Makes more sense than the old policy.
I'll note, that I would expect my chief to tell SN Tammy who is having a Pentecostal Revival or SN Blake who is having European Cultural Heritage Festival to knock that shit off as well.
So in essence, be you, but don't get in other people's faces about it, and don't bring it into spaces when on duty.
Only beef I have with this is it's going to add to the already-absurd amount of GMT we have to sit through. Hours of training that boils down to, "Keep your hands to yourself, and don't tell any jokes you wouldn't tell your Granny."
Concur. As if we don't have enough GMT and PPT out the wazzoo that basically says, "Don't be a douchebag, and don't be stupid."
Couple things to chime in on.
First, a dart about the choice thing. I have friends who are gay. I have friends who are black. I have a friend who used to be gay but is now married with kids. I have no friends who used to be black. 'nuff said.
You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts. At this point, we don't know for a fact that homosexuality is a choice, but we don't know it isn't either. The problem with saying "nuff said" based on your above personal anecdote is that even if you know the circumstances behind the "change," we do not. You may believe you know enough up this friend that it provides you with justification for your belief, but it doesn't logically follow that you have established fact.
He may not have been gay before (homosexual experimentation != homosexual orientation), or he may be bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, or someone who outright rejects labels. He may also be lying, either to himself or others, and no change has occurred. Or he could be a special case, whereby his orientation did flip, and his case deserves extra studying because of the light it might shed on sexuality. In the latter case, it means that there are also probably heterosexuals who could flip orientation to homosexual given the correct biological, physiological, or psychological triggers...
Unfortunately it is not enough for us to say "nuff said." To the contrary, it is a great example of why we need to keep discussing this in scientific circles.
We don't need to discuss it on the job.
As for the survey, I took the survey as did my wife. The questions focussed entirely on mission accomplishment, ie, what is really important or otherwise contributes to mission success. There were no opportunities within the survey to convey a moral opposition to the concept of homosexuality nor to otherwise express concern or unease. I suspect the numbers will be skewed to show most respondents do not see an impact on mission accomplishment.
Have we ever allowed "moral opposition" to impact implementation of policy?
Oh yeah, and I'm deploying soon and should be training my guys for combat, instead of asking or answering these questions.
Unfortunately, there will be individuals on both sides that will cause problems. Both are wrong.
