Don't Ask Don't Tell going away

[phrogdriver]

Not exactly what I meant. A sleeping compartment on the USS Frigate is far different from a barracks or a 6 man room on a Bird Farm. Folks, that are neither officers nor gentlemen stacked into racks with no privacy what so ever. The green house gas emitter sleeping on your right, just eight inches away, so close you sleep head to toe. You have another ?mitter 18 inches above you and another 18 inches below you. Less privacy than on a submarine, at least the boomers. My point was that anyone with a deep felt, sincere aversion to G-word morality should not be put into such a situation with absolutely no recourse. Not unlike the Navy deciding that male/females will share the same compartment, showers, head et al. Should such a decision be made, alternatives should be available to those thrust into the situation. Just my .02C worth

Chief, I understand what you mean, but I don't see how what you proposed is even remotely feasible. Do you really think there's any chance of a "they're letting gays in, so anyone who wants out of his contract can go" policy? Talk about an E-ticket!

Hell, I'd have taken that right out of flight school! " Thanks for the commercial ticket! Can't stand the gays--gotta go!"

Really though, it's just a matter of degree. There are lots of military policies that get changed, from uniform regs to personnel policies. Shoot, I bet there are people who believe that the military sanctioning Wicca is an affront to morality. Should they get a free pass?

You sign up to obey the orders that "may be given, from time to time (love that phrase) by officers acting in accordance with the regulations governing the armed forces of the United States of America." You don't like them, too bad. You can get out in 4 years.

 

[NYYanks]

You don't like them, too bad. You can get out in 4 years.

In a nutshell, do your time and go home. I think some will just look for the next thing to complain about, because hell, whiners are whiners. If the guy or gal can do the job, let em. It's been mentioned already, but on the boat it can be damn obvious who is gay and it hasn't affected others from doing their job yet. Because someone is gay, will that mean they can't shoot straight? Lift heavy objects? Communicate properly? So many people lose sight of the bigger picture of serving their country and want to get wrapped up in the political BS going on around them. For those who would have an issue with it, to reiterate it: Do your time and go home. If you wanna leave faster, smoke a joint or something... oh wait, that might not even work.... belay my last.

 

[The Chief]

.... Do you really think there's any chance of a "they're letting gays in, so anyone who wants out of his contract can go" policy?

No, not at all. As I do understand the koolaide drinker mentaility, both in and out of the military.

I would just hate to be the LPO that must force that 17 year old lad from Iowa to bunk between the two married guys, the Torpedoman and the Yeoman.:icon_tong:icon_tong

 

[Flash]

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.

Gay marriages are not recognized by the federal government, making the point moot. Federal civil servants can extend benefits to partners now though, and I imagine that would be one of the gray areas that will have to hashed out when the policy is changed.

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 sat next to an Arabic linguist for two years at work and I asked him the same thing (he was happily married to a woman producing heirs at a rapid rate). He said that linguists were often 'different' and many didn't have the same mentality or motivations for joining the service that most others did. Having worked with linguists for years I would agree with him, many were cut from a different cloth than most others in the service. That, and it does make good copy.

 

[HeloBubba]

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.

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.

Really?!? I did read the whole f**king sentence, did you? There it is right up there (I actually included the two sentences before it so as to keep the context) and I am just not seeing a point made that folks don't have a RIGHT to serve (which was MY point, in case you missed it). Care to point it out?

 

[Steve Wilkins]

It's appears that our CIC is very politically correct to jump on the "progressive" bandwagon, ]

You think he's just now jumping on some bandwagon?

 

[Steve Wilkins]

There's real issues out there that need addressed and THIS is what folks are worried about? This is such a non issue. Let's put this into a little perspective. Gays openly serving in the military aren't going to effect your safety and aren't going to change the amount of money going into your bank account. If you think this is going to have an effect on your morale, then that sounds like a personal issue you need to deal with. Don't agree with the gay lifestyle? Great, but that has no bearing on this discussion. Sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with whether a person is capable/qualified to perform a certain job function in the military. It isn't a medical condition.

 

[The Chief]

There's real issues out there that need addressed and THIS .... If you think this is going to have an effect on your morale, then that sounds like a personal issue ....

Good post .... hahaha.... What every happend to Acey-Duecy? Maybe we need to beef up the MWR organization so folks have something else to do on those long cruises.

Every Sunday morning we have a "hood" Koffee Klatch of retired/active Civil Service, mostly SESers, an occasional Senate staffer. At times we invite our local/Federal elected officials. This morning two House staffers showed, blizzard and all. State of the Union was the subject, DADT brought up. Their advice was ".... Go back to sleep, nothing is going to happen for years and years, .... too many moving parts, DoD will study it for couple years then .yada yada yada ....POTUS had to throw the dog a bone .... " Their view of the JSF cost overuns were far more interesting.

Well, am I relieved ......:sleep_125:sleep_125:sleep_125

 

[navy09]

Every Sunday morning we have a "hood" Koffee Klatch of retired/active Civil Service, mostly SESers, an occasional Senate staffer. At times we invite our local/Federal elected officials. This morning two House staffers showed, blizzard and all. State of the Union was the subject, DADT brought up. Their advice was ".... Go back to sleep, nothing is going to happen for years and years, .... too many moving parts, DoD will study it for couple years then .yada yada yada ....POTUS had to throw the dog a bone .... " Their view of the JSF cost overuns were far more interesting.

Threadjack!!

 

[ACowboyinTexas]

Threadjack!!

And a very timely one at that.

 

[CAMike]

You think he's just now jumping on some bandwagon?

Sure. Let be more specific. Each year for the next three- Obama will do the PC Rally Cry in an attempt to stir up support for his personal agenda. I think his die hard fans who are blind to anything other than the hardcore liberal agenda needs this type of motivation once in a while to re-charge their batteries. In time, the majority of the country will see beyond his motivation speech type rhetoric and see him for the leader he really isn't.

 

[A4sForever]

Yeah ... to most/all of what preceeded this ... I say -- whatever ... and for the record: I have more experience in this subject as a result of chance & vocation & by association than any 50-100 of you put together.

Unless , of course, you, personally are a homosexual or you have one in your immediate family ...

Bottom line: you just have to decide for yourself -- at the end of the day -- regarding THIS question or any other involving peoples 'morals' ... you must decide: what's "right" ... and what's "wrong" ... and where are YOU on the subject at hand ???

And then, based upon that appreciation: you take a stand.

And just like anyone who "takes a stand" .... you don't retreat.

 

[BigRed389]

Forcing PFC Jones and LCpl Freddy Mercury to bunk together is not exactly the same as a few minutes changing in the locker room.

This is basically the equivalent of forcing a straight male and a straight female to share a room together - and then calling the straight female a bigot when she complains about being uncomfortable in this situation.

Had to deal with an ACTUAL situation that has some relevance to the topic: several sailors were waking up in the middle of the night after being felt up.

We eventually got the guy, but what was really disturbing was how he viewed this as just trying to initiate "hooking up." And when I talked to the JAGs about it, they apparently have been seeing a significant rise in these types of cases in recent years.

 

[Brett327]

Had to deal with an ACTUAL situation that has some relevance to the topic: several sailors were waking up in the middle of the night after being felt up.

We eventually got the guy, but what was really disturbing was how he viewed this as just trying to initiate "hooking up." And when I talked to the JAGs about it, they apparently have been seeing a significant rise in these types of cases in recent years.

Like I said - no different than any other kind of misconduct. It's a pretty safe bet that hetero-sexual harassment/assault will continue to comprise the vast majority of such cases. I think you'd have a difficult time proving that homosexual misconduct of that kind is more likely than that already found in groups of heteros. Allowing homosexuals to serve openly doesn't mean we condone misconduct any more than we do with anyone else.

Brett

 

[helolumpy]

New update... looks like a year long study on how to do this is expected

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35197645/ns/us_news-military/