Should don't ask, don't tell be repealed?

[werepossum]

That's pretty much what I said. I'd guess from my own time in that most of the guys I was enlisted with as a whole didn't care whether or not someone was gay, the problems arise when it does become a problem, the resulting problems, no matter how far apart are bad PR that the military doesn't need. It is more of a cover your ass thing than a "We don't like gays" thing. If a gay soldier gets beat up, and hospitalized, or worse, it isn't going to be public opinion that the guys that did it are the bad guys, it's going to be "the Army is blame", and oh here comes some sensitivity training, and a few blocks of instruction on how to not offend gay soldiers, and now a whole new litigation teams to deal with the harrassment, and discrimination suits, it's just a big, unnescessary social mess that doesn't have any place in our military. You can also bet that with open gay service there will come a whole new round of regulations, special treatments, and accomodations, so it will be seperate but equal, and that's not going to do anyone any good.

This. The military led desegregation, and I'm thinking that it will know when its members are comfortable serving with openly gay service members. I know showering with an openly gay dude would have freaked me out when I was eighteen, but things are a lot different today so it might not be a big deal. What is likely to be a big deal are sensitivity issues, as you say. There is an assumption when a gay guy gets the crap beat out of him that it is because he is gay and not because he's a worthless asshole (no pun intended) or not pulling his weight. See a good soldier or Marine get thrown out or jailed for beating the crap out of someone who needs it - but who is protected because he is homosexual - also runs off other good soldiers. I suspect a double standard will emerge just as it has with women, where your female crew chief is officially considered just another airman but unofficially you're still expected to carry her kit in addition to your own.

 

[xj0hnx]

Navy. COMNAVSURVFLANT, 92-94.

I'm not saying it would go smoothly, but it would eventually happen. At least the same degree it has with blacks, and to a lesser extent women (though there's still far too much discrimination there).

Yea, we're from different military worlds, Army 12B/21B 99-05, always wondered about you sailors j/p, but yea, I can see how our views of the military, and what would and wouldn't fly would be different. IMO, there's just no place for the politics like that in a line unit, and I don't think you're going to be able to bred it out, so to speak, with regulations due to the type of personality that infantry based combat arms attracts. MOre to the point, I don't think that repealing DADT is going to change anything, just like the Civil Liberties Act didn't make bigots like blacks, and racism is still around.

 

[nageov3t]

“No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens... allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.”

-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff

 

[daishi5]

The big problem with DADT in my opinion, is that it treats straight soldiers as if they were babies, too emotionally immature to handle the fact that some people are gay. If you can't handle the idea that somebody of the same sex might look at your ass you're not fit to join a team that puts lives in the hands of the members.

Do we require women in the military to expose their bodies to people who find them sexually attractive? Is there some supposed "right" for a women to not have her body exposed? I think I always assumed that women had a right to not be viewed naked by men if they do not want to be. Should men have the same right, that is to not be viewed by men?

I don't know if I can explain this correctly, because I don't know what the current standard is. But, do we as a society, and in the military have an expectation that a woman should not be forced to expose her body to other men because of the way that makes her feel, if she thinks they are looking at her in a sexual manner? If we do in fact have this belief, is there any reason that a man should not enjoy these same protections, both from being viewed by men or women?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Yea, we're from different military worlds, Army 12B/21B 99-05, always wondered about you sailors j/p, but yea, I can see how our views of the military, and what would and wouldn't fly would be different. IMO, there's just no place for the politics like that in a line unit, and I don't think you're going to be able to bred it out, so to speak, with regulations due to the type of personality that infantry based combat arms attracts. MOre to the point, I don't think that repealing DADT is going to change anything, just like the Civil Liberties Act didn't make bigots like blacks, and racism is still around.

Does racism still exist? Certainly.

However, when was the last time you saw a black man hanging from a tree? Or a sign in a window that said whites only? Or seen a military transfer order denied openly on account of the person's race?

Change takes time, and it causes issues, but in the end we are better for it. There is no difference between what you say, think, and feel today and what a soldier in 1955 said about black men. None whatsoever.

 

[Moonbeam]

Do we require women in the military to expose their bodies to people who find them sexually attractive? Is there some supposed "right" for a women to not have her body exposed? I think I always assumed that women had a right to not be viewed naked by men if they do not want to be. Should men have the same right, that is to not be viewed by men?

I don't know if I can explain this correctly, because I don't know what the current standard is. But, do we as a society, and in the military have an expectation that a woman should not be forced to expose her body to other men because of the way that makes her feel, if she thinks they are looking at her in a sexual manner? If we do in fact have this belief, is there any reason that a man should not enjoy these same protections, both from being viewed by men or women?

What are you talking about, forcing people. I think the shower was the issue, no? This whole forcing issue is just another symptom of 'candy ass'. Don't join if you don't want to be forced to follow orders or anything else required in the military.

 

[xj0hnx]

Does racism still exist? Certainly.

However, when was the last time you saw a black man hanging from a tree? Or a sign in a window that said whites only? Or seen a military transfer order denied openly on account of the person's race?

Change takes time, and it causes issues, but in the end we are better for it. There is no difference between what you say, think, and feel today and what a soldier in 1955 said about black men. None whatsoever.

I actually had an E5 team leader PCS to a CONUS base, and couldn't get his rocker until he PCS'ed to a different base, couldn't get promoted where he went because he was, get this ...white. Not too long ago a black man was dragged behind a truck, where was it, Florida? You can not regulate human nature, and no matter how much people hate it, part of human nature is bigotry, always has been, always will be. What I say, think, and feel is irrelevant, besides, I don't have a problem with gays at all, well, anyone that pushes an agenda on me I do, but that wouldn't pertain to only gays. The drummer for our band was a raging, not flaming, homo, and we lived together for years, he was one of my closest friends, doesn't change that I don't see it as being a good thing for that world, not that I care if gays openly serve, I just don't see it being a successful policy.

 

[classy]

I served in the reserves and there is no place for open homosexuality in the military. I can only imagine what it would have been like to have had some guy flaming in the baracks during boot camp or being forced to room with a gay guy. If you wanna be homosexual or a pervert I could care less, but you can be all that in the privacy of your own home. Homosexuality has no place to be on open display in our military.

 

[xj0hnx]

I served in the reserves and there is no place for open homosexuality in the military. I can only imagine what it would have been like to have had some guy flaming in the baracks during boot camp or being forced to room with a gay guy. If you wanna be homosexual or a pervert I could care less, but you can be all that in the privacy of your own home. Homosexuality has no place to be on open display in our military.

Boot camp is one of the defining scenerios in my view on why it's a bad idea.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I actually had an E5 team leader PCS to a CONUS base, and couldn't get his rocker until he PCS'ed to a different base, couldn't get promoted where he went because he was, get this ...white. Not too long ago a black man was dragged behind a truck, where was it, Florida? You can not regulate human nature, and no matter how much people hate it, part of human nature is bigotry, always has been, always will be. What I say, think, and feel is irrelevant, besides, I don't have a problem with gays at all, well, anyone that pushes an agenda on me I do, but that wouldn't pertain to only gays. The drummer for our band was a raging, not flaming, homo, and we lived together for years, he was one of my closest friends, doesn't change that I don't see it as being a good thing for that world, not that I care if gays openly serve, I just don't see it being a successful policy.

I wasn't trying to say you are personally a bigot of the same caliber as the racial bigotry of the civil rights era. I meant that the arguments you're using are the same ones we heard from the military during the desegregation then. However the military survived, and has now grown past them (for the most part).

 

[Elfear]

It is a policy created out of fear, sterotyping, bigotry and lack of knowledge (stupidity)

A unit is made of people that you trust with you life.
A gay soldier realizes that he has to earn the trust just like every other soldier. Those that want to be in the service are going to make sure that they do not weaken that bond by stiring up trouble.

They may choose to frequent places that cater to gays but only a stupid one is going to start hitting on people in the unit.

You'd think that's how it would be but according to the officer I spoke with the female soldiers especially got harassed by the lesbians in the military. She said they were much more vocal than the gay male soldiers to the point where they wouldn't quit in their attempts to get the soldiers to go get busy. They tried to intimidate them into submitting.

I'd hope that wouldn't be true for most of the gay/lesbian soldiers serving but it does happen.

Do we require women in the military to expose their bodies to people who find them sexually attractive? Is there some supposed "right" for a women to not have her body exposed? I think I always assumed that women had a right to not be viewed naked by men if they do not want to be. Should men have the same right, that is to not be viewed by men?

I don't know if I can explain this correctly, because I don't know what the current standard is. But, do we as a society, and in the military have an expectation that a woman should not be forced to expose her body to other men because of the way that makes her feel, if she thinks they are looking at her in a sexual manner? If we do in fact have this belief, is there any reason that a man should not enjoy these same protections, both from being viewed by men or women?

That sums up very well what I was trying to articulate earlier.

I guess somehow I am a wimp though if I don't want people oogling my body (be it men or women). Is that the test of a real man now days Moonbeam? You have to be able to walk around naked in front of other naked men while they check out your package and think it's all cool? "Comeon son, don't be a pansy! Turn around so we can have a look at ya!"

 

[KK]

Why can't there be a straight army and then a gay army? I'm sure the straight folks would like to associate with straight folks, and gay folks would rather be in the company of gay folks. problem solved, nobody is denied their right to serve.

 

[nageov3t]

I served in the reserves and there is no place for open homosexuality in the military. I can only imagine what it would have been like to have had some guy flaming in the baracks during boot camp or being forced to room with a gay guy. If you wanna be homosexual or a pervert I could care less, but you can be all that in the privacy of your own home. Homosexuality has no place to be on open display in our military.

the armies of multiple other countries seem to handle it just fine.

besides, believe it or not, most straight guys just aren't that attractive.

I imagine that the stereotypical flaming fags that you're worried about wouldn't be particularly drawn to joining the army.

 

[classy]

the armies of multiple other countries seem to handle it just fine.

besides, believe it or not, most straight guys just aren't that attractive.

I imagine that the stereotypical flaming fags that you're worried about wouldn't be particularly drawn to joining the army.

Maybe that's part of the reason we have the best military in the world.

 

[woolfe9999]

You'd think that's how it would be but according to the officer I spoke with the female soldiers especially got harassed by the lesbians in the military. She said they were much more vocal than the gay male soldiers to the point where they wouldn't quit in their attempts to get the soldiers to go get busy. They tried to intimidate them into submitting.

I'd hope that wouldn't be true for most of the gay/lesbian soldiers serving but it does happen.



That sums up very well what I was trying to articulate earlier.

I guess somehow I am a wimp though if I don't want people oogling my body (be it men or women). Is that the test of a real man now days Moonbeam? You have to be able to walk around naked in front of other naked men while they check out your package and think it's all cool? "Comeon son, don't be a pansy! Turn around so we can have a look at ya!"

I don't have a problem with the fact that it makes you uncomfortable. However, are we supposed to discriminate against a class of people in this society because you don't want gay guys seeing your "package." Seriously, I don't think this is a very compelling argument in favor of continuing discriminatory policies. How would you feel if you were kicked out of the military and your career was ended based on something unrelated to your merits as a soldier? Isn't that a little worse than having some gay guy see your dick?

- wolf

 

[PrinceofWands]

Maybe that's part of the reason we have the best military in the world.

Who says we have the best? Best funded, sure, but best overall carries connotations I don't think we deserve.

 

[werepossum]

I don't have a problem with the fact that it makes you uncomfortable. However, are we supposed to discriminate against a class of people in this society because you don't want gay guys seeing your "package." Seriously, I don't think this is a very compelling argument in favor of continuing discriminatory policies. How would you feel if you were kicked out of the military and your career was ended based on something unrelated to your merits as a soldier? Isn't that a little worse than having some gay guy see your dick?

- wolf

The point of the military is not to provide fairness, but to provide the most effective force to protect our nation and its interests. No one has a right to serve. For instance, I cannot join - I'm too old. Similarly, no one has a right to a military career. Unlike politics which takes all comers, military service is truly service to your country, it is not an entitlement or a jobs program. I don't care if the military takes openly gay recruits or if it doesn't, but the decision needs to be based on what will provide the best military force, not some concept of fairness imposed by politicians or society at large.

 

[PrinceofWands]

The point of the military is not to provide fairness, but to provide the most effective force to protect our nation and its interests. No one has a right to serve. For instance, I cannot join - I'm too old. Similarly, no one has a right to a military career. Unlike politics which takes all comers, military service is truly service to your country, it is not an entitlement or a jobs program. I don't care if the military takes openly gay recruits or if it doesn't, but the decision needs to be based on what will provide the best military force, not some concept of fairness imposed by politicians or society at large.

Then there's no need of a military, because there's absolutely no national ideology left to defend.

 

[woolfe9999]

The point of the military is not to provide fairness, but to provide the most effective force to protect our nation and its interests. No one has a right to serve. For instance, I cannot join - I'm too old. Similarly, no one has a right to a military career. Unlike politics which takes all comers, military service is truly service to your country, it is not an entitlement or a jobs program. I don't care if the military takes openly gay recruits or if it doesn't, but the decision needs to be based on what will provide the best military force, not some concept of fairness imposed by politicians or society at large.

So Constitutional rights like Equal Protection don't apply for admittance into the military, is that what you're saying? Why exactly did we integrate blacks into the military?

I can agree with your argument, to a point, that there are special considerations when it comes to national security. I don't buy the most extreme application of that point - that the military exists in a vacuum from the society that it protects and represents.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

So Constitutional rights like Equal Protection don't apply for admittance into the military, is that what you're saying? Why exactly did we integrate blacks into the military?

I can agree with your argument, to a point, that there are special considerations when it comes to national security. I don't buy the most extreme application of that point - that the military exists in a vacuum from the society that it protects and represents.

- wolf

Blacks have always served in the armed forces, but usually as cooks and bottle washers. The military fully integrated them because its leadership realized that it was denying itself (and therefore the country) the services of talented, skilled soldiers AND that embracing this pool of talent was worth the loss of efficiency and the loss of the talents of soldiers unable to cope with black warriors as equals or heaven forbid as bosses. I have no doubt that the military will come to an equal realization with gays, but that should be a purely military decision, not one driven by ideology. While the military cannot and should not exist in a vacuum from its society, neither does it operate under the same rules. Civilians have rights; soldiers have obligations.

 

[Moonbeam]

Poor poor Classy, He believes God hates homosexuals but not folk with black skin and by lucky coincidence he's black but not gay and he gets quite upset if you equate the plight of blacks under racism with gays under sexual bigotry.

That which anybody without bigotry can see is totally invisible to the bigot.

For Classy, the homosexual is a pervert, just as to a racist dark color means inferiority. You can argue with a racist to the end of time that black people are equal, but he will never hear that because he already knows they are 'fail'.

As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is perversion. You view the world as you do, Classy, because your vision is perverted.

 

[woolfe9999]

Blacks have always served in the armed forces, but usually as cooks and bottle washers. The military fully integrated them because its leadership realized that it was denying itself (and therefore the country) the services of talented, skilled soldiers AND that embracing this pool of talent was worth the loss of efficiency and the loss of the talents of soldiers unable to cope with black warriors as equals or heaven forbid as bosses. I have no doubt that the military will come to an equal realization with gays, but that should be a purely military decision, not one driven by ideology. While the military cannot and should not exist in a vacuum from its society, neither does it operate under the same rules. Civilians have rights; soldiers have obligations.

There is a flaw in your reasoning. The military did not desegregate from within. Harry Truman desegregated the armed forces by executive order in 1948, over the objections of most of the military brass.

I am afraid that waiting for the military to grant rights to gays, or for that matter, anyone, is an exercise in futility. If this was only about what is best for the military and no kind of prejiduce in the military leadership was at all a factor in the decision, then you'd be right, but it isn't, so you aren't.

- wolf

 

[LumbergTech]

Do we require women in the military to expose their bodies to people who find them sexually attractive? Is there some supposed "right" for a women to not have her body exposed? I think I always assumed that women had a right to not be viewed naked by men if they do not want to be. Should men have the same right, that is to not be viewed by men?

I don't know if I can explain this correctly, because I don't know what the current standard is. But, do we as a society, and in the military have an expectation that a woman should not be forced to expose her body to other men because of the way that makes her feel, if she thinks they are looking at her in a sexual manner? If we do in fact have this belief, is there any reason that a man should not enjoy these same protections, both from being viewed by men or women?

sexuality is a spectrum, it isnt black and white like you are painting it..
you make a good point, but lets think about this for a minute

these people are required to MURDER other people..they damn well better be able to handle seeing other people naked..if someone makes unwanted sexual advances then punish them and or kick them out...

 

[werepossum]

Poor poor Classy, He believes God hates homosexuals but not folk with black skin and by lucky coincidence he's black but not gay and he gets quite upset if you equate the plight of blacks under racism with gays under sexual bigotry.

That which anybody without bigotry can see is totally invisible to the bigot.

For Classy, the homosexual is a pervert, just as to a racist dark color means inferiority. You can argue with a racist to the end of time that black people are equal, but he will never hear that because he already knows they are 'fail'.

As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is perversion. You view the world as you do, Classy, because your vision is perverted.

I can totally understand blacks not wanting to equate homosexuals' struggles for equality with their own. Homosexuals weren't enslaved little more than a century ago. There are literally people living whose grandparents were slaves. Homosexuals choose how open they will be and most people will get to know them before learning they are gay, which tends to change or at least moderate prejudices. Blacks facing racists or bigots are screwed from day one, because they have been pre-judged on the basis of skin color before they open their mouths. Homosexuals who learn that a particular person is homophobic can avoid that person and simply not reveal that they are gay, even working together; blacks have no such option. The county in which I was raised passed an ordinance not allowing gays to live there just a few years ago; can you imagine county commissioners not knowing their county had black people?

I'm not saying that blacks shouldn't support gay equality, I'm just saying that this struggle is fundamentally different.

 

[nageov3t]

Maybe that's part of the reason we have the best military in the world.

we haven't won a war since 1945

at a time when we're engaged in 2 wars and the powers that be show no inclination to get us out of them and the armed forces have lowered enlistment requirements to open their ranks to stupids and criminals as they scramble to cover the blood that Washington keeps wanting them to pump out, I don't see how anyone can justify turning away and kicking out willing and capable soldiers just because of who they sleep with when they're off duty.