids , but if we all never wrote any thing it would be a boring forum eh!


After all, it's usually the other way around. Also, if you can give example of "gay zones" in modern militaries that allow openly gay service members,

They of cousre are unofficial. But like the "dopers" , yes another illegal /UA habit. The gay guys that I "officially" knew where gay,or at least suspected where gay, hung around together. Maybe I was wrong about them , I never asked and NO one made it a point back then to offer.



then I'll concede that point, but in my experience, all the gay folk I know don't segregate themselves from everyone else except when they're looking for a boyfriend or husband, and only some of them segregate themselves when they do that instead of just letting life take it's course.



Would your "experience" be military type experience or civilian based? There is a difference although the civilians "think" they know the drill, but they don't, IMO. YMMV.

BrianW
02-07-2010, 07:51 PM
The better question is... "how would you like your daughter getting naked in this area?"

Because that's what it would be like for a male sailor, if those guys were gay.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/Jan27th.jpg

Captain Blight
02-07-2010, 10:08 PM
No, you're wrong. I can tell you this until I am blue in the face, and you will never believe me; but you're wrong. And the dumbassed homophobes you asked in Afghanistan are wrong, too.

BrianW
02-08-2010, 06:47 AM
No, you're wrong. I can tell you this until I am blue in the face, and you will never believe me; but you're wrong. And the dumbassed homophobes you asked in Afghanistan are wrong, too.

Hmm... lack a facts. Just some name calling.

I'll be sure to give your opinion the respect it deserves.

Nada.

Michael D. Storey
02-08-2010, 06:57 AM
The better question is... "how would you like your daughter getting naked in this area?"

Because that's what it would be like for a male sailor, if those guys were gay.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/Jan27th.jpg
You really know what it would be like for a male sailor, if these guys were (are) gay, or is this just mouth-shootin?

BrianW
02-08-2010, 07:57 AM
You really know what it would be like for a male sailor, if these guys were (are) gay, or is this just mouth-shootin?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that getting undressed in front of people who are sexually attracted to you would be an awkward situation. Especially in such close quarters. In fact, it's so obvious, there are already rules to prevent it.

Swing and a miss Michael.

Michael D. Storey
02-08-2010, 10:51 AM
Well, actually, I don't swing.
How do you know that they are sexually attracted to you? You got something workin here, for gay guys?
When I was there, being in the Navy was a very awkward situation in itself.
I regret to think that the military forces are perceived as so dysfunctional that they can not come up with a proper solution so that no groups would be disqualified from serving based on their gender or gender preference.

Seneca
02-08-2010, 12:21 PM
Just because someone is attracted to the same sex in general, doesn't mean they don't distinguish between those they are attracted to and those they aren't. I swam competitively and there were guys we knew were gay and nobody gave a crap, and we all took showers before/after practice in a big shower room together. I go to a gym; I know that there are a lot of gay and not-gay guys there and we all change in front of each other. It's just no big deal. It was much more interesting when a woman came in by mistake and started changing.

Michael D. Storey
02-08-2010, 01:05 PM
Just because someone is attracted to the same sex in general, doesn't mean they don't distinguish between those they are attracted to and those they aren't. I swam competitively and there were guys we knew were gay and nobody gave a crap, and we all took showers before/after practice in a big shower room together. I go to a gym; I know that there are a lot of gay and not-gay guys there and we all change in front of each other. It's just no big deal. It was much more interesting when a woman came in by mistake and started changing.
Speakin of Women comin in, back when I was going to Johns Hopkins, it was the day before Christmas, and my (then) wife and I were at the Hopkins gym, and we went into the sauna. We thought that we were the only people in the building, so we naturally did not wear anything. After a while a young woman walked in, in a bathing suit, sat down, and without a word left. She soon returned wearing nothing. After a bit we had a chat 'em up, and she mentioned that she did not realize that it was a nude sauna, to which I replied, 'I really doubt that it is, it's just because we thought we were alone, but thanx.
We invited her to Christmas dinner.

Lew Barrett
02-08-2010, 01:33 PM
to be openly homosexual in the military is a new thing.

obviously you have not served.

this isnt some sort of social experiment we are chatting about.

it is giving our country and citizens the best possible war machine possible to protect them.

I dont see openly gay folks making it the best it can be. Maybe you do. But I have been there. That is the difference.

True for the US military, and for modern armies in general; that is, homosexuality has been closeted.

However, it takes no great insight to recognize that there was a time when homosexuality in service was not only allowed, it was appreciated! Of course you have to go back a bit to find that time, but once you do you find the most successful military men in the world openly out and running bare ass through the enemy, swords a' flailin' so to speak.

More recently as but one example, there were widespread claims (though sometimes disputed....in error, I believe) regarding that most famous of WWI warriors T.E. Lawrence. According to Lawrence. the desert and warfare when mixed brings out that sort of thing in men. No analogy to our current desert warfare need be drawn, of course, but you can read his stuff in the Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

Let's be fair; homosexuality has been a part of army compositions since there have been armies. What is there to argue in this? In respect to how the military treats it? OK you can argue. But I suspect the percentage of homosexuals (and lesbians) in military service rivals that of the numbers in civilian life. So what's best for the military at this juncture? It's not really about ability if history is the judge.

Michael D. Storey
02-08-2010, 01:47 PM
It seems to me that for some of the voices here it is hard to imagine that someone who is different than they are could actually be on the same side as they are.

Seneca
02-08-2010, 02:57 PM
When I was a graduate student, there was a sauna in the men's locker room, but the women had none. One fine day, a group of them marched in and decided to take a sauna.

Construction of their sauna began faster than you can say "contract to build." Too bad.....

But back to the point; I just don't see anyone with evidence indicating that gay women/men will/won't be any more/less sexually responsible than their straight counterparts. I've been in coed nude saunas in Europe and nude beaches here and guess what? It's not sexual. Neither is getting up a 4 a.m. in a cold/damp barracks. Some people need to get a grip on this...

carioca1232001
02-08-2010, 05:50 PM
......And of course it's a significant problem. The Chiefs don't buck the President over trifles, let alone repeatedly. And in those circles, you better have a wheelbarrow of professional research at your fingertips when the boss asks "Why?"..........

Now that sounds like my father !

Qualified as a doctor and initiated his career as one, but made it into the highest levels of city planning and management in Karachi during British India days.

Judging by your responses on this Forum - aside from a small number that were not pre-tested before launching - it seems that you had plenty of opportunity in your professional life to perfect this fine art ;)

Captain Blight
02-08-2010, 07:26 PM
Hmm... lack a facts. Just some name calling.

I'll be sure to give your opinion the respect it deserves.

Nada.
If you really don't care about my opinion, then I guess I can call your momma anything I want, huh?

BrianW
02-08-2010, 07:53 PM
If you really don't care about my opinion, then I guess I can call your momma anything I want, huh?

Again you'd be operating without facts. Should we consider this your new Modus operandi?

BrianW
02-08-2010, 07:56 PM
Just because someone is attracted to the same sex in general, doesn't mean they don't distinguish between those they are attracted to and those they aren't.

True. I use the term 'sexual attracted' in general. If there's a better term, I'm open for suggestions.


But back to the point; I just don't see anyone with evidence indicating that gay women/men will/won't be any more/less sexually responsible than their straight counterparts.

Exactly. Which means the current rules for straight people should apply to gay people. Separate living quarters for sexually attracted members. The question is how can the military accomplish that goal?


It was much more interesting when a woman came in by mistake and started changing.

Bingo! Thanks for making my point once again!

BrianW
02-08-2010, 07:57 PM
It seems to me that for some of the voices here it is hard to imagine that someone who is different than they are could actually be on the same side as they are.

Which voice?

ishmael
02-08-2010, 07:58 PM
The issue of getting naked in mixed company is an interesting one. It never much bothered me for a sauna or a sweat lodge, but I guess there's a reason for seperate locker rooms, eh?

I get back to who really cares? OK, when you are are a twittering teen it may be important, but for the most part who cares? The "hubba hubba", I just saw a naked person, is right up there with smoking your first cigarette. Hoo ee, tell us another one.

How being homosexual changes the dynamic may be important. I've never served, but I know in civilian life it didn't matter two pulls on a duck's tail.

Michael D. Storey
02-08-2010, 08:03 PM
if it was not your voice, what are you o nervous an jerky about? Homos are not a thing to be worried about. They do not want to do you if you don't want want to do them. They are jus like you an me. So get over this fags will ruin the armed forces ca ca

Captain Blight
02-08-2010, 08:11 PM
Go ahead. I'll report you.
MYOB old man.

Captain Blight
02-08-2010, 08:12 PM
Again you'd be operating without facts. Should we consider this your new Modus operandi?So you admit that previously my facts have been correct? Awesome.

BrianW
02-08-2010, 08:13 PM
if it was not your voice, what are you o nervous an jerky about? Homos are not a thing to be worried about. They do not want to do you if you don't want want to do them. They are jus like you an me. So get over this fags will ruin the armed forces ca ca

First you say it wasn't my voice, then you tell me...

"So get over fags will ruin the armed forces ca ca"

...as if I've have indeed voiced that opinion.

That doesn't add up.

BrianW
02-08-2010, 08:15 PM
So you admit that previously my facts have been correct? Awesome.

Nope. Just new in that you used to make intelligent posts. Not so much on this thread. To me, that seems new.

Captain Blight
02-08-2010, 08:15 PM
I've had a lot going on lately, and my attention is often divided. One does what one can.

McMike
02-08-2010, 08:29 PM
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that getting undressed in front of people who are sexually attracted to you would be an awkward situation . . .

Only for unprofessional children who would have no business serving because their lack of maturity would not mix well with advanced weaponry.

Really what are you afraid of? Whether it was a woman or a homosexual, if either was to make an unwanted gesture twards you that was against regulations then there are disciplinary actions to deal with that, no? Are you really so insecure?

Swing and a miss Brian

BrianW
02-08-2010, 08:29 PM
I've had a lot going on lately, and my attention is often divided. One does what one can.

Hope it's all good.

I'd give ya a cyber-hug, but don't want to ruin my reputation.

Osborne Russell
02-08-2010, 11:00 PM
Ozzy the drama queen strikes again.

Who's the fairest queen of all, Mr. OMG can you imagine the sexual harrassment?

BrianW
02-09-2010, 10:01 AM
Only for unprofessional children...

Sorry, it's already DOD policy. It has nothing to do with children.


Really what are you afraid of?

Nothing. I'm discussing regulations, not feelings. I shower with men every morning over here.


Whether it was a woman or a homosexual, if either was to make an unwanted gesture twards you that was against regulations then there are disciplinary actions to deal with that, no?

So you are for regulations punishing sexual harassment, but are not for regulations designed to prevent it. Unfortunately the military can't take that attitude. They'd be sued to death. It is simply not wise business to set up living quarters which would promote that activity.


Are you really so insecure?

This is not about me. But I can see that you've decided to skip the technical issues, and go for the insults.

Fortunately Gates, Mullen, and Powell don't share your attitude and all made statements that the military needs time to deal with the issues I'm mentioning here.


Swing and a miss Brian

Nope, my quote stands quite correct.

BrianW
02-09-2010, 10:09 AM
You have a reputation? :p

I guess.

Despite the fact I've written on this very thread that they should be able to serve, pointing out the very real issues which stand in the way make some get a bit testy.

At what costs, and which policies will the military need to change, in order to allow less than 5% of the population to serve?

That's a reality question the idealist don't care to address.

McMike
02-09-2010, 08:00 PM
Sorry, it's already DOD policy. It has nothing to do with children.

To a degree, it does. Admittedly I believe 18 is too young to be in the armed services. That said, I think all service men and women should be held to a high professional standard that includes tolerance and mature discretion.


Nothing. I'm discussing regulations, not feelings. I shower with men every morning over here.

I read all your posts in this thread more carefully and for the most part I agree that you are being objective. I reacted to the one statement about men being afraid of being ogled in the shower.


So you are for regulations punishing sexual harassment, but are not for regulations designed to prevent it. Unfortunately the military can't take that attitude. They'd be sued to death. It is simply not wise business to set up living quarters which would promote that activity.

Like I said, service men and women are professionals who should be held to a high standard. If we trust them with the responsibility of handling advanced weaponry then I think they should be expected to understand and follow regulations in regard to respectful treatment of others.

This is not about me. But I can see that you've decided to skip the technical issues, and go for the insults.

I apologize, it was a reaction based on an incomplete reading of your previous posts.


Fortunately Gates, Mullen, and Powell don't share your attitude and all made statements that the military needs time to deal with the issues I'm mentioning here.

I agree.


Nope, my quote stands quite correct.

I did also notice upon reading all of your postings in this thread, you did agree that they should be allowed to serve. I think the military should be more worried about the bigots than the homosexuals.

BrianW
02-10-2010, 07:27 AM
Thanks for taking the time to reread my posts.

This can be a hard format to discuss things clearly.

McMike
02-10-2010, 07:51 AM
Thanks for taking the time to reread my posts.

This can be a hard format to discuss things clearly.

Doesnít help that Iím a bit impulsive either . . . :p

cookie
02-10-2010, 08:03 AM
Colin Powell says that gays should now be able to serve openly, because attitudes have changed enough that it won't cause significant problems. Powell was was one of the main ones responsible for killing the idea it in 1993. Mike McMullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates also agree. Article here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020302292.html?hpid=moreheadlines) I think he's right about the change in attitudes. Most young people today don't seem to have anything like the sorts of prejudices that were standard in earlier times. One example: a good friend of my daughter, a lovely six-foot blond amazon who looks sort of like a Barbie with serious muscles, decided that she really prefers women. None of her friends, men or women, even blinked (although some of the guys were no doubt disappointed). No big deal, not even to her parents. That would not have happened even twenty years ago.

Colin Powell's a good man.

Now this should be good for 250 posts, eh? ;)

I think the acceptance of gay people is a good thing. Even in the army. However, our Christian politicians are debating a law that allows schools to reject gay teachers and students. Turning back the clock..... A stupid thing to do, if you ask me.

Recently there was a law accepted recently that makes sex with animals a prosecutable felony. This had nothing to do with gays though, but it has to do with odd standpoints of our conservative politicians. They were against such a law! :eek::confused::eek:

Seneca
02-10-2010, 04:40 PM
I don't believe that there is any credible evidence that gays in the military behave any less properly than their straight counterparts. Interesting discussion in today's Washington Post on that. If someone can't keep their eyes to themselves in a locker/shower room, well, they will get some not so positive feedback. I doubt most of us know who is/was gay or straight who shared living accomodations. Anyone stay in a youth hostel? Scouts? Camp?

Undoubtedly, there will be issues to overcome, but as with integration of the military it can be done. Separating gays and straights in sleeping accomodations would be horrific and constitute segregation, in my opinion.

BrianW
02-10-2010, 07:52 PM
Separating gays and straights in sleeping accomodations would be horrific and constitute segregation, in my opinion.

Do you believe that separating men and women is horrific and constitutes segregation?

Lew Barrett
02-11-2010, 12:30 AM
Do you believe that separating men and women is horrific and constitutes segregation?

Let's see what this (my) rant draws out. So here for discussion:

There are contexts in which it is absolutely horrific to me (the notion of segregation by sex)and although it's an admitted stretch, think "harem." Without deeply offending anyone of any particular persuasion, the segregation of men and women in specific contexts has been practiced in various forms throughout the centuries, usually not to the benefit of the women.

If you must have specific examples I can provide them, but you are nothing if not worldly so I know I can count on you to make this leap.
Context is everything in respect to answering this sort of question, so if you think of it this way: gay and straight barracks. What might such a scenario look like in the real world?

I don't think the modern army wants to be different than the modern workplace as a rule. Disciplined men and women are required, and discipline doesn't begin and end with following the orders of your superiors. It becomes an individual question, but the bottom line is that you are required to trust the man alongside of you with your life when the chips are down. You have to be able to trust him in other contexts as well, not the least in the shower and I think that has to and will sort itself out in short order in the real world.
Brian, there have been gay guys taking showers with us all our lives. To think otherwise is to be naive. Perhaps it is more comfortable to "not know" but after all is said and done, we can either accept the reality of living with this as another form of diversity or we can pretend it doesn't exist. I don't see how thinking it isn't so makes it any less real. Of course, at my age and in my condition I doubt anybody is looking at me in the gym shower except with the hope that they don't look the least bit like me, but frankly either way, I don't really care.

Ours is a professional military. Hopefully, professionals will control what they have to control, and the rest will wash out. If gay guys want action, there are lots easier places and ways to get it than to join the Marines.

BrianW
02-11-2010, 08:51 AM
Let's see what this (my) rant draws out. So here for discussion:

Look out Lew! Here it comes! ;)


There are contexts in which it is absolutely horrific to me (the notion of segregation by sex)...

That's nice. But what about the military situation? Is it 'horrific' for the military to have men and women sleep and shower in separate areas?

Osborne Russell
02-11-2010, 10:41 AM
The problem comes down to straight guys who fear other guys in the shower are gay. How about separate showers for them? Restricted to those who have filed a declaration of heterosexuality.

Lew Barrett
02-11-2010, 12:14 PM
Look out Lew! Here it comes! ;)



That's nice. But what about the military situation? Is it 'horrific' for the military to have men and women sleep and shower in separate areas?

For men and women, not a horrific idea to keep the showers segregated, of course. I was thinking of far more extreme contexts, and not necessary military. .

Seneca
02-11-2010, 04:09 PM
I cannot imagine that gays will come out by the thousands if the law changes. Most people want to keep their private lives private.

BrianW
02-11-2010, 07:55 PM
The problem comes down to straight guys who fear other guys in the shower are gay.

No it is not.

The regs requiring sexually attracted personnel to have separate sleeping and shower spaces was in effect when it was against the rules for gays to serve. Even before DADT. It's not a new rule designed to prevent gays from serving. It's a rule they decided was needed to reduce sexual harassment long before they even considered the possibility of openly gay servicemembers.

I realize you'd like to think that is the problem. That would fit your agenda. Label any opposition as homophobes, the modern version of a leaper, and then force your ideals on an organization which is trying to deal with an issue in a logical manner.


How about separate showers for them? Restricted to those who have filed a declaration of heterosexuality.

That does bring up the topic of where do homosexuals men shower? By current regulations, they can't shower with anyone they may be sexually attracted to. That means the can't shower with straight males, nor can they shower with other gay males. Without some regulations changes, that's the dilemma the commanders are going to face. Which is why I say again, it's more than a simple re-write of one regulation to allow gays to serve.

BrianW
02-11-2010, 08:09 PM
I don't believe that there is any credible evidence that gays in the military behave any less properly than their straight counterparts.

I agree. Nor do I believe they will behave any better. I give them equal benefit of the doubt. Equal rights, not special rights. Hopefully everyone does.

However, that means enforcing the regulations equally. As written today, those regs make the the idea of openly gay men and women serving damn near impossible in practice.

Just pointing out why Gates, Mullen, and Powell all prefaced (post-faced?) their support of the idea with comments that it can only happen if the military can make it work.

Captain Intrepid
02-11-2010, 08:12 PM
So just change the regs. That simple. They're not written in stone. Whats the big deal?

Captain Blight
02-11-2010, 08:15 PM
You keep bringing up "current regulations," which really translates to smoke and mirrors: by changing DoD guidelines as to DADT, it would logically follow that other regs will be changed as well. All the stuff you're concerned about will no longer even be extant in two years' time. You mention group showers over and over-- a bit too much, actually-- but what of the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who will choose to not live in barracks? You make it sound as though they'll be leaving their apartments to come get athlete's foot in the barracks.

Also, FWIW, it's really only in Basic (in the Army) that you get the big ol' 80-men-to-a-room barracks. Otherwise, it's all 2-4 man 'squad bays,' complete with private bathroom. Who cares what you're lookin' at in there?

It occurs to me that what the naysayers are really about is not so much denying military service to homosexuals, it's about preserving a culture. Look, I had some good times in the military too; but I don't for one second believe that the effectiveness of the military will be degraded simply by not punishing homosexuality. The culture of the military is informed by and to a degree reflects society; society has moved on; it's time the military did too.

BrianW
02-11-2010, 08:24 PM
So just change the regs. That simple. They're not written in stone. Whats the big deal?

That will have to be the case. The question is, which regs they re-write, and how much.

Should be interesting.

BrianW
02-11-2010, 08:37 PM
You mention group showers over and over-- a bit too much, actually--

That's simply because that's were the issue lies. We all agree it's not about job performance. No one is concerned about their performance in the foxhole or around the water buffalo.


but what of the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who will choose to not live in barracks? Also, FWIW, it's really only in Basic (in the Army) that you get the big ol' 80-men-to-a-room barracks. Otherwise, it's all 2-4 man 'squad bays,' complete with private bathroom.

Try Googling a satellite image of Bagram AFB. Check out the quarters there. Then come back here and point out all the off base apartments and modern barracks with private bathrooms all the troops can move into.

Here's one...

http://darrochenon.com/images/Aerial-view-of-Bagram-AFB.jpg

...and I can assure that it's either old, or just a small part of the base. See all the tents? That's what it looks like everywhere around here. So you need to pull your head out of you peace time Army line of thinking.

You can fool the fans, but you can't fool the players. We got lots of fans around here.

Captain Blight
02-11-2010, 08:41 PM
Crap, man, I'd completely forgot about FOBs and the like. Hmmm. Well, okay, I'll grant you that. But still. It seems to me the height of arrogance to deny those who wish to serve an opportunity to serve, over such a small thing. It's the Green Machine! If people are told that homosexuals are going to serve openly, shoulder-to-shoulder with them, then there will be a little grumbling and then things will re-normalize. You know it, I know it, the brass knows it. So why the delay? If job performance isn't an issue-- and the military is probably the best if not only example of a true meritocracy around-- then why should all the rest of it matter? Why do you keep agitating for a military that is still allowed to punish and prosecute people simply because of who they'd like to sleep with?

L.W. Baxter
02-11-2010, 08:50 PM
I showered every day after wrestling practice in high school in close proximity to a guy I knew to be homosexual. It wasn't public knowledge but he confided in me because he could tell I wouldn't crap on him for it. He even brushed my peepee a couple times when we were grappling. It wasn't sexual for either one of us; close physical contact is part of wrestling.

And another guy on the team who I found out later was gay, blew his brains out a couple years after graduation. He was a good friend and a beautiful person and I never resented that he may have sneaked a peak at me in the shower. I don't know that he did, and I'll never be able to ask him. I wonder why he killed himself.

Paul Girouard
02-11-2010, 09:05 PM
This is a typical berthing area on a USN carrier, yes, a old one USS Ranger CV-61. But really CV-71 TR wasn't much better.


http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/Jan27th.jpg


Subs, even the boomers, would have the same issues.

You live this way for 6 to 8 months typically. If your idea is to have gay and straight berthing area you'll need to attempt to find more space that is already occupied. When the chicks came out to the ship they needed thier own "coup's", berthing spaces are referred to as "coup's/ the coup, etc. , so the berthing compartments have already been "sub-divided" so to speak.

There's only so much space on a ship.

The showers are typically one man or person stall's. As are the $hitters.

It's the general living conditions that are not conducive to the mixing of gays and heterosexuals.

Those that think the troops will act in a "professional" manner are nuts, the female pregency rate at sea is a issue.


http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014590.html



Some shore commands in the Norfolk, Va., area report that up to 34 percent of their billets are filled by pregnant sailors, and commanders are complaining about a "lack of proper manning to conduct their mission," according to a Naval Inspector General report.
The IG has asked Navy personnel officials to review the new rules for Navy mothers-to-be and consider the work conducted by each rating and how pregnancy affects a sailor's ability to do that work.
The spike in pregnant sailors assigned to some units comes after the Navy changed its rules for handling mothers-to-be. And it's compounded by a baby boomlet in the Navy community.
When sailors on sea duty become pregnant, they are transferred to shore-based commands that fit certain criteria, such as being close to a Navy medical center. The length of that assignment changed in June 2007, when the Navy extended the postpartum tour from four months after a child's birth to 12 months. Combined with a nine-month pregnancy, that puts expectant mothers on limited duty for up to 21 months. Now, shore industrial and aviation commands say they are receiving more pregnant sailors--from 15 percent to 34 percent of authorized billets, in some cases--who are unable to fulfill essential duties because of their pregnancy, according to the IG.



Adding more people at sea who like to poke one another ain't gonna make it better.:rolleyes:

BrianW
02-11-2010, 09:10 PM
Maybe we should ditch the chicks, and give those living quarters to homosexuals. ;)

I for one vote... NOT. :D

Captain Intrepid
02-11-2010, 09:17 PM
Hey, on the plus side, dudes can't get pregnant! :D

Captain Blight
02-11-2010, 09:18 PM
Or just order the troops that calling each other "faggot" isn't cool any more. Is that what this is about? Are you trying to block another triumph for PC, Brian?

Paul Girouard
02-11-2010, 09:20 PM
Maybe we should ditch the chicks, and give those living quarters to homosexuals. ;)

I for one vote... NOT.



For manning, a combat ready force it would be the better or lesser of two evils. At least for the USN. If you have a women at sea and she doesn't like it. She finds a sperm donor gets knocked up and is flown back to CONUS, then the squadron is short handed until some like and kind rate and rating sailor is found , his shore duty is cut short and he is flown out to replace her.

So for keeping the fleet operational ready and fully manned , yes bad term for this thread :D, at least if some one doesn't kill the gay sailor you have a warm body, oh yeeshs!! that oughta bring some comments :o :D, to turn a wrench or what ever the job is.

The other issue is the morale of sailors who have to go back to sea to replace Suzy Rotten Crotch , while he may have just returned from a sea tour.

So your idea may have some merit.:eek:

BrianW
02-12-2010, 02:36 AM
Or just order the troops that calling each other "faggot" isn't cool any more.

There are some in this thread that think it would be that easy. But if that tactic worked, there would be no sexual assault, drinking, smoking, AWOL, DUI's, spouse abuse, etc, etc, etc... in the military.

Perfect little troopers like Kurt Russel in Universal Soldier. :)


Is that what this is about? Are you trying to block another triumph for PC, Brian?

Don't tempt me! That's a goal worth achieving. :D