Can you give me one reason adults who are supposed to be exceptionally disciplined and unfailingly professional shouldn’t be able to handle that? Do you have a problem with female doctors treating male patients? Are you aware they may sometimes be straight women who would be sexually attracted to the patient under other circumstances?
So in other words, if DADT goes away, the queers will be uncontrollable sex fiends because they can no longer be kicked out when they leer like lechs at their unclothed barrackmates or make horrific unwanted sexual advances. Is that what you’re contending? Really?:rolleyes:
What does the policy actual change? Gays are allowed to serve right now. The homosexuals in the military already know they are homosexual. The only difference removing DADT will have is the straights will find out. If anybody wants to check you out in the shower, they are already doing it. The only thing is you don’t know about it right now. That has always been the issue. It isn’t that the gays will do something inappropriate. The current regulations, if enforced, would punish that. It is the straights who would be skeeved out if they knew it was possible.
You might consider one of the cases I have personal involvement in. Senior Chief Petty Officer Timothy McVey was the chief enlisted person on the USS Chicago (a fast attack submarine) while I was on board it. He accidentally sent an email from his AOL account to the ship’s ombudsman (the wife of a sailor who was in charge of keeping the other wives up to date). The address and signature where sexually suggestive, but the content was about the boat. She reported it to the boat, who immediately turned it over to the division. The wiki entry covers what happened after that, but not what happened before. Before that, he sexually harassed multiple junior sailors, as well as dating one of our junior mechanics. At least two of the junior sailors claimed claustrophobia to get off the boat. Partly because of DADT none of the sailors involved where willing to come forward and complain (the other part is a general unwillingness to go after anyone senior for sexual misconduct*). What does this show? That under DADT, offenses that if they happened between two members of the opposite sex would get counselling or disciplinary action short of discharge are not being followed up if the people involved are afraid of running afoul of the policy or if the command can’t afford to lose the person entirely. No action (not even an informal warning) was taken until it came to the attention of someone from outside the command. So instead of being disciplined and possible getting a bad conduct discharge, the Navy had to promote him and pay for his lawyer.
Jonathan
*McVey’s replacement was sent to us because he had to leave a plum shore duty assignment due to sleeping with junior sailors wives while they were at sea. Rumor was that was not the first time it had happened and he was never formerly charged with anything.
Why in the world is this so difficult for you to comprehend? An inherent side-effect of DADT is the necessity for gays to remain in the closet. This is going to affect their behavior to a certain extent. If they elect to not curb their behavior, they stand the very likely chance of ending up like the woman in the OP’s article.
This is simple. Do you agree with this, or not? Because if you do agree with it (and I can’t for the life of me figure out on what grounds one could disagree with it), then you also have to realize the effects of repealing DADT. Behavior will change. I did not in any way imply it would be the extreme bizarro example you’re quasi-accusing me of creating. I’m just saying there will be a change. Simple.
People here are so busy frothing at the mouth that they keep losing sight of the fact that I’m not trying to stand in the way of gays serving. I have absolutely no problem with it. I’m a pretty liberal guy. But people are just going high and right waving the gay rights flag. I am simply pointing out that when the rubber meets the road in applying this new culture, there are problems which need to be addressed. If it’s the CinC’s/Congress’ decision to tell us to suck it up, then that’s fine. But in reality, I don’t see that happening. Historically, the military is asked to weigh in. I don’t see that changing. When it does, it’s going to have a list of objections. Why is everyone so unwilling to address them and so eager to try and ram this down the military’s throat? It’s the dumbest approach I’ve ever seen and the reason why, IMO, the left wing is so easy to dismiss.
Ensign Edison, do you really believe that in the next 10-20 years you’re going to see males and females cohabitating in the U.S. military? Seriously?
VT, that was actually pretty funny. 
Just out of curiousity, you’re being serious here? You’re assuming soldiers are “exceptionally disciplined and unfailingly professional”? Do you know any army privates?
Yes there will be changes. They can talk about their dates, they can be out. But that was not what you were objecting to. What you were objecting to is that you (or the less liberal military people you are concerned about) will be uncomfortable. Looking back at my career, the only time I every had to shower with other guys was in boot camp. After that, it was two or three person rooms until the sub, when it was bunks, but stall showers.
When the change comes it will require some strict policy changes. Sexual harassment training needs to be modified, sexual misconduct and fraternization regulations will need be consistently applied (although that should have happened long since). But the real change is going to be a cultural change. It may not be easy, but it won’t happen at all unless it is forced.
Note: I acknowledge that this will add headaches to COs and XOs, just like mixed sex crews, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen.
Jonathan
Ok, there are a few things here that need to be looked at.
A) Straights would be skeeved out if they knew. This is important, for the same reason females don’t want me hanging around their berthing area with my toungue hanging out of my mouth. I’m not a homophobe and I personally couldn’t give a flying fuck if some gay guy is checking me out. However, I believe a male has just as much of a right to privacy from someone sexually interested in them as is warranted with the male/female separation. I see very little difference between gay/straight cohabitation and male/female cohabitation, except for the possibility of females getting pregnant.
B) Gays serve now. Ok, yes, it’s already happening. But keep in mind we’re in a limbo of non-policy right now. Basically the military is covering its ears to the issue. They don’t want to know. As far as it’s concerned, it’s not really happening, or at least there’s some sort of plausible deniability.
C) Gays doing something inappropriate. I doubt they would, but the bottom line is that you’re going to have the problem of perception. And you know there’s going to be a ton of homophobes complaining about getting hit on, or ogled, or something. Maybe that’s not a big deal, but to me, having policy dictate that such a situation exists, that is a big deal.
ETA: if you read my posts, you’ll see I’m not saying this shouldn’t happen. And yeah, it’s going to be painful. I understand all that.
This is the part where I have to just flatly say I don’t believe you. Straights already know which of their bunkmates are gay. Every story about gays serving includes quotes from the people they served with to the effect of “Yeah, I know he’s gay, but it doesn’t matter to me.”
flyboy I hope you realize what you are saying. You are telling somebody who is gay to live in the closet even if they don’t want to. You are telling them that they have to live in fear of discovery and losing their job for living their life. You are telling them they are a second classs citizen. I understand you have no problem and I understand that, yes there may be some issues and policies that need to be clairified, but that does not change the fac t that the policy forces patriotic Americans who want to serve and in fact have served, to lead their life in a way that demeans their dignity. That is why the policy is wrong and should be changed, because being gay is not a crime and no one should have to live their life as if they are trying to hide.
This factor is less than it was as gays have been more accepted into society. But the military can’t wait until it goes away entirely. The fact is that you can’t segregate the gays on this basis because you would need to have units of one person. Believe it or not, not all gay guys find every male on earth attractive, or would welcome being stared at by every other gay guy. One of the casualties of DADT is that gay on gay sexual misconduct will go unreported.
Besides, believe it or not, if you did hang around female berthing, you would find it a lot less sexy than you imagine. If nothing else, the novelty would wear of quickly, and if it happened in boot, when they are running you as ragged as they can*, and they have strict enforcement of the rules, then you would get over it pretty quickly.
*I almost forgot you were air force, so replace run ragged with not having room service in your suite.
Why is this an argument against getting rid of the policy? Or do you think we should go back to the pre-DADT days?
Actually, I would be shocked if there was never an actual incident of gays misbehaving. They are human beings after all. McVey did misbehave and should have been kicked out for the actions he took on board, not for sending an email from his personal account. Apply the same standards to gays and straights, punish the bad actors, and let the rest do their job.
So, what are you saying? That it will be a painful transition for some and some policy changes need to happen. Well, I think most will agree. But you seem to be saying that it can’t happen for decades because it isn’t fair that gay guys get to look at you while you pick your zits, but you can’t watch girls shaving their pits.
This happens when you serve with someone for a long time. By that point, you are usually not in open bay berthing with communal showers. And, more importantly, you are older and more mature. The bad time will be the first few months of service when most military people are just out of high school, and skew rural or inner city and lower income.
Jonathan
You are one smart cookie, Gangster. Real smart. How on earth did you ever deduce this? You must have read between all of the following lines to get to the hidden meat of my secret hatred for all gays. Good job! :rolleyes:
Post 13: “Since I’m Active Duty, I won’t comment on the current policy, but I will say that I’ll welcome with open arms any new policy originated in the President’s head.”
Post 37: “Keep in mind, and I’m saying this over and over again, I’m not defending DADT. I’m not saying I in any way agree with it.”
Post 47: “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.”
Post 56: “I do, however, see more freedom (if not total freedom) for gays in the military in the next 10 years” and “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.”
Post 68: “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.” and “On the other hand, I think this hurdle can be navigated”
Post 70: “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” and “If you want the policy repealed, fine. Just be willing to do the fucking work and mental gymnastics to address some of these problems.”
Post 75: “This is simple. Is it right to let gays serve? Yes. Definitely.”
Post 84: “People here are so busy frothing at the mouth that they keep losing sight of the fact that I’m not trying to stand in the way of gays serving. I have absolutely no problem with it. I’m a pretty liberal guy.”
Post 87: “if you read my posts, you’ll see I’m not saying this shouldn’t happen”
Come back when you’ve actually read the thread, ok?
I know that when they’re not, the military’s answer isn’t to make it easier for them to be childish and undisciplined.
You know, as the OP I feel I have the right to say that this thread has devolved into an attempt by flyboy to have the last word.
He keeps saying he has no problem with gays serving in the military, but he’s obviously creeped out by the possibility of having to share living quarters with gays. He has yet to prove that gay soldiers are any worse than straights when it comes to sexual misbehavior. No data, no cites, nada. It doesn’t seem to me he’s as open minded as he’s trying(too hard) to show he is.
As a veteran I can say that barracks are hardly conducive to romance or arousal. They’re plain and crowded. And except for basic we always had private bathing, so I wouln’t have been worried about being sized up. The only two women I knew who were rumored to be lesbian were roommates, so nothing to worry about there.
What flyboy’s attitude, as exhibited in this thread, seems to boil down to is the sterotypical “some of my best friends are…gay!”
I just wanted to pick up on this point.
It seems to me, given the apparent success, indeed the complete ease, with which gays have been integrated into the military in many other countries, about the only argument against repealing DADT in America must be that American soldiers are, as a rule, dumber and more bigoted than their counterparts in other democratic states.
I mean, if it’s worked so unproblematically in other western democracies, what does it say about America, and about the American military, that there is such resistance to it here, and so many excuses and caveats about why we have to be careful?
I’m just wondering, flyboy, which of the following groups you’d rather be associated with:
Group A Group B
Australia China
United Kingdom Cuba
Spain Egypt
Germany Iran
New Zealand North Korea
Canada Singapore
Israel Syria
France Turkey
Netherlands Venezuela
Norway Yemen
As you’ve probably guessed, Group A consists of 10 countries that allows gays to serve openly in the military; Group B bans gays from serving in the military. Which group, as a whole, more closely values and follows the types of freedoms for which the United States constantly claims to be fighting?
You’re right, it’s not. The question isn’t "Should we change the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, because I think everybody in the thread agrees that it should be changed. The question is, how do you change the policy in order to allow gays to openly serve in the way that will cause the least disruption?
I mean, you could just say, “From March 1, 2009, sexual orientation shall not be a factor in millitary recruitment or retention, nor shall public knowlege of a servicemember’s homosexuality be cause for his or her discharge”, and not do anything else.
The question is, though, are there other policies to also implement, along with this policy, to make it easier for servicemembers to accept the policy. It’s not whether or not to change the policy…it’s how to implement the new policy in the least disruptive way.
I’m not sure why this all has to be so hard. Why not do, for example, what Australia did:
And, from the Executive Summary of the Report:
As i suggested earlier, i guess it’s possible that there’s some inherent level of bigotry or stupidity in the United States that would make the above scenario unworkable, but having lived here for the past 8 years, i find that Americans are, as a whole, just about as reasonable and fair-minded as people in other countries i’ve lived in. I don’t see why it can’t work.
I just want to repeat a small part of the above-quoted material, because it seems very relevant to me:
That seems like an eminently sensible attitude to me, one that contrasts markedly with the attitude of people who are freaking out about the possibility of gay men sharing quarters with straight men.
Whatever. I’m not trying to get the last word, I’m trying to correct the multitudes of mischaracterizations of my posts and points. That’s why the frequent reiteration of my point that I have no problem with this. If folks would stop coming in an making me out to have a problem with it, then I feel compelled to come in and defend myself. Dunno what else to say.
Apparently, only a few people are interested in actually addressing some of the issues relevant to repealing DADT. I think I’ve made some valid points, but few folks are acutally interpreting what I’m saying correctly, without getting emotional and defensive about it. My posts stand, and my points stand, and my assertion that I am not in any way defending DADT stands. Have fun with the thread. Back to your usual pointless debating…
I accept that you have no problem with it, as a general principle.
But you also keep making arguments about specific things that you do have a problem with, like the question of heteros and homos cohabiting. And you continue to reiterate those things despite the fact that the vast majority of armed forces the world over have had little or no trouble dealing with them in a very straightforward, commonsense way. Moreover, the subset of countries that have refused to admit homosexuals into the military includes mainly authoritarian states, many of which are directly and explicitly opposed to western notions of democracy and liberty.
Do you believe that the integration of gays into the military is inherently more difficult in America than in, say, the UK or Australia or Canada? If so, why? And if not, why all the hand-wringing when those other countries have already demonstrated that your fears and concerns are, for the most part, complete non-issues?
ETA:
Also, back before the UK changed its policies and admitted gays, the US military used to point to the UK when the issue came up, using the British example to bolster the American argument for exclusion. If the UK military was good enough to serve as a model for America when it didn’t admit the queers, why isn’t it a good enough model now that it does?
I don’t understand how DADT is a law. Isn’t the President the commander in chief? You think he would have the only say over military policy. If he wants cross-dressing homosexuals sucking each other off on the front lines while alternately singing Dixie, with a corps of midgets watching, in full view of the enemy, then isn’t that his decision?
I mean, why does Congress have a say in it?