While I’m not willing to jump in with mhendo, you aren’t paying attention if you can’t see that the military environment is totally different from that at Microsoft.
Ease up on the boy. He may have heard those selfsame words on the day his mum kicked him out of the house.
Are there similar kinds of problems existing with black/white forced cohabitation? Or male/female forced cohabitation? Or Christian/Jew forced cohabitation? Or Anglo/Hispanic forced cohabitation? Or English-descended/French-descended forced cohabitation?
This seems to ascribe to some magical ability of homosexuals to hide every aspect of their personal lives from the people living with them.
It’s not just this particular case. It’s every single case of a soldier who is discharged because of their orientation. Every single time it happens, no matter how discreet the soldier in question may have been, is a disgrace to our military, and to our nation as a whole. You are hearing about this case, because this is the most recent one to come down the pike. You’ll hear about the next one, too, and the one after that, and the one after that, until we finally change this idiotic and hateful law.
This. A thousand times this.
If there were any problems with gay soldiers seducing straight soldiers it would already be happening. And if it did happen, there are rules against sexual assault and sexual harassment. Enforce them.
The stated objection seems to be:
Hello! Every woman in the military has to deal with this. Oh gosh, ick, imagine the horror all these women go through every day. Guys want to sleep with them! Heaven forfend. Even if you kick out all the lesbians this problem would still exist for them. And for you! Oh noes. Someone might be thinking about you in a sexual way. Deal with it, says I.
We’re talking forced cohabitation. This is much different than your example.
I see the left-leaning board is bearing down on me. For all those poking holes in my arguments, keep in mind these are the same arguments the “brass” will be advocating when asked the next time this issue gets a serious review.
No one has come up with any real answer to the problem. That you kick and scream and insist there is no problem isn’t an answer. My wife, who lurks and is laughing at me for all of this, at least had a constructive idea–why not just let the gay guys and gay girls cohabitate?
acsenray–what male/female forced cohabitation are you talking about? ISTM there is a lot of emotion to wade through here and very little sanity. You’re complaining about the current policy. Unfortunately, that “magical ability” for gays to hide their personal life is implied. If you can’t do it, then don’t join, or at least, don’t complain when you get investigated and punished. That’s the current policy. Period.
You guys really like to stick the military with the blame on this. Yes, there was pushback from the military. But here’s the bottom line which no ones seems willing to accept: civilians made this law. Your leadership (at the time). Not the military. And yet, it still seems to get the brunt, if not the entire share, of blame. How dumb is that? You don’t like it? Rant at Congress. Call your Congressman. Demonstrate in front of the Capitol and in front of the White House. Yelling at the military to change, but not offering any constructive way to address its concerns, in simply asinine. This is not much different than cursing the military for invading Iraq.
And Fish, I think one thing that mitigates the threat or potential of sexual harassment is separate living quarters for males and females. I think putting outwardly-gay (and policy-endorsed) people in the same intimate living quarters is re-introducing that potential.
I’ll say this one last time: I am not advocating DADT. I am not saying I agree with DADT. I am not saying I disagree with gays in the military. I am saying that the smart thing to do, IMO, is to listen to the military’s arguments, and instead of blindly jumping up and down with your hands over your ears, address each concern from a reasoned, logical, perspective. The homophobic ones should be easy to refute. But there are some with merit.
Ok, this may be a bit extreme. Maybe not “as immoral.” But I still say there is an inherent problem with it. As does the “brass.” If we solve that issue, I personally have no objections left.
But it’s happening now, as has already been pointed out. Is there a rash (heh) of gay-on-straight harassment and misconduct?
There are other circumstances in which men must live and work together for long periods. Fishing vessels, for one; oil-drilling platforms; space stations; college dormitories; mining operations. Is there a problem with gay-on-straight harassment there?
I can see the thinking, though. “The only thing that keeps those darn gays from fantasizing about me is the DADT rule. If one were to act up, I could get him thrown out. The rule protects me!”
But it goes both ways. The only thing that keeps those darn gays from filing harassment suits, harassment against gays by straights, is DADT. They can’t file such a suit without admitting to being gay. Repeal DADT and suddenly we might have to treat gays with some respect.
Nevermind, **Fish **made the same point.
As I’ve noted before, as per the current policy, no one is outwardly, confirmed gay. No one is really behaving that way. Because they’re not allowed to. The whole “it’s been happening” argument doesn’t address this fundamental shift in the living arrangement.
Here’s a question out of curiosity–would you, as a matter of practice, want a guy in the girl’s shower and head? So that he can see everything? Isn’t that the same situation we’ll have (endorsed by policy) if we reverse DADT?
Fish, all I can say is that, again, the military is unique. Unit cohesion is not just a buzzword. It’s an important facet of an effective fighting force. None of the other jobs you cite faces the same challenges as the military. They are not asked to fight, kill, and die. They are not bound by a separate set of laws.
That is fair - but Congress and the President could still change it.
It was already against the rules to be gay prior to that, and it was more than just the active duty military that squealed as well.
I am reminded of the Onion headline:
DADT is an abomination and I would prefer that our military be inclusive of all and let the bigots who don’t like self select themselves out of it.
How is it any different than being forced to shower after gym in junior high/high school? You do realize there were gay guys in your gym class who got to see your pee-pee every day, right? And yet somehow you managed not to get ass-raped. Interesting.
Same with roommates in the college dorms. I don’t see what makes the military any different. And I’m a veteran, BTW.
So in order to build unit cohesion, you segregate men and women, alienate gays and lesbians, and magically build a team in spite of all that.
Look. I think the military should be fully co-ed. These are people that live and breathe and fight and die together. There will come a time when a female soldier’s life may depend on a male soldier getting her body armor off to staunch a wound and there won’t be time to be embarrassed over boobies. Why the military still has this Victorian attitude about sex and cooties, I don’t know.
This is an interesting viewpoint, and I’m not against it, but I don’t see it happening in the next 20 years. I do, however, see more freedom (if not total freedom) for gays in the military in the next 10 years. I think to get there, the military will have to be appeased. That is not going to happen by blindly denying and ignoring its concerns.
And no, I’m not saying anything about alienating gays and lesbians. I am saying that everyone needs to feel safe and comfortable, or at least have their quarters be a bastion thereof. We’re all going to wind up together, with everything out in the open, sooner or later. May as well try to come up with the best solution, and I don’t think that the best solution is for Congress to say “Suck it up and deal.”
Comparing our jobs to any other civilian job is not helping. It is widely recognized that our job is unique. That’s why DADT applies to us and is pretty much in contradiction to Federal Law.
Comparisons to college dorms and other organizations are also pointless. We are the military and have a different situation. Using other militaries as an example IS a useful tool, and that’s going to get a lot of attention over the next several years.
Again with the blind, shrill shriek of outrage. I’m actually a rather liberal guy, and this attitude makes me want to dig my heels in.
Please elaborate? It was not a shrill shriek, it was a statement. DADT should be abolished, because it is the right thing to do and if someone doesn’t want to be in the military because they are scared of the Gay then that person can decide not to sign up. And for one time only, anybody who wants to leave is more than welcome to leave.
This has been alluded to, but apparently it needs to be said straight out–since the official position is to not pay attention to a person’s orientation, then there must be gay men and straight men who are living together already, right? Yet I’ve yet to hear a story about how a person’s gay roommate is damaging unit cohesion.
I’m really not sure how any concerns there are about gays serving openly can’t be addressed under sexual harassment instead of DADT.
How often are servicemembers discharged for violating the “don’t ask” part? Or indeed for “telling” on someone else.
But did she know she was gay when she enlisted?
Some people don’t know, right? Am I wrong about that?