Don't Ask Don't Tell going away

[phrogpilot73]

Like I said, too many logistical problems with no real solutions. The 'opposing' point of view has equally as confusing and non-existent answers which is my point.

What logistical problems? Everyone thinks that rooming gay guys together will turn into a fuck-fest. What happens when they catch a man and a woman in the fan room? They get NJPd. Now it's two men... Standards of conduct remain the same.

I served with a girl that was clearly a lesbian. She brought her "roommate" to every squadron function, and she's still a "roommate" with this individual 15 years later. She is a good Marine, she just can't ever mention "my partner". Yet it's perfectly acceptable for me to say "my wife and I went to dinner last night."

Put it this way - the assless chaps, super-fruity gay guys aren't going to want to serve. Once they realize that they have to abide by a standard of conduct - they'll be gone. Plain and simple.

 

[picklesuit]

"Stupid? Simple logistics is the only reason? What logistics? There were little to no special accommodations 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 accommodations either, that was tried before with little success. 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.

The term "homophobe" gets thrown around too easily. Some people (specifically myself) are not "afraid of homosexuals"...thus I am not a homophobe. I DO, however, strongly disagree with their choice to consort with a person of the same gender. That makes me a person who disapproves of their behavior, not someone afraid of it.

I don't like pedophiles...that doesn't make me a "pedophilaphobe"...I don't like banana's, that doesn't make me scared of them. The media, and liberal society, have tried to lump those of us who disagree with a persons decision to go against nature with "racists" and "sexists."

You (and many others here) need to learn to differentiate between a person who is afraid of something they don't understand and someone who understands perfectly what a homosexual/bisexual is and disagrees with their actions.

 

[Schnugg]

The machine (jet, helo, etc) doesn't care who operates the stick and throttles.

I could care less if my wingman was gay/lesbian if he/she did their job well on my wing on a mission.

Then again.....the Hornet admins will get real interesting....

 

[picklesuit]

What logistical problems? Everyone thinks that rooming gay guys together will turn into a fuck-fest. What happens when they catch a man and a woman in the fan room? They get NJPd. Now it's two men... Standards of conduct remain the same.

I served with a girl that was clearly a lesbian. She brought her "roommate" to every squadron function, and she's still a "roommate" with this individual 15 years later. She is a good Marine, she just can't ever mention "my partner". Yet it's perfectly acceptable for me to say "my wife and I went to dinner last night."

Put it this way - the assless chaps, super-fruity gay guys aren't going to want to serve. Once they realize that they have to abide by a standard of conduct - they'll be gone. Plain and simple.

Just as a point of order here...chaps with an ass are just pants...so assless chaps is redundant...that is all! :icon_smil

 

[Will_T]

Very true picklesuit, I was trying to make a point, and therein lumped together both types of people. There is a difference, and it is an important one.
That doesnt change the fact that many people arent comfortable around gays, even if they understand them.
Thanks for the correction,
Will.

 

[phrogdriver]

Back in the day, when Adm Zumwalt announced an expanded role for females I retired from my beloved Navy with just over 18 years, constructive time giving me credit for 20 years. My decision driven to retire was the announcement that females would serve on ships and be stationed in places like Guam, Japan, Diego Garcia and etc. I had no doubt females had the mental capacity, physical capacity (90% of jobs), courage and desire to serve. I was wrong in my fears about expanding roles of females. I was sure that testosterone would block synapses with increased friggin in the riggin, that females would become pregnant reducing performance levels, fraternization would reduce good order and discipline, females would get pregnant to avoid harsh duty and etc. I was wrong; the Navy has survived and apparently none the worse, none of these problems have occurred. Apparently.

Some of those have, but theNavy has gotten by, and its performance has not faltered. If we didn't have women, would we even be able to "man" the fleet today?

In our discourse, we are prevented by law and the constitution from using my generations? Q-word, which was replaced some years ago by the H-word and now replaced by the G-word. I cannot spell the G-word hence will use ? G-word ?. I think the DADT policy will become Do ask, Do tell. A train that cannot be stopped. Right or wrong it will happen.

The Constitution makes no mention of allowable volcabulary regarding race or orientation.

My thought is if G-word are permitted to serve openly in the military, should not those that strongly oppose this significant change be allowed to opt out of any remaining obligated service and leave the military services? Sort of what I did, voting with my feet?

Can I do this with any other change to policy I disagree with? "Oh the new BAH rules are so unfair--time to go!"

My second thought (at my age maximum allowed) how will the G-word marriage issue be handled. It would seem that if a Torpedo-man is married to a Yeoman stationed in a state that permits G-word marriages, that marriage would have to be accepted by the military. What happens upon a transfer out of state? Yikes.

They'd get the same benefits any other federal employee gets for having a gay marriage. None.

My third thought (I forgot I only was allowed two). The TV pundits/activists all seem to use the same argument for changing DADT, that is; we are losing so many Arabic linguists because of the policy. What is the real connection between G-word and Arabic speaking folks? Just wondered.

I think that example is brought up because media advocates of the change can highlight that as a particularly valuable MOS that is affected.

 

[Harrier Dude]

I was sure that testosterone would block synapses with increased friggin in the riggin, that females would become pregnant reducing performance levels, fraternization would reduce good order and discipline, females would get pregnant to avoid harsh duty and etc. I was wrong; the Navy has survived and apparently none the worse, none of these problems have occurred.

All of those problems have occurred. Did it ruin the military? No. Did it diminish the performance of the military? Yes and no. We have some things that are better not because of women, but because we expanded our scan volume and got some high quality servicemembers that happen to be women. Those women come with a price. Berthing, uniforms, regulations, pregnancy, lawsuits, et al.....

In the end, was it worth it? That's a matter of great debate, but that's the question that needs to be asked. All of the focus on feelings, comfort levels, and who has a right to serve are immaterial.

I expect that letting gays openly serve will have the same cost/benefit structure. Then again, nobody will look at that. They'll just continue to tallk about feelings, comfort levels, and who has a right to serve.

 

[Harrier Dude]

The TV pundits/activists all seem to use the same argument for changing DADT, that is; we are losing so many Arabic linguists because of the policy. What is the real connection between G-word and Arabic speaking folks? Just wondered.

Maybe some illumination can be found here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/28/afghan-men-struggle-sexual-identity-study-finds/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Flatest+%2528Text+-+Latest+Headlines%2529

I read the original study in Afghanistan and was very interesting. A good insight into the mind of their culture.

 

[scoolbubba]

Maybe some illumination can be found here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/28/afghan-men-struggle-sexual-identity-study-finds/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Flatest+%2528Text+-+Latest+Headlines%2529

I read the original study in Afghanistan and was very interesting. A good insight into the mind of their culture.

I'd actually heard that from a few of my friends deployed to Afghanistan. Women were for procreation, men were for recreation. One more thing about their culture I'll never understand.

 

[HeloBubba]

....and who has a right to serve.

Does ANY US Citizen have a RIGHT to serve? The last time I checked, military service was not a RIGHT but a PRIVILEGE.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Does ANY US Citizen have a RIGHT to serve? The last time I checked, military service was not a RIGHT but a PRIVILEGE.

I think that was his point...read the whole sentence.

 

[Harrier Dude]

I think that was his point...read the whole sentence.

Exactly.

If your service value brings more to the table than the negative baggage that you'll bring with it, then we want you to serve. If not, then you're just giving us unnecessary headachces.

 

[Brett327]

Does ANY US Citizen have a RIGHT to serve? The last time I checked, military service was not a RIGHT but a PRIVILEGE.

I think it's more a question of people having equal opportunity to serve, not an entitlement or right. This is all somewhat ammusing though. Someone said it best the last time AW went down this topic. The policy is going to change and the 99.9% of people (gay or straight) are going to go right along keeping their personal business to themselves and no one will even bat an eye. Those .1 percent who can't manage to follow the rules will be dealt with as they always have. Everything else IS just mental masturbation (that one's for you, oh increasingly vitriolic SkywardET).

Nothing to see here folks...move along.

Brett

 

[SkywardET]

Everything else IS just mental masturbation (that one's for you, oh increasingly vitriolic SkywardET).

Nothing to see here folks...move along.

Brett

Thanks!
I can't wait for the new annually-required awareness training, or to see how they modify the current sexual harassment training. I also wonder what they'll do to the gazers that occasionally come to RTC, because that's still an issue. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Also, I think your figures will prove to be far too conservative an estimate--perhaps by as much as an order of magnitude, but I think a better low estimate would be 50% higher than what you put it as. For the time being though, please enjoy your place on high as the omniscient observer that you are.

 

[Brett327]

For the time being though, please enjoy your place on high as the omniscient observer that you are.

I intend to.

Anyhow, I think your argument amounts to splitting hairs. Whatever the percentages might be, misconduct is misconduct regardless of DADT, so all the histrionics about meat gazing, etc seem fairly ridiculous to me.

Brett