Don't Ask Don't Tell going away

[SkywardET]

Again, the policy will almost certainly change and we will have to deal with it, simple as that. Anything else, as Brett would say, is just mental masturbation.

Such a pointless statement. It's akin to, "You are typing your posts in English, so anyone wanting to read them will have to know or be able to translate English," or other moot points. Yet such a post is seemingly only used in a weak attempt to show how discussion is useless. Discussion is not useless, however. All of us are anecdotes of military or pre-military mindsets, and this is a great forum (emphasis on the word forum) to sound off on.

That being said, I think having gays serve openly is somewhat of a mistake. While it's not generally a good idea to throw someone out if they get outed (especially Arabic translators or other hard-to-come-by specialties), and there is currently a working system in place to "shuffle around" those with evidence questioning their sexuality, there is a better middle ground to be found than simple in-your-faceness. There are plenty of already obvious gays and many more "questionables" serving, and it doesn't seem to be that bad of a problem for them; nor is it a problem for those that know about them.

The question of BAH and other pay issues is interesting. I've seen several "marriages of convenience" where people just marry in "A" school for the extra pay, and I'd be curious to know how long it is until some guy marries a girl in Great Lakes and then a dude in San Dog and how that will be processed by big Navy :icon_tong

 

[CalamityJean]

Socially liberal? You sure about that? A large part of the reason I listed them instead of many of the other countries is that two have societies and miltiaries that are very similar to ours while mainting the highest professionalism and engaging in combat ops alongside us for a very long time. The third is involved in constant combat ops and has a large conservative element in the country as well.

They may very well be in that they have governments structured similiar to our own (Right/Left). I'm not debating their professionalism or dogging allies in the WOT. However, the laws legalizing homosexuality were passed in the '60s in both Israel and the UK, and in the early 90s for Australia. We struck down our laws concerning sodomy in 2003. In that sense all their populations are well ahead of ours in their legal acceptance of gays and time to adjust to a changing society.

Stupid? Simple logistics is the only reason? What logistics? There were little to no special accomodations made for gays in any of the militaries that I listed that I am aware of, like no 'gay only' berthing or baths. I would imagine that we will not make such accomodations either, that was tried before with little sucess. We will simply salute and continue on like we always have.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It was just the only one I listed. You may be right. Maybe they will just repeal the law, nothing changes & and the fairytale ending will be real. I think its more likely that it will be a much bigger headache (legally, logistically, professionally, psychologically, etc etc.) with much further reaching consequences than you currently anticipate.

The debate appears to be dead so I feel like I'm beating a dead horse now. If you feel like chiming back in I have a question I'd like your perspective on Flash. If no accomodations or seperate sleeping arrangements should be made for gays, then why is it a concession made for women? Why don't men & women share everything on ship as well? In the name of professionalism? How about co-ed roommates on base? This isn't a new question, but no one seems to have a sane answer.

 

[D_Rob]

No big deal. We all knew it was coming down the pike sooner or later. They serve with us now. They'll keep on serving. I doubt Kareoke night on the mess decks will turn into drag shows. I doubt many who serve will be doing queer eye for the LPO guy makeovers. The only difference now is if they are outed, or choose to live openly outside working hours, they won't have to worry about losing their job.

I think that at this point we need to accept that in the next couple of years the policy is going to change. We have talked ad naseum on this board for either opinion, and I am sure a lot of us have written papers on the subject for a class or something similar. When the change does happen I can only hope that there is very good direction from the senior leadership that gives the junior leadership something to work with. When the change happens its success is going to really be dependent upon the senior enlisted and the junior officers. They are going to be the ones dealing with the "I don't want to sleep near Seaman Jones, he is a fagot." There will most definitely be a lot of hiccups when the policy is changed, but the senior enlisted/JOs have the duty of keeping everyone in line and focused on the mission. The Navy trained JOs to be leaders, and this is the reason for that training. Even if you don't agree with the policy it's your job to enforce it and still maintain mission readiness.

 

[m26]

While it's not generally a good idea to throw someone out if they get outed (especially Arabic translators or other hard-to-come-by specialties), and there is currently a working system in place to "shuffle around" those with evidence questioning their sexuality, there is a better middle ground to be found than simple in-your-faceness.

"Simple in-your-faceness?" What exactly are you expecting?

 

[CAMike]

OK- So let's say a small minority of folks with different nocturnal behavior want special rights and priviledges while serving in the armed forces. OK. Who is going to create the written limits of such behavior? How do we define "acceptable behavior"? I submit a link to a recent incident of Lesbian/Gay/BiSexual behavior that is bizarre to say the least. How would the Navy handle such a case? Do we re-write the UCMJ to accommodate this one type of behavior? If not- then where do the lines of "Unbecoming an Officer" get drawn? It's appears that our CIC is very politically correct to jump on the "progressive" bandwagon, but there are so many ways this could end badly for all the special people currently serving and the institution of the Navy itself. I submit- Is it really worth it? At what cost? and WHY?

http://specials.msn.com/A-List/Second-pregnant-man.aspx?cp-searchtext=second%20pregnant%20man&gt1=36010&wa=wsignin1.0

 

[phrogdriver]

They may very well be in that they have governments structured similiar to our own (Right/Left). I'm not debating their professionalism or dogging allies in the WOT. However, the laws legalizing homosexuality were passed in the '60s in both Israel and the UK, and in the early 90s for Australia. We struck down our laws concerning sodomy in 2003. In that sense all their populations are well ahead of ours in their legal acceptance of gays and time to adjust to a changing society.

And Jim Crow laws didn't even allow blacks to drink at the same water fountains as whites in 1948 in much of the country. Those laws actually existed for 20 years longer. Want to bet that Johnny Reb didn't appreciate bunking with black guys, either? Yes, homosexuality is a behavior, but it's also a characteristic, and the prejudicial attitudes are the same.

No one's going to convince anyone else on this issue. Conduct unbecoming will always be conduct unbecoming, whether gay or straight. Once the change happens, whether suddenly or incrementally, everyone's going to realize that the world didn't spontaneously end and go back to doing their jobs. The military didn't collapse when blacks were integrated, it didn't end when women were allowed in, and it won't end when gays are allowed in. There were significant problems with each initially, but after each, people adjusted, and now we can't do business any other way. And we still are winning wars.

As a practical matter, though, I do wonder what they'll do with the sodomy regulations. While they're at it, they should probably join the new millenium and ditch the adultery one as well. If it's enough of a problem to discipline, then it will rise to conduct unbecoming standards. Both are generally not used as crimes in themselves, just used by JAGs to pile on charges and force deals in otherwise weak cases.

 

[squeeze]

What phrogdriver said. The fact remains, there's one side of this issue that is going to win out, and whether you like it or not, you know which side that is. So either get with the program and help find solutions to potential issues, or stand back and look like the equivalent of the American deep south.

 

[NYYanks]

Do we re-write the UCMJ to accommodate this one type of behavior?

I've seen 134 used extensively in the past, would some consider it a stretch to use this infamous catch all for inappropriate behavior?

 

[Will_T]

"Stupid? Simple logistics is the only reason? What logistics? There were little to no special accomodations made for gays in any of the militaries that I listed that I am aware of, like no 'gay only' berthing or baths. I would imagine that we will not make such accomodations either, that was tried before with little sucess. We will simply salute and continue on like we always have. "

I must say that American (males to be specific) are very different then males of those other countries mentioned. I see a good deal of homophobia, and I live in a liberal part of a liberal state. So, your saying that given the order to, everyone should be comfortable berthing in close proximity with homosexuals? I can tell you, I wouldn't. Could you imagine the basic discrimination on gays in the military? I just doesn't seem like a good idea to me to mix gays in with a bunch of homophobes.
I'm not saying that being gay is bad, as being a homophobe is like being a racist or sexist, its just bad. But having gays open in the military seems like an open invitation for distractions/issues that are not necessary.
IMHO, you can serve you country (which involves lots of personal sacrifices anyway), or you can be gay, and fit in with your society.
Will.

 

[Flash]

Such a pointless statement. It's akin to, "You are typing your posts in English, so anyone wanting to read them will have to know or be able to translate English," or other moot points. Yet such a post is seemingly only used in a weak attempt to show how discussion is useless. Discussion is not useless, however. All of us are anecdotes of military or pre-military mindsets, and this is a great forum (emphasis on the word forum) to sound off on.

Did I hurt your feelings or something? Just a simple truth.

That being said, I think having gays serve openly is somewhat of a mistake. While it's not generally a good idea to throw someone out if they get outed (especially Arabic translators or other hard-to-come-by specialties), and there is currently a working system in place to "shuffle around" those with evidence questioning their sexuality, there is a better middle ground to be found than simple in-your-faceness. There are plenty of already obvious gays and many more "questionables" serving, and it doesn't seem to be that bad of a problem for them; nor is it a problem for those that know about them.

What about those that serve honorably, stay in the closet and don't tell yet they are still kicked out. Kind of like this guy. Where is the fairness in that? And what middle ground? Find a better solution to the one we have know without letting gays serve openly and many would more than welcome it.

The question of BAH and other pay issues is interesting. I've seen several "marriages of convenience" where people just marry in "A" school for the extra pay, and I'd be curious to know how long it is until some guy marries a girl in Great Lakes and then a dude in San Dog and how that will be processed by big Navy :icon_tong

Pretty simple, the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage so it will be a moot point.

They may very well be in that they have governments structured similiar to our own (Right/Left). I'm not debating their professionalism or dogging allies in the WOT. However, the laws legalizing homosexuality were passed in the '60s in both Israel and the UK, and in the early 90s for Australia. We struck down our laws concerning sodomy in 2003. In that sense all their populations are well ahead of ours in their legal acceptance of gays and time to adjust to a changing society.

It is not just some of the structure of governments that we share with Britain and Australia, our cultures are much more similar than pretty much anywhere else as well. Not to mention we share a common tongue. The same goes for their militaries, they share much more in common with us than any other militaries in the world. The reason I pointed out Israel is because they have a large conservative element in their country, yet their military allows gays too.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It was just the only one I listed. You may be right. Maybe they will just repeal the law, nothing changes & and the fairytale ending will be real. I think its more likely that it will be a much bigger headache (legally, logistically, professionally, psychologically, etc etc.) with much further reaching consequences than you currently anticipate.

What far-reaching consequences?

The debate appears to be dead so I feel like I'm beating a dead horse now. If you feel like chiming back in I have a question I'd like your perspective on Flash. If no accomodations or seperate sleeping arrangements should be made for gays, then why is it a concession made for women? Why don't men & women share everything on ship as well? In the name of professionalism? How about co-ed roommates on base? This isn't a new question, but no one seems to have a sane answer.

Societal norms, simple as that. The norm for US and most western societies is to have separate facilities for men and women, and it stands up to legal scrutiny. With only rare exceptions there are not separate facilities for gays, which I doubt would stand up to legal scrutiny. I haven't heard any people who want to overturn 'don't ask don't tell' advocate for separate facilities anyways, reasonable ones anyways.

 

[Feet Wet]

Still can't picture two dudes kissing in uniform......then we will all be so proud to be part of the same outfit.:icon_mi_1

This will not be good for the military. Different culture that will resist immensely. I do agree that it's coming, and that one side will not be able to convince the other that theirs is right or wrong.

I was born in the wrong era. I feel bad for leaders in the next few years having to take the very little time you have in maintaining readiness, and dedicating a large chunk of it to faggot/good 'ol boy resolution.

 

[Short]

Look, I'll make fun of the "South'll Rise Again" constituents more than the next guy, but stop painting the south with the broad brush of racism. Some of the worst race riots of the sixties happened in the northeast, Chicago and California, so let's not all hide behind the enlightened geographic borders from which we may or may not hail.

I'm at the point that I could give two craps about this, its going to happen, it'll be a f'in nightmare, Big Navy will talk about what a wondrous success the whole process is, some good people and bad people will lose their careers over bullshit and legitimate discrimination charges and ships will still continue going to sea and the country's enemies will still need killing. Fortunately, NWUs are so ugly that we might only get the butch ones.

Oh, and once the Europeans can field a military that is on par with ours in terms of equipment, manning and political support, I'll be more than happy to point to them as an example. As that will happen sometime around never, let's recognize that we'll have some particular challenges.

 

[warface]

Still can't picture two dudes kissing in uniform.

agree.

 

[phrogdriver]

"I must say that American (males to be specific) are very different then males of those other countries mentioned. I see a good deal of homophobia, and I live in a liberal part of a liberal state. So, your saying that given the order to, everyone should be comfortable berthing in close proximity with homosexuals? I can tell you, I wouldn't. Could you imagine the basic discrimination on gays in the military? I just doesn't seem like a good idea to me to mix gays in with a bunch of homophobes.
I'm not saying that being gay is bad, as being a homophobe is like being a racist or sexist, its just bad. But having gays open in the military seems like an open invitation for distractions/issues that are not necessary.
IMHO, you can serve you country (which involves lots of personal sacrifices anyway), or you can be gay, and fit in with your society.
Will.

Having been to more than a couple foreign countries, homophobia exists there too. They just don't sanction it in public discourse. They also aren't as openly religeous in most of Europe, so the religeous top-cover for it doesn't exist there either.

BTW, shouldn't "homophobia" mean "fear of the having the same fear over again?"

Still can't picture two dudes kissing in uniform......then we will all be so proud to be part of the same outfit.:icon_mi_1

This will not be good for the military. Different culture that will resist immensely. I do agree that it's coming, and that one side will not be able to convince the other that theirs is right or wrong.

I was born in the wrong era. I feel bad for leaders in the next few years having to take the very little time you have in maintaining readiness, and dedicating a large chunk of it to faggot/good 'ol boy resolution.

I'm always skeptical of any argument involving the good old days. The good old days were never as good as they appear.

As the joke goes:
On November 10, 1775 the Continental congress authorized the USMC. A likely sort was commissioned and told to go out and get some Marines. Oustside of Tun’s Tavern he spied a likely looking youth.

“Ya wanna join the Marines?”

“Not so much, no.”

“I’ll buy you a beer.”

“Okay, then.”

Our hero take his young charge into Tun’s Tavern and buys him a pint of the best. But feeling the pressure of goal he leaves him to it and goes out to get more. He sees another likely looking young man.

“You wanna join the Marines?”

“No.”

“I’ll buy you a beer.”

"No."

“Okay, I’ll buy you two beers.”

“Okay.”

So he takes him into the pub, buys him two of the best and sits him down next to the first lad.

The first kid shakes his head and says, “Back in the old Corps we only got one beer…”

They had problems then, we have problems now. Only the type of problems have changed. The world was ending when women were assigned to warships, except it didn't.

Oh, and once the Europeans can field a military that is on par with ours in terms of equipment, manning and political support, I'll be more than happy to point to them as an example. As that will happen sometime around never, let's recognize that we'll have some particular challenges.

I don't know what equipment and political support have to do with it. All three of the nations (UK, AUS, ISR) used as examples have excellent militaries. On a per-capita basis, all three of them probably have greater stakes in the war on terror, overseas contingency operations, or whatever we're calling it now, and they all do outstanding work.

 

[phrogdriver]

Still can't picture two dudes kissing in uniform......then we will all be so proud to be part of the same outfit.:icon_mi_1

.

You know, that will be kind of weird. But, I'd be willing to bet that even when the change comes, those who swing that way won't flaunt it. They might show up at an event together, but they'll be wise enough not to grope in public.

Frankly, there will probably be more women kissing women, and I've yet to see a man complain about that!

Besides, looking at some of the livestock guys bring to official events, seeing them kiss another man can't be much worse!