Military Veterans Push for Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/military-veterans-push-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/

Military Veterans Push for Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
President-elect Barack Obama faces a political and cultural issue that dogged former President Bill Clinton early in his administration

AP

Tuesday, November 18, 2008


The move by the military veterans confronts the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama with a thorny political and cultural issue that dogged former President Bill Clinton early in his administration.

"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote.

While Obama has expressed support for repeal, he said during the presidential campaign that he would not do so on his own -- an indication that he would tread carefully to prevent the issue from becoming a drag on his agenda. Obama said he would instead work with military leaders to build consensus on removing the ban on openly gay service members.

"Although I have consistently said I would repeal 'don't ask, don't tell,' I believe that the way to do it is make sure that we are working through a process, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be," Obama said in a September interview with the Philadelphia Gay News.

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama's transition team, declined comment.

The issue of gays in the military became a flash point early in the Clinton administration as Clinton tried to fulfill a campaign promise to end the military's ban on gays. His efforts created the current compromise policy -- ending the ban but prohibiting active-duty service members from openly acknowledging they are gay.

But it came at a political cost. The resulting debate divided service members and veterans, put Democrats on the defensive and provided cannon fodder for social conservatives and Republican critics who questioned Clinton's patriotism and standing with the military.

Retired Adm. Charles Larson, a four-star admiral and two-time superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy who signed the statement with 104 other retired admirals and generals, said in an interview that he believed Clinton's approach was flawed because he rushed to change military culture.

Larson said he hoped Obama would take more time to work with the Pentagon. Joining Larson among the signatories was Clifford Alexander, Army secretary under former President Jimmy Carter.

"There are a lot of issues they'll have to work out, and I think they'll have to prioritize," Larson said, noting that the new administration will immediately face combat-readiness issues and budget concerns. "But I hope this would be one of the priority issues in the personnel area."

The list of 104 former officers who signed the statement appears to signal growing support for resolving the status of gays in the military. Last year, 28 former generals and admirals signed a similar statement.

Larson, who has a gay daughter he says has broadened his thinking on the subject, believes a generational shift in attitudes toward homosexuality has created a climate where a repeal is not only workable, but also an important step for keeping talented personnel in the military.

"I know a lot of young people now -- even people in the area of having commands of ships and squadrons -- and they are much more tolerant, and they believe, as I do, that we have enough regulations on the books to enforce proper standards of human behavior," Larson said.

The officers' statement points to data showing there are about 1 million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States, and about 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in the military.

The military discharged about 12,340 people between 1994 and 2007 for violating the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a military watchdog group. The number peaked in 2001 at 1,273, but began dropping off sharply after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Last year, 627 military personnel were discharged under the policy.

Political observers say that even though the issue may not be as controversial as it was when Clinton addressed it, it's impossible to forget what happened then.

Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said Obama is unlikely to tackle the issue early on. Sabato said he expects Obama to focus on economic recovery and avoid risking the spark of a distracting "brush fire" controversy at the outset.

"I can't imagine that he will do this right in the beginning, given the Clinton precedent," Sabato said.

Aaron Belkin, who has studied the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as director of the Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara and organized the officers' statement, said how Obama addresses the issue will be the first test for the new president on gay rights.

"Everyone is going to be interested to see how he responds," Belkin said.


Where is Xray on this?

[LnGrrrR]

As an active duty soldier (USAF), I have no problem with this. I've known people that were gay in the military, closeted and 'semi'-open. There's no reason to think that a gay soldier will be any less professional than a straight one.

[George Gervin's Afro]

As an active duty soldier (USAF), I have no problem with this. I've known people that were gay in the military, closeted and 'semi'-open. There's no reason to think that a gay soldier will be any less professional than a straight one.

But they might be thinking of you when they have those evil and deviant homsexual thoughts... If gay marriage is as big a threat threat to heterosexual marriage, can you fathom what gayness will do to the military?


I shudder at the thought of gay bars on military bases..

[MannyIsGod]

I think the policy is a huge slap in the face to those members of our armed forces who are homosexual and willing to put their life on the line regardless of how crappy their country treats them.

[desflood]

As an active duty soldier (USAF), I have no problem with this. I've known people that were gay in the military, closeted and 'semi'-open. There's no reason to think that a gay soldier will be any less professional than a straight one.
My hubby says the same thing. He's worked with several closeted gay airmen and has never had any incidents in which any of them have been less hard-working or professional than their straight counterparts.

[Wild Cobra]

I only wish those of you advocating allowing gays to openly serve would closely look at the pros and cons. I would agree they should be ably to serve if you can find a way to mitigate the problems.

[Spurminator]

I only wish those of you advocating allowing gays to openly serve would closely look at the pros and cons. I would agree they should be ably to serve if you can find a way to mitigate the problems.


Such as?

[Centaur of the Sun]

Such as?

Bigots serving who would actively torment open gays?

[kwhitegocubs]

So, it is better that military persons be discharged for being open about their sexuality than expelling those who display bigotry and violence against their fellow soldiers?

[DarkReign]

Bigots serving who would actively torment open gays?

That is a pretty good one.

[DarkReign]

So, it is better that military persons be discharged for being open about their sexuality than expelling those who display bigotry and violence against their fellow soldiers?

Thus, the "Dont Ask, Dont Tell" policy in a nutshell.

[kwhitegocubs]

Yay, maintenance of the status quo. Always popular and always viable. And rarely right.

[romad_20]

I agree this approach is better, but for those of you who have served, you do remember the mentality of 17-22 year old males being taught to kill, right? Not exactly the most understanding and compassionate group.

[Spurminator]

We don't shelter minority soldiers from racism or female soldiers from sexism. Those issues are dealt with whenever it's necessary. I don't think purging anti-gay sentiment within the Military is a prerequisite to allowing gays to serve openly.

[romad_20]

We don't shelter minority soldiers from racism or female soldiers from sexism. Those issues are dealt with whenever it's necessary. I don't think purging anti-gay sentiment within the Military is a prerequisite to allowing gays to serve openly.

I agree. I just think it will be quite the culture shock to the system and the number of problems will be high at first.

[kwhitegocubs]

Well, of course it isn't possible to purge the sentiment. No thought-police yet exist. However, outward actions ARE dealt with and that is all that can be expected.

[DarkReign]

Yay, maintenance of the status quo. Always popular and always viable. And rarely right.


We don't shelter minority soldiers from racism or female soldiers from sexism. Those issues are dealt with whenever it's necessary. I don't think purging anti-gay sentiment within the Military is a prerequisite to allowing gays to serve openly.

I never said it was right or that it should stay the same. But take lakaluva for example. Bullshit or not, guy said him and his boys were going to have some "friendly fire" victims (or some such) in the Prop 8 thread.

Reality is far stranger than fiction.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I agree. I just think it will be quite the culture shock to the system and the number of problems will be high at first.

There is usually a settling-in time with any change, but part of being an adult is enduring growing pains. When future Americans look back on what is hopefully our last major civil rights struggle, I wonder if they'll be able to put things into perspective. I admit I can't quite fathom the logic to gay opposition these days.

In a society that is devaluing marriage more and more each day - to the point where celebrities have publicity marriages - there is a group of people who revere the practice so much that they want to commit themselves to it, and who would doubtless value it more than those who now take it for granted. Yet, those who would claim to hold the highest piety on the topic are those most violently opposed to exclusion.

In a point in time when the public trust in the use of military personnel has driven recruitment numbers to near-dangerous levels and forced the lowering of admittance standards, there is a group of people who wish to openly declare their patriotism and serve their country to the best of their ability. Yet they are scorned most by those who claim loudest that defense is the the country's number one priority.

Tolkien couldn't follow this plot.

[romad_20]

I never said it was right or that it should stay the same. But take lakaluva for example. Bullshit or not, guy said him and his boys were going to have some "friendly fire" victims (or some such) in the Prop 8 thread.

Reality is far stranger than fiction.

Exactly what I was thinking. My career field was a combat, male only career field. Different mentality from the rest of the Air Force, and I could totally see that sort of thing happening.

I got in lakaluva ass for that comment as well in that thread. Made me sick just to think of someone doing something like that in that situation. Some people are just pieces of shit.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I never said it was right or that it should stay the same. But take lakaluva for example. Bullshit or not, guy said him and his boys were going to have some "friendly fire" victims (or some such) in the Prop 8 thread.

Reality is far stranger than fiction.

lakaluva is a troll who says whatever gets the biggest reaction. The amount of investigation that goes into friendly fire is intensive, and while it may not all get out for public consumption, military courts have a lot more teeth than civilian courts and they would not take such actions lightly. Casualties may well happen and they would be tragic, but there's no reason to believe they'd be widespread. At any rate, if the gay soldiers willing to serve are ready to take that chance, then who are we to nanny them?

[kwhitegocubs]

I understand that it is difficult and that the existing American Military culture is likely not comprised of the "compassionate and tolerant" in large numbers.

But, you have to draw the line at SOME point in time. If you have ever been to the Prairie Provinces in Canada, you would realize that it's not generally a bastion of open-mindedness and gay-tolerance, but Canada's military seems to be doing okay with its "open-sexuality" policy.

Otherwise you enable the culture to continue and stay just as ingrained.

And for lakaluva - either he likes exaggerative trolling, or he is one fucked up little mind.

[MannyIsGod]

I think you guys are not giving our servicemen and women enough credit. Seriously, the whole "we're protecting you from yourself" schtick going on in this thread would really insult me if I were a member of the service.

[kwhitegocubs]

Well, if I am not mistaken, from reading the threads, a fair number of the posters are ex-military.

[Spur-Addict]

We don't shelter minority soldiers from racism or female soldiers from sexism. Those issues are dealt with whenever it's necessary. I don't think purging anti-gay sentiment within the Military is a prerequisite to allowing gays to serve openly.

Bingo.


I never said it was right or that it should stay the same. But take lakaluva for example. Bullshit or not, guy said him and his boys were going to have some "friendly fire" victims (or some such) in the Prop 8 thread.

Reality is far stranger than fiction.

So basicaly you want to protect people who will be discriminated against, or potentially harmed for being gay, that's noble of you. But what over rules your desire for protection is their desire for acknowledgement.

To choose what's right for these people shouldn't be your place, especially when others receive and are able to obtain what they desire. They are accustomed to persecution and incidences of extreme violence, the more commonplace their lifestyle is accepted, the more these incidents will decrease.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, if I am not mistaken, from reading the threads, a fair number of the posters are ex-military.

The only 2 posters tied directly to the military in this thread both said they'd like to see the policy repealed or that their loved ones expressed that feeling. You can bring up that troll lakaluva, but I"m not taking him seriously for one second.

[kwhitegocubs]

I didn't imply that they were against repealing the ban, but that their concerns, like Romad talking about the mindset of 17-22 year olds, were of a protective nature.

I'm clearly in agreement on a need to repeal the policy, but being concerned for human lives in an isolated culture/situation isn't something that represents a disrespect for military persons and they seem to believe that as well.

[clambake]

To choose what's right for these people shouldn't be your place, especially when others receive and are able to obtain what they desire. They are accustomed to persecution and incidences of extreme violence, the more commonplace their lifestyle is accepted, the more these incidents will decrease.

what?

[LnGrrrR]

I never said it was right or that it should stay the same. But take lakaluva for example. Bullshit or not, guy said him and his boys were going to have some "friendly fire" victims (or some such) in the Prop 8 thread.

Reality is far stranger than fiction.

Well, maybe they should implement it in the Air Force first. We're more laidback. :D

[Spur-Addict]

I agree. I just think it will be quite the culture shock to the system and the number of problems will be high at first.

Some people in the military are already suspected to be gay, and even if they aren't, it is known by this policy that they must keep it concealed. So just because some gays aren't open about it, doesn't mean they aren't suspected to be. Gays in the military isn't a shock because it already exists.


This already exists, and the fact that law makes it a hush issue, it makes some of those who persecute feel ok about it because gays are silenced already. Whether or not the problems may be high at first is a good concern to have, but in issues such as these, it isn't a suprise, and it's something that has to be worked on to get through. Nothing will be magic over night.




what?

What do you not understand?

[DarkReign]

So basicaly you want to protect people who will be discriminated against, or potentially harmed for being gay, that's noble of you. But what over rules your desire for protection is their desire for acknowledgement.

There is nothing "noble" about my opinon, but thanks. I am stating the obvious. Now it just depends on the reality vs instinct.

Instinct told me Prop would fail miserably in California.

Reality was completely different.


To choose what's right for these people shouldn't be your place, especially when others receive and are able to obtain what they desire. They are accustomed to persecution and incidences of extreme violence, the more commonplace their lifestyle is accepted, the more these incidents will decrease.

I choose nothing for anyone. I am not military, nor have I ever wanted to be or desire to be.

I simply state what I believe to be true. In a combat situation, liberties are taken. The term "fragging" comes to mind during the Vietnam war. You may be right and you may be wrong, same goes for me.

Personally, what the military does in this situation is the military's perogative. I have no interest in it, really. I am not a serviceman. But pointing out the reality of homophobes and their beliefs is not "choosing" for them, nor is it "noble". Its a statement of fact.

Military courts may have more teeth than a civilian court, but a battefield makes for an awful crime scene.

Finally, its up to the brass to figure it out. I dont pretend to know anything about our country's servicemen beyond the 4-5 I know and my impressions. Beyond that, its conjecture.

[Wild Cobra]

We don't shelter minority soldiers from racism or female soldiers from sexism. Those issues are dealt with whenever it's necessary. I don't think purging anti-gay sentiment within the Military is a prerequisite to allowing gays to serve openly.

We also don't force men and women to use the same shower facilities and bedroom accommodations.

If we are to allow gays to openly serve, we may as well have men and women using the same open shower facilities and barracks.

This is the root of the problem. Sexual harassment and violence can be dealt with the same way it already is.

Just like some women would be abhorred by sharing a shower facility with men, some men are abhorred for a man who may be turned on by him, to see him naked.

This is the clearest problem. Not the only one. I get tired of re-arguing these same arguments over and over. Why cannot the advocates understand this concern?

When public nudity becomes commonly accepted in the USA, then we can have soldiers sharing such facilities.

[Spurminator]

Yeah that's more along the lines of what I figured you were getting at when I asked "Like what?" Gays completely fuck up our bathroom-by-gender system!

[romad_20]

Some people in the military are already suspected to be gay, and even if they aren't, it is known by this policy that they must keep it concealed. So just because some gays aren't open about it, doesn't mean they aren't suspected to be. Gays in the military isn't a shock because it already exists.




It would be quite the shock. There was only one person that was suspected of being gay in my squadron while I was in. This guy was persecuted by his peers and the leadership looked away. The people who were supposed to be looking out for his treatment and well being did nothing. No one, not even the 1st Sgt who usually helped everyone in trouble, even drug trouble. He ended up running off awol for weeks. Rumors were rampant while he was awol. His reputation was ruined and he was quickly charged under the UCMJ and discharged when he was found. Served time at Levenworth. Life ruined.

If you think that wouldn't happen to more people if the policy was changed over night you're kidding yourself. If someone with enough pull wants to give you a screwjob it will happen. Combine that with the overwhelming machismo attitude of the military and you've got yourself a powder keg. It would be a bigger shock than you think, my friend.

I think the change should come with careful planning and education starting in boot camp. The entire culture and thinking on the subject would have to shift.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

We also don't force men and women to use the same shower facilities and bedroom accommodations.

If we are to allow gays to openly serve, we may as well have men and women using the same open shower facilities and barracks.

This is the root of the problem. Sexual harassment and violence can be dealt with the same way it already is.

Just like some women would be abhorred by sharing a shower facility with men, some men are abhorred for a man who may be turned on by him, to see him naked.

This is the clearest problem. Not the only one. I get tired of re-arguing these same arguments over and over. Why cannot the advocates understand this concern?

When public nudity becomes commonly accepted in the USA, then we can have soldiers sharing such facilities.

WTF?? You don't want to allow gays in the military because of some jackasses' insecurity?? You're truly one of the dumbest MOFO's on the board, you know that!?

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Military courts may have more teeth than a civilian court, but a battefield makes for an awful crime scene.

I've never been in combat, and outside of the personal stories that have been shared with me by friends and loved ones, I don't pretend to know. However, except in rare cases, I cannot imagine such a situation as you propose beyond possible a handful of isolated incidents. And even then, I just don't think it would happen. You're talking about a trained soldier lying in wait to murder another person, and then, presumably being able to do so in the middle of a high pressure situation. You're also either presupposing that everyone around will be oblivious or that they'd be of like minds.

Anyone capable of plotting such a thing is likely to exhibit behavior of an unacceptable nature prior to a combat situation and would already be on the radar, if not weeded out entirely. Those clever enough to slip by without notice would be sociopaths and you cannot base military policy on the weight of whatifs like that. It is far more likely that, as in previous cases, combat and close quarters would strengthen the bond between those serving and highlight just how insignificant such differences are in the bigger picture.

The military has adapted to accept issues of race and gender. They can adapt to this.

[Spur-Addict]

I simply state what I believe to be true. In a combat situation, liberties are taken. The term "fragging" comes to mind during the Vietnam war.

Military courts may have more teeth than a civilian court, but a battefield makes for an awful crime scene.

Finally, its up to the brass to figure it out. I dont pretend to know anything about our country's servicemen beyond the 4-5 I know and my impressions. Beyond that, its conjecture.

Killing without consent is awful, and when you kill anyone anywhere without their consent you take their liberty. So whether it's on a battle field, or outside of a bar where a gay kid gets tortured and beaten to death, it's still a negative.

Gays are persecuted everywhere, and to think that gays aren't persecuted in the military as it stands now is to lie to oneself. The amount of persecution may rise in the beginning, but it most likely would calm. Just because being open about being gay isn't advocated, doesn't mean knowing someone is gay and persecuting them isn't possible. (Friendly fire on those perceived as gay may already exist. Violence against those thought to be gay may already exist.)

But to say you shouldn't have a say in it because you're not apart of the military is not something I agree with. To have a hands off approach to this matter is something that will only perpetuate the current status quo. To say someone can't be proud of who they are because of fear of violence is absurd. It's everywhere. It's at school, the office, the bar, on the sports teams etc. In all these places, like the military, the threat of death and violence is present, and possible.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Gays are persecuted everywhere, and to think that gays aren't persecuted in the military as it stands now is to lie to oneself.

It's also worth noting that one sinister aspect of current policy is how it strips gay service persons of the ability to report crimes against them without facing a discharge themselves.

[romad_20]

It's also worth noting that one sinister aspect of current policy is how it strips gay service persons of the ability to report crimes against them without facing a discharge themselves.

Not necessarily. They can report the crime and say its because the other party believed they are gay but they cannot be asked if they are or not. But that goes to the point of my post above, finding someone who is sympathetic to your problem isn't the easiest thing in the military.

[LnGrrrR]

It would be quite the shock. There was only one person that was suspected of being gay in my squadron while I was in. This guy was persecuted by his peers and the leadership looked away. The people who were supposed to be looking out for his treatment and well being did nothing. No one, not even the 1st Sgt who usually helped everyone in trouble, even drug trouble. He ended up running off awol for weeks. Rumors were rampant while he was awol. His reputation was ruined and he was quickly charged under the UCMJ and discharged when he was found. Served time at Levenworth. Life ruined.

If you think that wouldn't happen to more people if the policy was changed over night you're kidding yourself. If someone with enough pull wants to give you a screwjob it will happen. Combine that with the overwhelming machismo attitude of the military and you've got yourself a powder keg. It would be a bigger shock than you think, my friend.

I think the change should come with careful planning and education starting in boot camp. The entire culture and thinking on the subject would have to shift.

Uhm, if the policy were changed, then they would be ALLOWED to be open, and it would be ILLEGAL to discriminate against them. As it is now, soldiers can not come out, and so they have no leg to stand on for being discriminated against.

In response to your answer to MAKG, if a First Shirt decided to 'sit on' the issue, then they would be able to take it up to the IG. Right now, there are no firm punishments for making fun of someone for possibly being gay, because theoretically you're not supposed to be. However, if gays COULD serve, then it would be a serious problem to discriminate against them because of it.

I truly believe that atheists/agnostics would be discriminated against MUCH more if that were legal, for instance.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Not necessarily. They can report the crime and say its because the other party believed they are gay but they cannot be asked if they are or not. But that goes to the point of my post above, finding someone who is sympathetic to your problem isn't the easiest thing in the military.

True, but not without shining that light of suspicion upon themselves.

May I ask how recently you served? I'm genuinely curious because the attitude you're sharing is consistent with stories my father and others have told me from the 1970s and even 80s, but those friends of mine that served while I was in college and after (two of which are actually gay themselves) have told me the general attitude is not nearly as hostile specifically toward gays so much as just "picking on the little guy" in general during boot camp hazing, etc.

[romad_20]

True, but not without shining that light of suspicion upon themselves.

May I ask how recently you served? I'm genuinely curious because the attitude you're sharing is consistent with stories my father and others have told me from the 1970s and even 80s, but those friends of mine that served while I was in college and after (two of which are actually gay themselves) have told me the general attitude is not nearly as hostile specifically toward gays so much as just "picking on the little guy" in general during boot camp hazing, etc.


I got out in 2002. But as I said before, I was in a male-only career field, so the attitude there is different.

I think the people in this thread are assuming things work the same way in the military as they do everyday life. I would like to see the policy changed, but it has to be done in a smart way that does take into account the safety of currently serving gay members and a change in the culture from boot camp on.

Can you imagine if you are gay and serving, and people you have worked with for years who have been bashing the gay lifestyle all of a sudden knew you were gay? I mean just because things are the right thing to do doesn't mean it has to be done immediately and without regard for real-world situations that will happen.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I got out in 2002. But as I said before, I was in a male-only career field, so the attitude there is different.

Thank you. That's interesting.


Can you imagine if you are gay and serving, and people you have worked with for years who have been bashing the gay lifestyle all of a sudden knew you were gay?

Maybe this is one of the military-world / real-world differences you spoke of, but just because it would be okay to be gay doesn't necessarily mean gay service persons would wear it on their sleeves. One would assume they'd be able to recognize the environment and act in their own best interest. I mean, it's not like they'd have different color uniforms or anything.

[romad_20]

Thank you. That's interesting.



Maybe this is one of the military-world / real-world differences you spoke of, but just because it would be okay to be gay doesn't necessarily mean gay service persons would wear it on their sleeves. One would assume they'd be able to recognize the environment and act in their own best interest. I mean, it's not like they'd have different color uniforms or anything.

What' the difference if you can't say you're gay because of policy or if you can't say it because you're in fear. If they can't just come out without any fear, then nothing has really changed.

I think it needs to be a well-defined, systematic approach of teaching and tolerance. Education early in training about discrimination and strong repercussions for said discrimination would be a good way to start.

No matter what the approach is, it will take time. The military does not like change, one little bit.

[Spur-Addict]

It would be quite the shock. There was only one person that was suspected of being gay in my squadron while I was in. This guy was persecuted by his peers and the leadership looked away. The people who were supposed to be looking out for his treatment and well being did nothing. No one, not even the 1st Sgt who usually helped everyone in trouble, even drug trouble. He ended up running off awol for weeks. Rumors were rampant while he was awol. His reputation was ruined and he was quickly charged under the UCMJ and discharged when he was found. Served time at Levenworth. Life ruined.

If you think that wouldn't happen to more people if the policy was changed over night you're kidding yourself. If someone with enough pull wants to give you a screwjob it will happen. Combine that with the overwhelming machismo attitude of the military and you've got yourself a powder keg. It would be a bigger shock than you think, my friend.

I think the change should come with careful planning and education starting in boot camp. The entire culture and thinking on the subject would have to shift.

In this matter it's about accountability. The gay man or women in this situation had no one to run to. SO yes of course it makes sense that this person left. If he could report this to a higher authority which goes beyond his or her unit, that can be solved easily.

If you think a person who has served for decades would risk his retirement for this, then you are mistaken. IF they do, then it's their own problem if they hate gays that much. In regards to those who are privates, or other lower level service men and women, they can make that choice as well. If they want to risk what they have going for persecuting someone then so be it. They can then be served their papers, and goodbye.

[Drachen]

Thank you. That's interesting.



Maybe this is one of the military-world / real-world differences you spoke of, but just because it would be okay to be gay doesn't necessarily mean gay service persons would wear it on their sleeves. One would assume they'd be able to recognize the environment and act in their own best interest. I mean, it's not like they'd have different color uniforms or anything.

Oh, c'mon, I thought it goes without saying that as soon as they were allowed to express their gayness, the gays would start wearing that pink camoflage!!!

/sarcasm

Look, I do believe that immersion would be the only way to make it work. I like the idea of having education for those entering the military on the subject. As far as those who have so much fear of gays that they would scream at the thought of being in the same shower, suck it the F up. To give a little historical precedence, there were also those who feared that allowing the black man to use the same showers would, I don't know, infect them or something. Then the rules changed and they all had to integrate, and while there were incidents, it turned out ok. Point is there is nothing to it but to do it. The faster you start the faster it will be finished.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

What' the difference if you can't say you're gay because of policy or if you can't say it because you're in fear. If they can't just come out without any fear, then nothing has really changed.

Knowing when to keep your mouth shut about your personal life and beliefs in the wrong kind of company is something people of all walks face every day. Opting to hold your tongue is profoundly different from being forced to keep silent.

Naturally there would need to be other adjustments to protocols in order to deal with this transition, but the military has faced such circumstances before with integration.

[Drachen]

What' the difference if you can't say you're gay because of policy or if you can't say it because you're in fear. If they can't just come out without any fear, then nothing has really changed.

I think it needs to be a well-defined, systematic approach of teaching and tolerance. Education early in training about discrimination and strong repercussions for said discrimination would be a good way to start.

No matter what the approach is, it will take time. The military does not like change, one little bit.

Not to say that some won't come out of the closet due to fear, but that is not the only reason. I promise you I don't go to my place of work and say "I am a heterosexual" to every person I meet. Similarly, they would not just show up to work the first day after the repeal and announce to the world that they are gay.

[romad_20]

Knowing when to keep your mouth shut about your personal life and beliefs in the wrong kind of company is something people of all walks face every day. Opting to hold your tongue is profoundly different from being forced to keep silent.

Naturally there would need to be other adjustments to protocols in order to deal with this transition, but the military has faced such circumstances before with integration.

Very true, but its going to be hard to not live a double life if you choose to "stay silent" on the issue. There is no real separation between personal and professional life in the military (the main reason I left) Just more things to consider when thinking about the siuation.

[romad_20]

Not to say that some won't come out of the closet due to fear, but that is not the only reason. I promise you I don't go to my place of work and say "I am a heterosexual" to every person I meet. Similarly, they would not just show up to work the first day after the repeal and announce to the world that they are gay.

No but what about these questions:

Are you married?
Do you have kids?
What's your girlfriend's name?
When was the last time you got laid?
What kind of women/men do you like?
Why haven't you brought anyone to the christmas party in 20 years?

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Very true, but its going to be hard to not live a double life if you choose to "stay silent" on the issue. There is no real separation between personal and professional life in the military (the main reason I left) Just more things to consider when thinking about the siuation.

In theory, gay service persons will be going through a period of adjustment as well. Right now they're all pretty much leading double lives. I doubt they'll all jump out of the closet at once just because it's allowed. I'm sure they'll need time to adjust to the freedom to be true to themselves as much as the military will need to adjust to allowing them such freedom.

[Spur-Addict]

Not necessarily. They can report the crime and say its because the other party believed they are gay but they cannot be asked if they are or not. But that goes to the point of my post above, finding someone who is sympathetic to your problem isn't the easiest thing in the military.

Making it law with punishment will improve the situation. To just say fuck it, is not helping anyone.

[Drachen]

No but what about these questions:

Are you married?
Do you have kids?
What's your girlfriend's name?
When was the last time you got laid?
What kind of women/men do you like?
Why haven't you brought anyone to the christmas party in 20 years?

Understood, but first of all there are only two questions there that I could see a male service member asking to another male service member (or even one male to another outside of the service), and honestly those two questions are the kind of stuff I would only talk about to people I trust anyway since the answers to those two questions could get a harassment charge slapped on you (military or civilian).

Edit: Anyway, you dont think that gay men and women don't have ridiculous experience dealing with these questions and others on a daily basis from friends, family, coworkers, etc. I think that is very flimsy reasoning. If anyone wants to keep my personal life seperate from their professional life, they can. Case in point, my friend and I wrote and recorded a song about "the shocker" this is not something that I would share with my department head, or my grandmother. People compartmentalize their lives, thus my friends, fiance, etc think the song is great, while my parents and superiors at work dont know about it.

[romad_20]

Understood, but first of all there are only two questions there that I could see a male service member asking to another male service member (or even one male to another outside of the service), and honestly those two questions are the kind of stuff I would only talk about to people I trust anyway since the answers to those two questions could get a harassment charge slapped on you (military or civilian).

That's you, but I heard more intrusive questions while I was in. I'm pretty salty now compared to civilians. I really don’t know how it is now, its been 6 years since I’ve been out and the military changed tons in the 5 years I was in.

Once again, I'm agreeing with everyone that has responded to me, I'm just giving some alternate concerns/ playing a little Devil's advocate. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

WTF?? You don't want to allow gays in the military because of some jackasses' insecurity?? You're truly one of the dumbest MOFO's on the board, you know that!?

OK, I understand you advocate mixing of men and women in the shower facilities as well.

Right?

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

OK, I understand you advocate mixing of men and women in the shower facilities as well. Right?

It wouldn't be the first time coed bathroom facilities were forced on American citizens.

[Drachen]

OK, I understand you advocate mixing of men and women in the shower facilities as well.

Right?


Honestly, were those advocating integration of black and white showers also advocating the mixing of men and women in the shower facilities? You are building a straw man.

[Iakchos Kadmos]

Kazakhi military is all homosexual! The straight are the outcasts!

[Wild Cobra]

Honestly, were those advocating integration of black and white showers also advocating the mixing of men and women in the shower facilities? You are building a straw man.

Call it what you want. You cannot simply ignore the fact that this would be required in the name of equality.

Are you in favor or removing the only privacy male and female military members have living in the barracks?

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Are you in favor or removing the only privacy male and female military members have living in the barracks?

How is showering with other people privacy?

[Wild Cobra]

Kazakhi military is all homosexual! The straight are the outcasts!
I've been watching Hogan's Heroes on DVD, start to finish. I'm on season 4, the last disk.

Anyway, I could see a homosexual Nazi being sent to the Eastern Front, that is, if he isn't just shot!

[romad_20]

Call it what you want. You cannot simply ignore the fact that this would be required in the name of equality.

Are you in favor or removing the only privacy male and female military members have living in the barracks?

Although I never agree with WC, I can't disagree with him in this instance. You would have to put in place a seperate shower facility for those who didn't feel comfortable with showering with gay people of the same gender, otherwise you'd be overlooking their rights to privacy as well.

[Wild Cobra]

How is showering with other people privacy?

Privacy between men and women.

Do you think women would appriciate showering with men?

Why would hetrosexuals want to shower with homosexuals?

Same with sleeping in the same room. Because of sexual hangups, women are allowed to be separate from men. Equal protection allows for such separation then of straits from homosexuals.

[Drachen]

Call it what you want. You cannot simply ignore the fact that this would be required in the name of equality.

Are you in favor or removing the only privacy male and female military members have living in the barracks?

Not until the civilian world is going to integrate those two. Now, back to the issue we were actually talking about: The civilian world is already integrated in such a way that male heteros go to the bathroom with male homos, shower in the same room at gyms, etc. It seems reasonable that the military should finally and belatedly follow.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Given that gay men and women have been showering with their heterosexual kin since junior high school in America, I see this as a non-issue, really. That said, are there really one big room showers in widespread use anymore as opposed to those semi-stall ones?

[Drachen]

Although I never agree with WC, I can't disagree with him in this instance. You would have to put in place a seperate shower facility for those who didn't feel comfortable with showering with gay people of the same gender, otherwise you'd be overlooking their rights to privacy as well.

So why aren't there seperate shower rooms for those who feel uncomfortable showering with other men in general? Don't they have a right to privacy? As previously stated, when the edict was sent down that the military had to be integrated, don't you think there were whites who were "uncomfortable" showering with blacks, and vice versa? They were told, in effect, that their "seperate showering facility" that made them more comfortable was being taken away, and they dealt with it. Yes there were problems as there always are with change, but as I said the only way to do it, is to do it!


P.S. I would also like to know where in the enlistment contract it states that one has the right to comfortable showering facilities, or even privacy for that matter.

[romad_20]

Given that gay men and women have been showering with their heterosexual kin since junior high school in America, I see this as a non-issue, really. That said, are there really one big room showers in widespread use anymore as opposed to those semi-stall ones?


Yes they do still use those big rooms.

The problem here is that if a person doesn't agree with the gay lifestyle or they feel uncomfortable showering with gay people because of the sexual attration to the same sex, those concerns shouldn't be overlooked. Showering in a gym with random people is different than showering with people you know on a daily basis.

You wouldn't force a woman to shower among men that could be attracted to her and vice versa. I am not playing devil's advocate on this one, I think this is a legit issue.

[romad_20]

So why aren't there seperate shower rooms for those who feel uncomfortable showering with other men in general? Don't they have a right to privacy? As previously stated, when the edict was sent down that the military had to be integrated, don't you think there were whites who were "uncomfortable" showering with blacks, and vice versa? They were told, in effect, that their "seperate showering facility" that made them more comfortable was being taken away, and they dealt with it. Yes there were problems as there always are with change, but as I said the only way to do it, is to do it!


P.S. I would also like to know where in the enlistment contract it states that one has the right to comfortable showering facilities, or even privacy for that matter.

Not a question of race here. You could have multiple sexual harassment suits come out of this. Lets say you turn around and someone's eyeing you while you shower? That's not a problem? Come on lets be real here.

[Spurminator]

It basically comes down to one person's right to be openly gay and serve in the military and another's right to not have to shower around people who are attracted to their sex. I say the former trumps the latter by a mile. Those who are afraid of being stared at by gays in the shower can bathe with their boxers on or something.

[Spurminator]

Not a question of race here. You could have multiple sexual harassment suits come out of this. Lets say you turn around and someone's eyeing you while you shower? That's not a problem? Come on lets be real here.


I would imagine scenarios such as this would be dealt with in a similar manner as a business executive who has a tendency to talk to women's tits in meetings.

[Drachen]

Not a question of race here. You could have multiple sexual harassment suits come out of this. Lets say you turn around and someone's eyeing you while you shower? That's not a problem? Come on lets be real here.

No, it's not a question of race, it's a question of one's comfort level with the differences of another, just like the question of race. Also, the "Daddy, she's looking at me" doesn't work with my kids, and so it's not going to suffice with adults.

[romad_20]

It basically comes down to one person's right to be openly gay and serve in the military and another's right to not have to shower around people who are attracted to their sex. I say the former trumps the latter by a mile. Those who are afraid of being stared at by gays in the shower can bathe with their boxers on or something.

Now this is a ridiculous statement. Neither trumps the other, they are equal. Its a legitimate concern when dealing with the issue.

[Drachen]

I would imagine scenarios such as this would be dealt with in a similar manner as a business executive who has a tendency to talk to women's tits in meetings.


This here seems to be completely reasonable and logical.

[MannyIsGod]

Now this is a ridiculous statement. Neither trumps the other, they are equal. Its a legitimate concern when dealing with the issue.

Even if they are equal (and the notion that they are is pretty fucking ridiculous, IMO) you can easily make accommodations for people to shower alone. I personally don't want to shower with a bunch of other guys straight or otherwise.

[Drachen]

Even if they are equal (and the notion that they are is pretty fucking ridiculous, IMO) you can easily make accommodations for people to shower alone. I personally don't want to shower with a bunch of other guys straight or otherwise.


I don't think this is always convienient, plus I think the whole idea is about equality, so the quicker you integrate, the quicker you make this a non-issue.

[romad_20]

No, it's not a question of race, it's a question of one's comfort level with the differences of another, just like the question of race. Also, the "Daddy, she's looking at me" doesn't work with my kids, and so it's not going to suffice with adults.


Bullshit. So women who don't like men/women staring at them in a sexual manner should just deal with it? Same with men?

The quickness to go to bat for one side while totally overlooking concerns for the other is short sighted and stupid. This isn't about intolerance or not accepting another's differences, this is about your rights as a person and what you should and shouldn't have to subject yourself to.

Showering with people who are not attracted to your sex is very different than showering with people who are attracted to your sex. I would like to hear a gay person’s view on the subject. I’m sure it wouldn’t be easy to shower with someone who you know and are attracted to but doesn’t share the feelings.

[Clandestino]

Let them serve and be open about their gayness. However, the military is held to a higher standard, so no pdas from them on base.

ALso, I had some friends who went on a vacation together... All dudes went to Rome for the weekend, like 6. 2 dudes went up the room together first, said they were tired... well, guess fucking what??? when the other dudes went to go fuck with them and wake them up for some more drinking... the 4 guys got the suprise of their life seeing their two buddies naked together!!!

[Drachen]

Bullshit. So women who don't like men/women staring at them in a sexual manner should just deal with it? Same with men.

The quickness to go to bat for one side while totally overlooking concerns for the other is short sighted and stupid. This isn't about intolerance or not accepting another's differences, this is about your rights as a person and what you should and shouldn't have to subject yourself to.

Showering with people who are not attracted to your sex is very different than showering with people who are attracted to your sex. I would like to hear a gay person’s view on the subject. I’m sure it wouldn’t be easy to shower with someone who you know and are attracted to but doesn’t share the feelings.

Ok, as I said before when the US society as a whole has integrated such facilities for men/women then we can discuss such integration in the military. I mean, this works in other societies (I am not just talking third world countries here, Iceland has unisex bathrooms for example), so there is no reason to think that eventually, if we saw a benefit we would work towards that end. Currently, though, that has not happened, but since the actual topic of this conversation is gays in the military and such intigration has already happened this is a non-issue. Yes I am going to bat for one side and dismissing the irrational views of the other. I personally would hate to have to shower in a room with a bunch of other men, this is irrational because a shower is an apparatus to clean myself. But, now according to you
the precedent should be that I get my own personal shower stall. While we are at it, I dont like sleeping on a single matress, could you stock the barracks with queen sized bunk beds?

Also, shouldn't we have seperate airforce bases for men and women? I mean what if some women got offended by the men checking them out, or god forbid a man get offended by a woman who likes a man in uniform. Maybe we should send them to different areas, hell we have two wars going on. One could be the Man's war and the other the Woman's war.

[Jelly]

We also don't force men and women to use the same shower facilities and bedroom accommodations.

If we are to allow gays to openly serve, we may as well have men and women using the same open shower facilities and barracks.

This is the root of the problem. Sexual harassment and violence can be dealt with the same way it already is.

Just like some women would be abhorred by sharing a shower facility with men, some men are abhorred for a man who may be turned on by him, to see him naked.

This is the clearest problem. Not the only one. I get tired of re-arguing these same arguments over and over. Why cannot the advocates understand this concern?

When public nudity becomes commonly accepted in the USA, then we can have soldiers sharing such facilities.

Anyone who uses the locker room facilities at their sports club or gym has been naked around someone of the same sex. It's no big deal.

[Drachen]

Ok, I gotta leave, I may be back later. See yall!

[romad_20]

Ok, as I said before when the US society as a whole has integrated such facilities for men/women then we can discuss such integration in the military. I mean, this works in other societies (I am not just talking third world countries here, Iceland has unisex bathrooms for example), so there is no reason to think that eventually, if we saw a benefit we would work towards that end. Currently, though, that has not happened, but since the actual topic of this conversation is gays in the military and such intigration has already happened this is a non-issue. Yes I am going to bat for one side and dismissing the irrational views of the other. I personally would hate to have to shower in a room with a bunch of other men, this is irrational because a shower is an apparatus to clean myself. But, now according to you
the precedent should be that I get my own personal shower stall. While we are at it, I dont like sleeping on a single matress, could you stock the barracks with queen sized bunk beds?

Also, shouldn't we have seperate airforce bases for men and women? I mean what if some women got offended by the men checking them out, or god forbid a man get offended by a woman who likes a man in uniform. Maybe we should send them to different areas, hell we have two wars going on. One could be the Man's war and the other the Woman's war. :rolleyes

Your arguments are not even close to what I'm talking about. We're talking about being nude with others that are attracted to you or that you are attracted to, not about comfort levels in the barracks. Have you even thought about it from the side of the gay person? Maybe they don't want to be put in that situation??????

[romad_20]

Anyone who uses the locker room facilities at their sports club or gym has been naked around someone of the same sex. It's no big deal.

You don't live with those people 24 hrs a day (we're talking about boot camp, exercises and war here. The military does not require everyone to shower with each other during normal work weeks :lol) Totally different situations.

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone who uses the locker room facilities at their sports club or gym has been naked around someone of the same sex. It's no big deal.
You have a choice to be in that environment. It's no big deal to me either. In fact, I'm a nudist and go to the nude beaches in the area. I see some rather irritating stuff going on at times. I just ignore it myself.

I think the military see it this way. Since soldiers do not have such a choice, they lose more potential enlistees who will not serve in such an environment vs. how many gays they would attract. Being a volunteer service, they don't want to lose recruitment numbers.

It doesn't matter what you or I believe. It matters how many people it affects. Until sentiments change, accept the facts.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

[LnGrrrR]

Very true, but its going to be hard to not live a double life if you choose to "stay silent" on the issue. There is no real separation between personal and professional life in the military (the main reason I left) Just more things to consider when thinking about the siuation.

True, but they can always get orders, or move to a new shop.

[LnGrrrR]

Call it what you want. You cannot simply ignore the fact that this would be required in the name of equality.

Are you in favor or removing the only privacy male and female military members have living in the barracks?

Privacy my ass! Have you ever had to shower in a dormitory barracks? It's uncomfortable, even if everyone in the shower is as straight as a ruler.

[LnGrrrR]

Given that gay men and women have been showering with their heterosexual kin since junior high school in America, I see this as a non-issue, really. That said, are there really one big room showers in widespread use anymore as opposed to those semi-stall ones?

When I went through basic in 99, it was a 'big stall' and probably still is. That's the only one I can think of. On-base and overseas locations I've been to it's the 'semi-stall'.

[LnGrrrR]

Showering with people who are not attracted to your sex is very different than showering with people who are attracted to your sex. I would like to hear a gay person’s view on the subject. I’m sure it wouldn’t be easy to shower with someone who you know and are attracted to but doesn’t share the feelings.

But they're ALREADY SHOWERING with these people. So it should make no difference.

Again, to reiterate, GAY PEOPLE ALREADY SHOWER WITH STRAIGHT PEOPLE IN THESE SITUATIONS.

[romad_20]

But they're ALREADY SHOWERING with these people. So it should make no difference.

Again, to reiterate, GAY PEOPLE ALREADY SHOWER WITH STRAIGHT PEOPLE IN THESE SITUATIONS.


I CAN READ YOUR CAPS. Gay people are currently under the don't ask don't tell policy. Can you not see how this would change if you were allowed to be openly gay and serve? Can we not see the difference?

[LnGrrrR]

I CAN READ YOUR CAPS. Gay people are currently under the don't ask don't tell policy. Can you not see how this would change if you were allowed to be openly gay and serve? Can we not see the difference?

Yes, it would change. How long do you think the military should wait to integrate?

Historically, the military has been ahead of the curve in many civil rights causes. Who were the first blacks to be freed? Those freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, which allowed them to join the service during the Civil War. When did blacks become integrated in the military? 1948, six years before Brown v Board of Education outlawed separate but equal.

As for some ideas of how many people now support allowing open gays in the military, here's some links for you.

From Pew, on increased acceptance of gays in military: http://people-press.org/report/273/less-opposition-to-gay-marriage-adoption-and-military-service

From militarytimes.com, on how there is no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve has any noticeable detrimental effect: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/07/ap_gays_military_070708/

From militarytimes.com, an article stating that over 500 troops are serving while openly gay without yet being discharged: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/01/gns_gaytroops_080108/

From ABCNews, a poll showing that nearly every major group is in the majority for supporting openly gay soldiers: http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=5387980&page=1

Finally, from Zogby, a poll showing that the majority of troops are fine with openly gay soldiers: http://www.logoonline.com/news/story.jhtml?id=1548502&disableFeatureRedirect=true&contentTypeID=1299

All the evidence shows that a majority of people are for allowing openly gay soldiers to serve.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, it would change. How long do you think the military should wait to integrate?

Historically, the military has been ahead of the curve in many civil rights causes. Who were the first blacks to be freed? Those freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, which allowed them to join the service during the Civil War. When did blacks become integrated in the military? 1948, six years before Brown v Board of Education outlawed separate but equal.

As for some ideas of how many people now support allowing open gays in the military, here's some links for you.

From Pew, on increased acceptance of gays in military: http://people-press.org/report/273/less-opposition-to-gay-marriage-adoption-and-military-service

From militarytimes.com, on how there is no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve has any noticeable detrimental effect: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/07/ap_gays_military_070708/

From militarytimes.com, an article stating that over 500 troops are serving while openly gay without yet being discharged: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/01/gns_gaytroops_080108/

From ABCNews, a poll showing that nearly every major group is in the majority for supporting openly gay soldiers: http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=5387980&page=1

Finally, from Zogby, a poll showing that the majority of troops are fine with openly gay soldiers: http://www.logoonline.com/news/story.jhtml?id=1548502&disableFeatureRedirect=true&contentTypeID=1299

All the evidence shows that a majority of people are for allowing openly gay soldiers to serve.
If all this is true, then maybe it's time to dissolve the policy. As long as it solves more problems than it creates, I have no problem with it.

[sook]

Fuck, i can't imagine being in combat next to a homo.

He can take his filthy sinning ass somewhere else tbh.

[kwhitegocubs]

So, I just want to hear from someone - sook is a troll right?

[jochhejaam]

Fuck, i can't imagine being in combat next to a homo.

He can take his filthy sinning ass somewhere else tbh.

sook, are you a Christian?

[jochhejaam]

So, I just want to hear from someone - sook is a troll right?

Irrational for sure.

[romad_20]

Yes, it would change. How long do you think the military should wait to integrate?


Have you even read what I've posted? I think they should intergrate as soon as possible. I stated several times in this thread that I do think they should take the time to have education on tolerance in place in basic training and they should have set rules on punishment. So however long that takes. Doing something right the first time is so much easier than quickly making a decision and cleaning up the mess from it after.

What i've been taking about for the last page was a single issue, showering with people who are attracted to your sex (in basic training, exercises and in the field) That would be a by-product of allowing gays to openly serve. Is it not an issue that should be addressed?

What if the showering thing was the only reason they haven't done it already?? :p:

[romad_20]

So, I just want to hear from someone - sook is a troll right?


God, I hope so :lol I think he's just another gay-bashing troll.

[Drachen]

Your arguments are not even close to what I'm talking about. We're talking about being nude with others that are attracted to you or that you are attracted to, not about comfort levels in the barracks. Have you even thought about it from the side of the gay person? Maybe they don't want to be put in that situation??????

You are talking about comfort levels, you said that someone may be uncomfortable showering with a homosexual of the same sex. What is the difference in someone gawking at you in an inappropriate manner whether you are nude or not, the military already has sexual harassment policies to address exactly what you are describing. As far as "maybe the gay people don't want to be put in that situation," I have indisputable proof that they do. Gay people are getting kicked out of the military all the time, meaning that there are gay people in the military, and seeing as we haven't instituted a draft in a few decades, those gay people chose to put themselves there.

[Drachen]

Have you even read what I've posted? I think they should intergrate as soon as possible. I stated several times in this thread that I do think they should take the time to have education on tolerance in place in basic training and they should have set rules on punishment. So however long that takes. Doing something right the first time is so much easier than quickly making a decision and cleaning up the mess from it after.

What i've been taking about for the last page was a single issue, showering with people who are attracted to your sex (in basic training, exercises and in the field) That would be a by-product of allowing gays to openly serve. Is it not an issue that should be addressed?

What if the showering thing was the only reason they haven't done it already?? :p:

lol
Well then what the hell are we arguing about, I have already stated that I agreed with you about the mandatory education in boot camp and for those already in the service and it should take place as soon as possible. DOH!

[romad_20]

lol
Well then what the hell are we arguing about, I have already stated that I agreed with you about the mandatory education in boot camp and for those already in the service and it should take place as soon as possible. DOH!


Looks like what Obama is thinking, as well

A transition office spokesman refused to comment for this story but two months ago, Obama signaled he would move cautiously, telling the Philadelphia Gay News newspaper he would first get the military on board:

"Although I have consistently said I would repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I believe that the way to do it is to make sure that we are working through processes, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be," he said.

[DarkReign]

Killing without consent is awful, and when you kill anyone anywhere without their consent you take their liberty. So whether it's on a battle field, or outside of a bar where a gay kid gets tortured and beaten to death, it's still a negative.

Gays are persecuted everywhere, and to think that gays aren't persecuted in the military as it stands now is to lie to oneself. The amount of persecution may rise in the beginning, but it most likely would calm. Just because being open about being gay isn't advocated, doesn't mean knowing someone is gay and persecuting them isn't possible. (Friendly fire on those perceived as gay may already exist. Violence against those thought to be gay may already exist.)

But to say you shouldn't have a say in it because you're not apart of the military is not something I agree with. To have a hands off approach to this matter is something that will only perpetuate the current status quo. To say someone can't be proud of who they are because of fear of violence is absurd. It's everywhere. It's at school, the office, the bar, on the sports teams etc. In all these places, like the military, the threat of death and violence is present, and possible.

I can definitely see what youre saying, but persecution at school/work/the bar is far different from persecution on a battlefield.

People at work arent required to carry M16 rifles and know how to use them.

So if youre OK with the infrequent killing of homosexuals by homophobic retards in the military in the name of personal liberty and freedom, thats fine.

Again, I have no vested interest in this matter. There is a reason there are two lives to live in this country. Civilian or Military.

Military Life does not guarantee you Civilian rights (freedom of speech, press, etc). So by no means am I saying our gay servicemen and women dont have the right to be open and candid, my only point is they may or may not be endangering their well-being far beyond the danger they may experience in a civilian setting.

But again, I have no facts and no real desire to seek out the answers to this quandry. Its just my opinion, an opinion of "be careful what you wish for", an opinion that may very well be wrong on every account. Honestly, I hope to hell that I am wrong in every aspect, seriously.

[LnGrrrR]

Romad, I favor a all-at-once policy. Sure, include training during basic. But I would just drop the DADT policy all over the service, at once.

I think the excuse about showering is as weak as the excuse about people once being uncomfortable around mixed races too. As stated, there are policies to deal with sexual harassment, so I don't see any reason that wouldn't apply.

Honestly, the pros far outweight the cons. If showering is the only reason, it's a poor one.

Also, I spoke wrong in my last post. According to the poll, http://www.zogby.com/CSSMM_Report-Final.pdf a majority do not favor putting gays in the military. However, nearly half believe a gay person is already in their unit, and about 3/4 are comfortable with gays/lesbians serving openly in the military. Also, a large majority said it wouldn't have changed their entrance into the military.

[LnGrrrR]

So if youre OK with the infrequent killing of homosexuals by homophobic retards in the military in the name of personal liberty and freedom, thats fine.


Yes, this is what I'm saying, and I'm sure gays who openly serve will know that risk as well. I say, let THEM make the decision for themselves. Isn't that the fair thing to do?

[Anti.Hero]

The Spartans fucked one another to increase comradery on the battle field.

Whatever works

[8ft.tall.tejano]

Fuck, i can't imagine being in combat next to a homo.

He can take his filthy sinning ass somewhere else tbh.

my guess is that you never served...some of the most value driven, gung ho, hi-speed soldiers that i met were gay...closeted...no fam to worry about, nothing but love of country and sense of duty...i was honored to serve next to them and even more so that they trusted me w/their secret...


Yes, this is what I'm saying, and I'm sure gays who openly serve will know that risk as well. I say, let THEM make the decision for themselves. Isn't that the fair thing to do?

so true...and like any soldier, sailor, airmen, or even marine, gay or straight, once someone proves them self to not be an idiot or screw up, they get the respect they deserve...

[AFBlue]

Yes, it would change. How long do you think the military should wait to integrate?

Historically, the military has been ahead of the curve in many civil rights causes. Who were the first blacks to be freed? Those freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, which allowed them to join the service during the Civil War. When did blacks become integrated in the military? 1948, six years before Brown v Board of Education outlawed separate but equal.

As for some ideas of how many people now support allowing open gays in the military, here's some links for you.

From Pew, on increased acceptance of gays in military: http://people-press.org/report/273/less-opposition-to-gay-marriage-adoption-and-military-service

From militarytimes.com, on how there is no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve has any noticeable detrimental effect: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/07/ap_gays_military_070708/

From militarytimes.com, an article stating that over 500 troops are serving while openly gay without yet being discharged: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/01/gns_gaytroops_080108/

From ABCNews, a poll showing that nearly every major group is in the majority for supporting openly gay soldiers: http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=5387980&page=1

Finally, from Zogby, a poll showing that the majority of troops are fine with openly gay soldiers: http://www.logoonline.com/news/story.jhtml?id=1548502&disableFeatureRedirect=true&contentTypeID=1299

All the evidence shows that a majority of people are for allowing openly gay soldiers to serve.

I waited three pages for someone to make this point.

If they repeal the current policy there will most assuredly be consequences and situations to resolve. If the biggest concern is over whether to create seperate bathroom/shower facilities, I would think the military (in typical fashion) would say...deal with it.

Sure, you'd lose some military members that objected and you'd have some cases of discrimination and harrassment on both sides. But in the end, it's the right thing to do. If someone chooses to admit their sexual preference they should not be penalized for it....period, bottom line.

[Spur-Addict]

I can definitely see what youre saying, but persecution at school/work/the bar is far different from persecution on a battlefield.

People at work arent required to carry M16 rifles and know how to use them.



I forgot about Police Officers, yeah, Gay police officers. Do they not work with others who are armed with firearms? I think that's a comparable analogy. We also have private security, etc.