Why not? I mean, if we repeal DADT and tell the military that they have to integrate gay servicemembers tomorrow, what’s going to happen? How is that not the best solution?
Well, maybe she never asked herself.
First I spent 6 years in the navy, and I served with multiple people I knew were gay. Two got discharged for it.
What are you arguing? That we must listen to the concerns of the military, or that the concerns are valid? If it is the first, then you are wrong. If we had listened to the concerns over race, the military would have stayed segregated for decades longer than necessary.
If the second, and it seems to me it is, then what do you think is going to happen? You are in the service now, what will happen in one out of twenty of people you work with come out after DADT is repealed? Worse case would be someone you room with. Would you immediately request a transfer? Why? What do you think is going to happen?
I am not trying to be confrontational, but from what you keep saying it sound like the problem is that many service people can not handle actually know who is gay. Like if Airman Smith tells you tomorrow that he thinks Christian Bale is sexy, what is the effect on you?
On preview, to answer some of the questions, DADT violations usually come about because someone else turns the person in, once the accusation is made, the DA part goes out the window. In the two cases I witnessed, one had a third party make an accusation based on a made up story (the person had no direct evidence that the person was gay, just thought they were and made up a sexual advance to get the ball rolling), and the other was from an email that was sent from the wrong account to a civilian (an official email sent to ombudsman from an AOL account instead of the .mil account).
Jonathan
But how is that any different from the forced integration of the US military during the Korean War? Obviously, that rather predates my own experience, but a casual look at primary sources from WWII will show what seems to most modern readers/viewers a shockingly racist cast to all of the thinking then. Especially in the military, which I agree is known for being more socially conservative than many other institutions or sub-varieties of American culture.
Then in 1948, President Truman got things rolling with Executive Order 9981. He backed that up by making sure it was enforced, and according to a quick web search, by 1954, the last segregated unit had been disbanded. This isn’t to say that there weren’t lingering racism within the military. But the official standards had changed, and that was accepted.
FTM, I’ve seen changes of a similar “You can’t ask the military to do that” nature happen. When I was in the Navy (1989-1994), women were strictly forbidden from serving aboard combatant vessels. One of the major rationales for keeping that policy in place were the same sorts of arguments you’re using, now, about safety in bunking areas. And often with the same “we can’t change this, so this policy will have to stay in place” arguments being offered.
Women are serving aboard most combatant vessels these days, now. And while I am not going to say that everything is sweetness and light, by the same token the disasters that have been predicted haven’t happened, either.
Set up clear standards for behavior. Enforce them consistently. Drop like a ton of bricks on any COs who aren’t doing their job to enforce such rules, and behaviors will change. Attitudes wont. Not that quickly. But I don’t give a shit what Chief Homophobe is thinking as long as his actions towards the gay sailors under his/her authority are the same as those towards his straight sailors.
According to the article, she enlisted directly out of high school, served for several years, got discharged, married, had a kid, got a divorce, came out, then re-enlisted. She’d served for five years in her second enlistment before being forced out under DADT.
This attitude never fails to amuse me. That’s so arrogant. Hey, flyboy, you’re probably not that hot. If you are, then consider it flattering that a gay boy wants to sleep with you as much as a straight girl who also thinks you’re hot. Most gays (unlike some straight men) know when they’re not welcome sexually. If a gay were ever to come on to you (maybe their gaydar is broken), a sense of humor helps, as well as a secure sense of yourself and self-esteem. A shrug and a laugh and a “Thanks, but I’m not interested” should do it. If it doesn’t, you have sexual harassment on your hands and you can go through the same channels that women have to go through (all the time).
While I’m sure there are exceptions, I believe that only homophobes and the insecure have a problem with being thought attractive by someone of the same sex.
Wouldn’t everyone - straight and gay, male and female - be safer from unwanted harassment in mixed quarters, at least by orientation? I mean, you’re putting all the horndogs with the potential hots for each other in one tight (heh) space; you’d be subjecting the discerning gay or lesbian to possible harassment. If everyone’s lumped together, you know who to keep an eye on and can watch out for each other.
And where are you putting the bi’s?
Ok, in case people have missed it, and it appears they have, I personally don’t have these concerns. However, I see it as a problem that needs to be addressed. I’m not worried it’s actually going to happen to me–I couldn’t care less. However, by policy, you’re setting up conditions in which it could happen.
We have policies which protect against a great many things. Here I see a policy which starts off with good intentions, but if not closely examined, sets the stage for some bad juju implicity endorsed by policy. I don’t know why, but I seem to be the only one with a fundamental problem with putting folks, by policy, bunking together that can also have sex/relationships together. I don’t think it’s right for M/F, just as I don’t think it’s right for M/M and F/F. At least, not in the military.
On the other hand, I think this hurdle can be navigated, but no one seems to want to even examine it, or any other problems. People just want to go straight to the end game without a second thought.
Again, I don’t integration like this happening any time soon. Not in the U.S. And yeah, bi’s are another problem no one has given any thought to. What do you do with them? I don’t know. They’ll probably get lumped in with the gays.
OtakuLoki, that’s a different animal. There’s no problem integrating same sex races. There is, however, a fundamental sex problem when it comes to integrating M/F or sub-groups that have sex with each other.
Some of this can be handled with sexual harassment code; but there are scenarios which aren’t. Take, for instance, simply having me hang out in female berthing, watching them change and trim their pubes and walk around naked–that’ll never ever fly. Not in a million years. It’d be fantastic for me, of course. I’d pay for that privilege. But now we’re talking about, in essence, granting that benefit to gays. That doesn’t seem fair to me. That’s not covered by sexual harassment code. But again, I think it’s something that is not a total roadblock to reversing DADT, but still needs to be looked at.
On edit, the last paragraph of your post is what I’m after. But no one wants to think about additional codes for behavior or anything else.
Like I’ve been saying, to answer you and Strassia, it’s that everyone is running blindly to reversing DADT without thinking it through and trying to prevent some bad scenarios which such a (non) policy could lead to. I don’t think you can simply repeal DADT. You need something in its place which address some of the things I’ve been talking about. People need to discuss the problems and come up with some countermeasures.
I also have a problem with this philosophy:
Again, scared has nothing to do with it (for me, at least). It’s the setting of policy which puts people that potentially want to have sex and relationships with each other in the same berthing areas. It’s letting them enjoy the perks of that while telling straight guys they can’t have the same perk. It’s putting straight guy A in the same berthing area with gay guy B and having gay guy B behave like he has intentions toward straight guy A. Is this necessarily a problem? Maybe not, but I don’t think policy should be allowing it to happen. I don’t think policy should be creating a scenario in which it could happen.
Telling the straight guys, “If you don’t like it, hit the road” is effing crazy. If you want the policy repealed, fine. Just be willing to do the fucking work and mental gymnastics to address some of these problems.
flyboy, the last Pit thread about this topic had me as the punching bag. As I recall, it was Illuminatiprimus doing most of the punching, which spawned 2 or 3 more Pit/IMHO questions on the topic.
No one has made that claim. If the military/Congress thought that, then a discharged gay soldier would get a dishonorable discharge, not a OTHD.
That’s what I said. One of the tenets of my argument was that being kicked out or barred from entry isn’t really that big of a deal. Most of the posters here didn’t seem to buy that.
That’s not true. It’s happened before. Soldiers have been harrassed for being gay (regardless of their true orientation) and the offenders have been punished.
OK, fine, but you recognize that it isn’t inclusive, right? So do you think it is unfair for this particular soldier to have been discharged? You (and this goes for other posters as well) can separate debates about the policy from debates about enforcement of the policy, right? Glad we have an understanding.
It’s amusing to me that people assume that one needs to be hot in order for another person to be motivated to check them out. I don’t look at most women on the street, but if I were in the shower with a bunch of women, I’d look at every single one of them. flyboy seems to draw the line at bunking with a homosexual, but I draw the line at showering. Another man might not check me out while I’m at the computer, but I bet they would while towelling off. I know I would, if I were gay or in the women’s shower. I don’t see why everyone keeps telling me I’m arrogant for it.
It’s a doggone cryin’ shame that if the US were to integrate openly gay soldiers into the armed services that we’d have exactly zero examples to draw upon. I mean, we’d be the first nation to do so, right?
What was that? We’re among the last of the Western nations to have a prohibition against openly gay soldiers serving with honor? Gee, how’d that happen?
:dubious:
You can raise all of the objections you want, but a lot of us getting tired of hearing them. The exact arguments you’re raising here were raised when Clinton brought up the subject fifteen years ago. They’re tired, and most kids these days, the ones who are signing up to be soldiers, have moved beyond them. Sure, there will be some who have problems, and they’ll be told to like it or lump it. Just like they were when the services were racially integrated. By hesitating because we fear that some soldiers will be uncomfortable only legitimizes an illegitimate argument.
Give our soldiers the benefit of the doubt. I think they will find a way to handle openly gay soldiers amongst them just fine.
This is already happening. Gay and lesbian people have been serving in the military (in various degrees of openness) for time immemorial. (Though I honestly question how many of the female cohort are trimming their pubic hair in full view of other people. That sounds like some twisted adult variation on teen boys’ fantasies about girls’ sleepovers.) The suggestion that queer people cannot function in intimate situations with members of their gender without leering inappropriately or making unwanted advances suggests that queer people are all sex-crazed maniacs who can’t keep themselves under control. There is no evidence to support this belief. This is pure supposition, borne out of ignorance and bigotry.
And this is what the “go slow, don’t just repeal, don’t cram openness down our throats” position is supporting: comfort for the ignorant and bigotted at the expense of honorable queer people who simply want to serve their country without having to constantly lie about a fundamental aspect of themselves.
Jesus, some people just can’t read. For the umpteenth time, “this is already happening” doesn’t apply. Sure, there are gays already serving. But it isn’t as a matter of policy. If policy dictates gays serve openly, that changes the landscape and allow for behavior to change. Saying that it already happens is totally not applicable. It’s not happening the way it would if it was backed by policy.
This is simple. Is it right to let gays serve? Yes. Definitely. Is it right to implement a policy which affords gays a better living situation than straights, and affords the environment of cohabitation amongst a group of people that can and want to be intimate with each other? I say Fuck No, and that’s something we need to address before blindly repealing DADT. Can you seriously tell me that such a living situation that I’ve described is just fine? If so, how do you justify that?
Won’t/don’t private/semi-private barracks solve most of the “gawking” situations? The DoD’s turned away from the whole communal showers and common sleeping area model in most circumatances.
Is it not happening because it’s not backed by policy, or is it not happening because these are rational people who know that it’s inappropriate?
Suddenly I’m reminded of the old ‘she was asking for it’ argument when a girl gets raped…
It’s just fine. I justify it by saying you’re a highly trained adult and if you can’t handle naked bodies or knowing that people might see yours, you have no business serving because you are not mature or professional enough.
So you’re saying that you’re just fine with males and females cohabitating? Not just on a personal level, but having policy dictate this?
INT. SOLDIER’S BARRACKS - NIGHT
Two soldiers sit facing each other in separate bunks. One of them trims his pubic hair with a small pair of scissors.
LANCE
Hey, Bruce, did you hear?
BRUCE
Hmm?
LANCE
We’re now serving as a matter of policy.
BRUCE
Mmm-hmm.
Bruce continues quietly trimming his pubes.
FADE OUT