Meghan McCain is right...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
The military is very hard line about discrimination in whatever form it takes. If there is overt discrimination it is likely to result in serious charges. So, if gays can serve openly they will be legally protected as required by the UCMJ and the chain of command.

However, discipline, especially in combat units that absolutely require it to function, tends to not escalate that readily to formal charges.

Unit cohesion is based on how much trust everyone has in each other - that means things like mind set, skill set, mental and physical endurance. But it also means how well anyone fits into the unit ethos.

You want to wear ladies underwear and play serious grab ass in the showers you will likely find yourself run over by a truck or tank while you are sleeping during night exercises or you will have a double malfunction on a jump before any sexual harassment charges are filed against you. The CID and chain of command will do their best to find different, but accidents happen.

In combat, not too many people give a shit about how gay you are, just as they tend not think about how black, white, brown, catholic, druidic, jewish, whatever you think you are. You are just dirty, tired, hungry, scared, pissed off and your breath smells like rotten garbage, just like everyone else. But if you are prone to malfunction you will be made right really fast or something will happen to keep you from killing people other than the enemy through your miserable self-centeredness.

Frankly, I think anything other than DADT will not help unit cohesion and thus is not a good idea. Just like I do not believe women belong in the infantry. The job is tough enough without having to coddle misfits of any type. Add the element of sexual tension to the already high stresses of combat, and even combat training, and you are going to have problems.

I personally think that sexual orientation is irrelevant to how a soldier performs so long as all sexual activity, and I am including heterosexual activity here as well, is kept private and off base, as far off base as is possible. Bring it on base, into the barracks, into a field environment, into the ranks and there will be pain, a pain Barney Frank is not going to butt wipe away for you no matter how many laws he passes.

If you wants respect in the service you have to sublimate much of your individuality (unless you pass selection and spend a couple of years in SF, hehehe.) The more you stand out in a way that is not job related the more likely it is you are going to feel pain. Now, pain can be a good thing. We grow and mature with pain. But it is still not something most seek out. Except Army Rangers. You have to love pain to be a Ranger.

You want to serve, forget all that you think you are that makes you think you are so different, unless all you think of is being a pro. Uncle Sam's Misquided Children, the NCO corps and every green tabber will let you know what they want from you and it won't be your flouncing ability, not at all. If you can stay focused on the mission, you will be alright. Start on some side road to "rights" and "respect my gayness" and you might as well stay in P-town, Key West and Castro Street. And you don't need a new set of rules for this.

The ease with which you employ stereotypes undercuts whatever relevant truths you're trying to convey.

There was a time when being black was regarded in much the same way you seem to think being openly gay is regarded now. Did the military force black people to change the color of their skin as a condition of service or in any other way hide the fact that they're black? No, of course not. Why should gay people be forced to do the same? After all, it's not whether you're gay or straight, black or white... it's how you behave and how you serve your unit and your country.

I don't know of anyone seriously against DADT who thinks that gay people should be able to bring their entire lifestyle with them into the military, especially sexual activity. They shouldn't have to hide it or fear it coming up in casual conversation, though.

There's too many people discharged from the military under DADT who did nothing wrong other than being outed by someone or outing themselves, and not by having sex or harassing their peers, but by a simple admission. That is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:

epidemis

Senior member
Jun 6, 2007
794
0
0
Not like Obama has lifted a finger of reformation at the airport security theater where taking nude pictures of unconcenting young girls is now institutionalized. Is the civil-rights guy an empty display of symbolism?
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
143
106
Not like Obama has lifted a finger of reformation at the airport security theater where taking nude pictures of unconcenting young girls is now institutionalized. Is the civil-rights guy an empty display of symbolism?

But kids could be hiding bombs in their diapers!
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Here is my take on the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy - I don't have the slightest clue what is better for the smooth operation of the military, and I doubt any of you do either.

But one thing I know for damn sure is, I do not like when these issues become all about pandering to one voting block over another, which is what I think both sides, Republicans and Democrats, are doing here.