My opinion on DADT...(I got my asbestos suit on)

[Archae]

I realize DADT doesn't seem to be really working.
But I think openly gay in the military wouldn't work either.
Why?

Because openly gay troopers, especially Marines, would be hanging a sign on their backs, "Beat the crap out of me."

I know, it is illegal to assault another trooper.
More than 50 years ago, Harry S. Truman ended segregation by race in the military.
Did that end all racial violence in the military? Nope.
In fact it still occurs.

Open gays and lesbians are becoming more acceptable.
Maybe in 5, 10 years, DADT can be dumped.
But I think not just yet.
Obama and his people know this also.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

1. Gays serve openly in the UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, and more.

Surely if these countries allow openly gay service members, we can.

1 Argentina
2 Australia
3 Bermuda
4 Canada
5 Germany
6 Israel
7 Italy
8 The Netherlands
9 New Zealand
10 Philippines
11 Romania
12 United Kingdom
13 Switzerland
14 Uruguay

[Oregone]

5. Do those countries produce as many trailer park sociopaths headed to the military as the US?

[jesus_of_suburbia]

33. If the "trailer park sociopaths" hurt someone gay, then they get in trouble.

And I hardly think it's just "trailer park" sociopaths who hate the gays.

[Oregone]

46. Yeah, "trouble". They might just get a slap on a wrist

That how this crap goes in this society unfortunately.

No, trailer park sociopaths are not the only people who hate gays. But, well, sociopaths are the type to do something about it, ya know. There *may* be more of those in the military than the general population. Who knows though, eh?

[JonLP24]

145. Haha slap on the wrist.

:rofl:

You don't get a slap on the wrist if you don't have your ID card or dogtags in open ranks inspection. You don't get a slap on the wrist if you show up to PT formation without a freakin' reflective belt. :rofl:

Assault, sure there is UCMJ, 45 days of extra duty, restriction which is worse then jailtime imo. I went through it for smoking a joint. DUI laws on base are tougher then any civilian DUI laws.

Slap on the wrist is something the military is not known for. :rofl:

[lukasahero]

83. You mean like they do when they hurt female troops? eom

[Gormy Cuss]

59. Define "..trailer park sociopaths" and quantify the numbers in the US military.

If you can't, then please don't stereotype trailer park residents in order to use them as scapegoats. The attitudinal problems in the military are far more complicated than that.

[Oregone]

62. The term doesn't actually refer to any residents.

Rather, is a synonym for "depraved".

I think it would be difficult to quantify the number of "depraved sociopaths" in the military. Would you argue that, per capita, it is less or equal to the general population? Would you argue that the conditions in the military wouldn't exacerbate the mental conditions of a "depraved sociopath" to make them more inclined towards violence?

[Gormy Cuss]

69. Re: sociopaths in the military, I wouldn't argue either way because I've never seen data.

That's the point. If it exists I'd be happy to review it and then comment.

I know from anecdotes that there are attitudes promoted by military tenure, comformity being one, that may make all such changes difficult. I have a family member who was the military equivalent of an equal opportunity trainer and compliance officer and that's the basis for my anecdotal evidence.

[Oregone]

71. Most of what I see is ancedotal too you know

I saw the people you graduate with, the "cream of the crop", who choose the military. I saw exceptions to the rule too. Its tough for me to put a smile on my face and pretend otherwise.

For some generalizations:

Poverty breeds depravity (and ignorance). Poverty also creates the socio-economic conditions that may make individuals "choose" to join the military. Pair that with high stress and group mentality, and things could go wrong. Who knows.

I don't have a solution (I mentioned complete enforced sexual anonymity would be more fair, but its impossible). I just think there may be a problem with this solution. Im not saying it outweighs the benefit of the solution. Im just saying that there will be problems. Maybe they will go away. And maybe, because of the culture and types of people in the military, and the conditions, the problems will perpetuate themselves.

[muriel_volestrangler]

97. British squaddies do have a reputation for thuggery

Ask around the pubs in any garrison town. The military seems to say there haven't been special problems after the integration happened here (as TheBigotBasher says further down, it was court-mandated, and the military had earlier been saying "it'll hurt unit cohesion!", but they've basically admitted they were wrong about that). I don't think it's a valid excuse for delaying it in the US.

[Not Me]

19. And interestingly, the UK was right at our side in Iraq

I never heard a peep about unit cohesion then.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

35. Exactly. n/t

[pinto]

54. Excellent point. Most other countries, it's a done deal.

And I think it's inevitable here as well. Sooner rather than later. :thumbsup:

[TheBigotBasher]

73. The UK was forced to allow Gays in to The Military

by the European Court of Human Rights (which may be a strategy for gays in the US Army - go for The Supreme Court if you think the numbers are right).

The fact that gays are allowed in the Army does not stop abuse. However that is then a Private matter and it is not the Government doing the abuse. To some extent you do not join the army if you are afraid of being abused, but you should not be getting abused by the Government you are there to protect and serve.

DADT is a stupid law and it is not as though gays have never been in the army before. And other than porn, what army related film even gets near to Top Gun for its gayness?

[jesus_of_suburbia]

88. "go for The Supreme Court if you think the numbers are right"

I doubt they are right yet... let's hope for 2 things:

1) Sotomayor is pro-gay rights (I'm still a little worried about her even though some GLBT organizations have given her a thumbs up.. I guess my worry comes from having a homophobic Latino mother who grew up as a Catholic).


2) A right leaning justice (or more hopefully) will retire during Pres Obama's time in office. I think it will happen as long as he wins in 2012 (so I will work tirelessly to make sure it happens).



Anyway, nothing comes without a price... if some people get abused because they are gay, let it happen so that we can correct it and move on.


I'm afraid people will always say "Let's wait till the next election." In 2010, we will be making excuses for 2012 and so on.

People really don't care about gays serving openly in the military (it's not their MAJOR concern). They care about having a job.

If the economy is better, Dems will stay in power even if they give GLBT people rights.


If the economy doesn't get better, Dems will get voted out even if they are anti-gay.



In the end, it's all about the economy... so let's give gays their rights when we have the power to do so.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Is it your feeling that being female in the military is hanging a sign that says, "Rape me!"?

[Oregone]

8. Female sexual assault is very high for deployed women

They don't need to hang a sign to identify themselves for abuse. Its quite apparant who is and who is not a woman, and scumbags take advantage of that.

[Captain Hilts]

12. I think it's reported more accurately in the military community than the civilian one. nt

[Oregone]

16. What leads you to think that?

You think women with careers in the military, outnumbered 1 to 9 or more, feel comfortable reporting sexual abuse?

[Captain Hilts]

104. Accountability for behavior in the military is higher than in the civilian world.

Where can a rapist in the Green Zone go?

Where can a rapist in Indianapolis go?

And women are more likely to be in specialties where they are not outnumbered 9-1. Medicine, supply, etc.

The military has not taken this problem seriously enough, but neither has our society. "What was she wearing?" "She was asking for it." "It's not rape because they've been dating." "It's her fault because she was drunk. She should have known better."

[alarimer]

139. Bullshit. The military has been covering up the number of sexual assaults for years.

There is no way they are "more accountable". It's a good old boys network from top to bottom.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Oh man ......

..... I give you credit for knowing that what you're saying is stupid.

[MADem]

4. The servicemembers who do the "heavy lifting" are kids, between eighteen and

thirty eight.

That generation, quite sensibly, does not give a shit what you do in your private life.

It's not the servicemembers that are holding this up. They don't have an issue with it.

It's the "church folk" in middle, conservative America who aren't ready for the change. Many of these people are Republicans, but a lot of them are calling themselves "Independents" and they can make the difference in elections.

[Oregone]

True. 18 to 38 years old do not commit hate crimes

Especially those from economically repressed regions.

[MADem]

87. Well, some do, certainly. Matthew Shepherd wasn't murdered by senior citizens.

The drunken nitwit from Winthrop who attacked two gay women in P-town (ref: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/05/26/mass_man_pleads_not_guilty_to_hate_crime/ ) was only twenty. But often as not, hate crimes are fueled by bravado and an overwhelming excess of drugs and alcohol. Kids leaving the computer club or model airplane meeting aren't likely to beat up someone for their orientation, but idiots leaving a bar drunk on their asses or strung out on meth and full of faux machismo might.

But people who join the military, as a group (there are always exceptions to the rule, and of course when recruting standards are lowered, that's even more apparent) are not profoundly stupid. They are generally adaptable to changing situations, are quick on the uptake, and willing to embrace new paradigms. After all, they PCS routinely into new environments. They're also highly responsive to orders from the chain of command and understand the consequences of disobedience (that's something people make fun of, here, and view as a negative trait, but it will be a big part of an eventual integration strategy--when the Comandant of the USMC makes a video saying "We're integrating, and you fuckers had better get with the program or face profound consequences," they'll hop to--even the prejudiced ones. Same with the CNO and the applicable COS's of the other branches).

I think the men and women on active duty in the military are not the biggest hurdle, here. It's the conservative voters in the "heartland" states who will take issue, and they'll use any excuse--"moral," religious, "esprit de corps," whatever they can pull out of their asses, to make their case. And the GOP? They'll deploy a faction to whip this discussion up into a frenzy, and work as hard as they can to make it a big fat wedge issue. Divide and conquer is what they'll try. The tide is turning, though--they may not succeed.

[gratuitous]

6. Yes, wait another five or ten years

And if the bigots and the haters still haven't come around by then, we should acquiesce to their fear for another five or ten years.

While I'm no fan of the military, I'm even less a fan of deferring justice. There's no wrong time to do the right thing, and to rectify a mistake.

[Mari333]

7. your argument is insane

you are using the argument that it is better to allow bullies to have their way, then it is to support social justice or equal rights.
what if the argument were used about blacks in the military? or jews? would you feel the same way if a jewish man or woman had to be quiet about their jewishness?
repealing DADT is long overdue. as long as it exists it merely supports the idea that it is OKAY to beat people up for being gay.
repeal DADT, and if someone beats a person up for being gay, court martial the bastard and throw him or her out of the military.
you cannot 'wait' to stand up to bullies. nothing changes when you 'wait.'

[Captain Hilts]

9. We should limit patriotic/financial opportunity for some because others can't handle it?

That was the excuse for keeping women out of the military. If they got injured, no man would marry them. Really, it was. My mother worked in the office of the Sec. of War/Army.

As a result of the economic security that the military provides men throughout their lives, men are more conservative and give less of a shit about healthcare.

It's not fair to deny a portion of the population access to the benefits of military service. Veterans' hiring preferences, etc.

[Oregone]

20. There is definitely a conflict here with any solution

One option creates discrimination, but naturally offers a layer of protection by issuing sexual anonymity, and the other may target those for abuse by some scumbags.

Id prefer a blanket DADT policy. Complete sexual anonymity for everyone. Don't ask anyone if they are heterosexual, and don't tell anyone. As long as you are serving, you should be asexual and respect people as humans. Maybe that is a better approach. Equal approach for all and yet still protects people from conflict in that type of environment.

[Lyric]

26. That only works if you prohibit marriage for soldiers.

Not likely.

[Oregone]

29. Yeah, true

[Captain Hilts]

105. Sexual behavior of any kind in the unit should not be allowed. nt

[Lyric]

10. You contradict your own point.

I know, it is illegal to assault another trooper.
More than 50 years ago, Harry S. Truman ended segregation by race in the military.
Did that end all racial violence in the military? Nope.
In fact it still occurs.

So what are we to gather from this part, when read in light of your premise that being gay in the military would mean violence? That blacks in the military were a bad idea because of racial violence, and that we should have kept things segregated in order to "protect" black people?

I am positive that you didn't mean it that way, but you must realize that that using race as an example for your statement was a REALLY bad and thoughtless analogy. If anything, using race as an example contradicts your point. Yes, there's still occasional racial violence in the military...and it was STILL a good idea to integrate. The potential for violence from bigots is never a good excuse for denying people equal rights.

[GodlessBiker]

36. Saw your post after I posted. You are so right.

[TheBigotBasher]

101. Indeed.

The fact that there is bigotry does not mean that the Government should enforce it.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. So you are saying that the low morality of the heterosexual troops

means we have to remain alone with Turkey as the only Nato original that discriminates against gay people in the military?
The United States and Turkey stand alone in discrimination. And you say it is because our heterosexual troops have less honor and decency than Australians, Canadians, and all the other Western Democracies?
What do you think makes our troops so much worse than say, the Brits?

[marimour]

13. i disagree

I think there would be more gay targeted violence, but since there is no draft openly gay people aren't forced to serve if they are worried about violence. And i'm sure that there will be consequences for any violence targeted b/c of orientation just like there are probably consequences for raced based targeting. Plus, I'm pretty sure any gay military member could hold his/her own against a straight member anyway.

[havocmom]

14. Considering numbers of female militarybeing raped, openly hetero in military not working well

Seems reasonable to go after the problem that IS affecting others in the service and not fuss so much about that which isn't really problematic.

Make rape/harassment grounds for removal from the ranks and prosecute aggressively instead of covering up and making victims' lives hell. Ya know, deal with crime and not orientation.

[KitSileya]

143. From what people say on this thread,

it seems like it's the hetero males in the military who should be thrown out, and only women and gay men should be allowed to serve. It's obvious that straight men rape their fellow female service member at will in many parts of the armed forces, but I have yet to hear about one incident where a woman raped a male service member, or a gay man raped another man.

So, straight men should be chucked out of the armed forces!

[havocmom]

144. Won't agree as most straight males in military don't rape.

But the policy makers need to address the reality that gays are not a threat to the rest of the personnel. Pretending they are to justify a policy that is really just about homophobia is just plain counter productive. Pretending gays are a threat while enabling the few rapists to continue is very bad policy.

Not too long ago, whites were afraid of having blacks in their units. DADT is enabling that kind of ignorant bigotry and should be ended. Enabling bigotry does not make the military stronger.

Enabling rapists does not make the military stronger, but the good ol boys still do that as unofficial policy. Time for the good ol boys to be yanked from positions of authority in the military. They are the real threat.

Let gays serve and throw the book at rapists instead of covering for them. Win/win for the military and for America.

[ecstatic]

15. There is still a lot of gender discrimination in the military. Are women allowed

on submarines yet? :crazy:

[Mari333]

17. its no coincidence that large phallic shapes sputtering under the oceans

are full of seamen.

:)

[bertman]

42. That 's a funny!

:rofl: :rofl:

True story: A friend was a sailor in the navy. His last name is Eder (pronounced Eader--sounds like eat-er). He told me that his shipmates LOVED to call him on the ship's intercom so everyone aboard could hear:

"Seaman Eder to the bridge. Seaman Eder to the bridge."

He learned to live with it. Plus he has a wicked sense of humor.

[dorkulon]

18. People weren't "ready" for desegregation either.

This is soft bigotry, whether you know it or not.

[Oregone]

22. We aren't talking about people here, as in a whole population

We are talking about young adults trained to kill, who can often be from economically or socially troubled backgrounds. Then, throw em int a high stressed environment...

I don't know. I guess I saw the kids I went to school with who joined the military. They weren't the worse of the batch, but they weren't normally the guys you take home to mom.

[dorkulon]

82. All of these arguments would have applied to desegregating the military.

In fact, when Truman desegregated the military in 1948, it set the stage for the civil rights movement. If he had waited until everyone was "ready" for it and it didn't piss anyone off, we'd still be waiting. The idea that we should wait until there aren't any whiskey tango jarheads who don't like it and might go off on somebody is ludicrous, because that day will never come. Do you think there aren't any race-related incidents in the military today? Sure there are, but that's not a reason to regret desegregation. Most soldiers follow orders, the ones who don't will find out real quick what happens when they don't. Eventually, people get used to it.

[chimpymustgo]

25. I'd call it HARD bigotry.

[joeybee12]

21. Ever see all the Hassidic Jew in LA on Saturday morning? The little boys have side curls...

...which really is just an open invitation for bigots to beat the crap out of them...come on, maybe in 5-10 years people won't be so bigoted, but not now and those Hassidic Jews really should just stay home...it's for their own safety.

[Orangepeel]

23. it's a volunteer military and repealing DADT wouldn't force people to tell

Let gays and lesbians decide for themselves.

[Caliman73]

64. Agreed

Seriously, do people really think that gays and lesbians are all of a sudden going to start having Pride parades on the tarmacs and carriers. Self disclosure is just that...All that needs to be said is that the Military Forces of the Unites States will no longer discriminate based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. I seriously doubt that we are going to have a coming out party. Soldiers are soldiers, they just want to do their jobs and serve their country.

[Fearless]

24. I think we need to give our GLBTQ friends the chance to defend themselves from those attacks...

Instead of upholding bigoted laws to "protect" us.

[zipplewrath]

27. You presume

No flame here, just pointing out that you presume that the vast majority of homosexuals either would "out" themselves, or that their comrades don't already know. I've known people who served quitely for years, with several comrades knowing, to no effect. On many ships, the enlisted would swap berthing assignments so that the gay men often shared quarters, and everyone knew why the swaps were made. The point of repealing DADT is so that people can serve without having to address this issue at all. Currently the policy requires them to lie, or be expelled. Without DADT they just don't have to say much at all. It will be no different than the civilian world I'm sure where gays still tend to avoid the topic to avoid negative impacts on their careers. But it will now be a choice for them. They can be as open as they wish, or not at all. But there won't be any investigations.

[stopbush]

28. Even if your premise is true, you have to start somewhere.

Imagine if the Founding Fathers had refused to go to war with England because somebody might get hurt or killed?

Racism still occurs in the military because racism still occurs in the general public.

The last thing we need in this country is for equality to be held hostage to bigotry, especially when said bigotry relies on violence to hold hostage equality.

[Kaleva]

30. There's a reason we don't have uni-sex bathrooms ...

and berthing facilities. Many ships in the Navy now have female crew members but they are not quartered with male crew members. I don't know of too many women who'd feel quite comfortable with sitting on the toilet with men walking around just outside the stall or of taking a shower with men who would be sexually aroused by the close proximity of a relatively young, naked female.

I just don't understand how people can argue that gays and lesbians can be quartered with other males or females respectively but accept without question the separation of heterosexual males and females.

[riderinthestorm]

Ya know this has been debunked on DU many, many times before.

And certainly proven to be a non-factor for the many millions of other service members serving in places like Israel, the UK etc. where gay service members are out.

Sorry Kaleva, but they're just not that into you.

But breaking out the popcorn since you've managed to prop up this tired old argument (again.)

:popcorn:

[Kaleva]

48. What old arguement?

If it's a non-factor for gays to be berthed with other men and lesbians be berthed with other women, then what argument can be made that there be separate (but equal!) facilities for men and women?

[riderinthestorm]

115. You're making a huge assumption about sexual behavior in that kind of situation

In Israel for example, on the kibbutz', the girls and boys room together until they're 18 years old. I don't know what happens when/if they fuck around but I assume the Israelis have dealt with this before and discovered it's not as "big" a problem as you appear to believe it would be.

The US military has even stricter rules about fraternizing if I can recall. You appear to believe that every gay individual is so overpowered with lust they can't behave appropriately. Pretty despicable ASSumption if you ask me but I'm not gay - ask any of the gay DUers who have already responded and assured you, boners aren't popping out all over the locker room.

As far as toileting goes, fine. That's the least worrisome part of uni-sex facilities if you ask me. Watching a man take a shit isn't sexy in the least from my perspective as a married woman having watched her husband (who I am attracted to) sit on the toilet any number of times. And if you care to watch me change out a tampon, get your freak on. I can't believe it's gonna inspire any hard-ons, trust me on this. But since virtually every single bathroom typically has a door I don't think this is gonna be a big deal regardless.

[JerseygirlCT]

124. Exactly

there are things about using the toilet that are probably more about gender than about sex, for sure. To assume there's something sexually arousing about someone going to the bathroom is a pretty odd thought to me!

[Kaleva]

134. If it's not that big of a problem...

then why are there separate facilities for men and women? Women were being assigned to combat ships around the time I got out of the service. The way i understood it was that no men were allowed in the female berthing areas except on official business and had to announce their presence in a loud voice and the same was true for females being in the male berthing area. Is this just a silly waste of time custom or is there a valid reason behind that?

I don't know if you have children but if you do, I highly doubt you'd have the girls and boys sharing the same bedroom and have them use the bathroom at the same time.

[donco6]

136. Bwahaha!

Are you for real?

We had six of us kids in a three bedroom house. One bathroom. All but my oldest sister slept in the same room. And, of course, we all used the same bathroom. As little kids we took baths together.

Plus the fact - again - I've gone to a male bathroom ALL MY FUCKING LIFE and have never attacked anyone in the bathroom.

I'm quite certain we could somehow manage to find a solution to the bathroom non-situation. I mean, every other country already has.

[riderinthestorm]

147. I'm guessing you are a person of privilege or you wouldn't also ASSume

that (my) girls and boys aren't sleeping together. In fact, bedsharing/roomsharing with the opposite sex is pretty normal for oh, like most of the planet who aren't uptight American rich kids.

And I'd hazard a guess that the US has separate m/f facilities because 1. we're a prudish nation and 2. because we can afford it. If we didn't ramp up the tension so much by segregration, I promise you that familiarity would dampen lust. There's nothing like getting into the nitty gritty to knock the rose off the bud. I mean it, you want to watch women change out tampons? Would you get a hard-on off that? Seeing that stuff day in, day out would do more to normalize "troop cohesion" than virtually anything else on the planet. Women would snicker over your morning boners, guys would eye-roll as women shoved more pins in their bun. That shit is deadly to romance but great for building bonds that work in bad times. That seems like the perfect recipe for the Army to me.

You are clearly so over-sexed, so overwhelmingly unable to control your sexual arousal that you are making huge assumptions about the potential ramifications of diversifying (an already - albeit covertly diversified) armed forces. Get over yourself. GLBT service members are already there. They're doing their duty. They aren't getting boners for you while you take a shit. Trust me on this, women aren't going to go batshit when you pull down your drawers and take a shit and neither are any gay guys. Frankly, we wrinkle our noses and pull away like most normal human beings when confronted with a bad smell. Same thing with your shriveled dick in the cold shower and nasty attitude in the morning. You're seeing sex everywhere, the rest of us are simply getting through the day.

Poor thing, you must have been absolutely traumatized living each and every stinking day in the service, knowing there were GLBT members right alongside and you didn't know who they were. They (gasp!) ogled your penis and didn't make a play. I'm wondering if part of your crazy-ass bigotry is because you never got accosted. And all those women!!111!!!!

[jesus_of_suburbia]

40. I manage to shower with presumably straight guys in the gym without raping them...

or getting "aroused"

or staring at their "manhood"



(and before you scold me, I know your post doesn't mention "rape", but that's what some straights fear will happen should a gay man see them naked)





Oh, and if you have ever taken showers with other men, you have most likely been taking a shower with a "gay" whether you knew it or not. Most gay men aren't predators... just like most straight men aren't.

[Kaleva]

52. I might be able to take a shower with women without ...

getting aroused but I doubt it.

[LanternWaste]

74. That's a problem you should work on then

That's a problem you should work on then-- self-discipline to overcome what you may find natural in inappropriate venues.

When I worked in a cancer center, I had to regularly dress, undress and bathe patients-- never once did I feel aroused, let alone feel the need to suppress any arousal... despite the fact that (most beliefs to the contrary) many patients were/are quite attractive.



However, I do understand that many people (normal in all other respects) lack will-power, or may find it too burdensome.

[donco6]

92. I've showered with males all my life -

and have never gotten a boner in public.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

93. To be fair, I kind of understand that.... but gay men and women have dealt with this their entire

lives.

I changed clothes and showered with other guys in middle school and high school. It was not as much an arousing experience as a frightening one... I tried hard to make sure nobody thought I was gay.

You are looking at this through the eyes of an adult who has already gone through puberty and been banned from seeing naked female bodies in daily life. Gay people have a different experience. For most of us, we know how to behave when we see a naked body outside of a sexual situation.



WHEN gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, I support straights who have LEGITIMATE sexual harassment issues. Something tells me there will be less issues of harassment between same sex soldiers than opposite sex soldiers.

[Kaleva]

116. Interesting

Would you say, based on your personal experience, is that fear may be the reason there will be less issues of harassment between same sex soldiers then opposite sex soldiers? It's quite possible that I had been raised in an atmosphere of fear I could bunk with and take showers with women and be not aroused as I was too afraid to be outed as a heterosexual.

[me b zola]

96. Sounds as if you are too mentally weak to be in Navy

I've heard time and again why women can't serve on a submarine because they would be a distraction to the men. What you and your type are arguing is that you do not have the self control and mental strength to serve in the military. Get out and let those who are capable serve. :grr:

[Kaleva]

112. Couldn't answer the question could you?

I didn't say women shouldn't be allowed to serve on US Navy ships. I just pointed out that on those ships that have both female and male crew members, they have separate berthing and bathing facilities. Why is that?

[jesus_of_suburbia]

114. I answered the question... see my post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5810927#5811882

[Kaleva]

125. I apologise but I don't see your answer

as to why men and women in the military have separate berthing and bathing facilities.

[KitSileya]

142. Sounds to me like you think there are no gays and lesbians in the army at present.

Since you think that the fact that men and women have separate berthing and bathing facilities means that nanyone that can be attracted to each other have separate berthing and bathing facilities.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's been thousands upon thousands of gay and lesbian sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines already, and are today as well. Straight men are already sharing berthing and bathing facilities with gays, and straight women with lesbians. The only difference repealing dadt would bring would be that those gay and lesbian soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines wouldn't be dishonorably discharged if they let slip that they were on a date with someone whose set of chromosomes match theirs in the x and y department.

[LostinVA]

122. They didn't have to -- you revealed something about yourself that made the only point we needed

And, it's not the same thing. Males will be sharing bathrooms with men, and women with women. The ONLY people who will have a problem with this will be people who have a problem with anyone different than them. They ALREADY SHARE BATHROOMS WITH GAY PEOPLE.

My BIL is ex-Army, officer, Military Intelligence. He broke his back and got medicaled out. He couldn't care less about having a gay guy in the stall next to him. My granddad was Coast Guard and Navy from 1940-1965. He said they knew who the gay guys were on the ship, and didn't care as long as they were good sailors.

The only thing your posts show is YOUR hangups.

[Kaleva]

126. Can't answer the question can you?

So far, nobody has or maybe they can and just don't want to because it will undermine their own position.

[donco6]

138. And your position is - ?

That gays shouldn't serve in the military? Because they cannot keep from attacking other men in the potty?

[donco6]

137. Because you're a bigot, that's why.

Lots of people have answered you. You just don't like it. Too bad.

[Duncan Grant]

72. Straight and gay men share showers and bathrooms all over the planet.

You'll find gay and straight men sharing facilities (and often lives) in fraternity houses, in dormitories, in hostels and hotels, in gyms, in sports arenas, in the military, in seminaries...

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Could you spell it out again for me?

[QC]

86. A gay homosexual might see his peenyus! n/t

[Duncan Grant]

107. It must look like a big bag of money the way he's worrying about it. (nt)

[QC]

129. Eh, I've seen enough of them that I am seldom driven to madness anymore.

Come to think of it, I don't think I have ever ended up in a frenzy of lust just because I caught a glimpse of peepee.

[Kaleva]

130. Then what is the reason for the seperation of men and women?

[Duncan Grant]

146. My guess? Straight men don't trust other straight men with THEIR women.

Gay men are already serving alongside straight men (and have been since armies were created). Somewhere on this planet, gay and straight men are showering with one another at this very moment.

How do they manage it? How is it possible that gay men aren't attacking all the naked straight men?

[donco6]

81. WHAT???

So, gays won't be able to help themselves, they are so driven by uncontrollable sexual desire that they can't be trusted around ANYONE of the same sex?

I thought I'd heard everything . . .

[iamjoy]

31. You May Be Right

I realize that ending the ban on gays serving in the military will not end discrimination. These first brave ones to openly serve will likely be the target of harassment and abuse. They will be intimidated from reporting it, in many cases meeting apathy at best and retaliation at worst. This is what a lot of women face now.

While most young people (under 40) in this country may favor full equality for gays, those numbers are lower amongst the ones who would join the military. In general those who opt for a military career have more traditional values, as well as greater respect for authority and hierarchy. I realize there are exceptions, but overall...

Anyone who thinks lifting the ban on gays in the military won't cause problems is naive.

We cannnot compare the US to other countries, most other industrialized nations see things differently than we do.

And yet, I could not disagree more if you think any of this is a reason to delay doing what is right. We would be cowards to shrink away from correcting an injustice because it is hard or may be unpopular.

[anigbrowl]

32. I do think the military needs a little time to come up with new procedures

That is, to revise the military code and work out how to propagate those revisions and police them effectively, so as to fend off a possible backlash within the ranks. As some posters observe, integration of women into the military has not always been smooth sailing. But I don't think they need too much time. I hope we'll see some movement on it this year. When even a majority of conservatives are in favor of binning DADT and you have articulate spokespersons like Dan Chin explaining why it conflicts with principles of military life and unit cohesion, it can't be long for this world.

[Archae]

41. That's more of what I was thinking of.

Just saying "DADT is repealed," and not having any serious protections for gays and lesbians would encourage the violent bigots.

Your idea sounds more workable, than what I was trying to say.

[joeybee12]

45. Wrong...all the brass needs to do is say this is the way it is and the soldiers

were follow...that's why they're soldiers because they are attracted to a life of discipline and top-down order.

[Archae]

51. Too bad most military brass are scared shitless of "teh gay."

[LostinVA]

58. The brass did that when the Services were integrated -- same thing

Get over it or get out.

[Archae]

63. Unfortunately, our military brass has switched bigotries.

They now have rampant religious bigotry in the military, "Christian" fundys keep shoving their agendas on our troops.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/5/5/133344/8582/Front_Page/MRFF_Responds_to_Military_s_Denial_that_U_S_Troops_are_Proselytizing_Muslims

[LostinVA]

65. Then they will be removed -- too bad, too sad

I have too many relatives in the military, as well as a grandfather who was active when the Services were integrated. What you're saying isn't true: they do it or get decommed.

[anigbrowl]

68. Indeed. Unwinding that needs a be a priority too.

[anigbrowl]

67. say what is the way it is?

If it was as simple as you suggest, there would be no need for military police, would there?

[LostinVA]

That IS all they need to do -- they've done it before

[joeybee12]

79. What the phuck does that have to do with anything?

There's police needed in any society...are you saying it's astroniomically high (violence and criminal behavior) in the armed forces? Are you saying all violence in the Armed Forces is gay-related?

[anigbrowl]

100. Think about it.

If it were as simple as the brass ordaining a change and everyone in the military falling in line with it because they like being told what to do at all times, then there would be no need for the military police. I can understand the military wanting to be prepared for a repal of DADT by amending the UCMJ and putting greviance and oversight procedures in place so as not to be be caught unawares by abreactions.

There's police needed in any society...are you saying it's astroniomically high (violence and criminal behavior) in the armed forces? Are you saying all violence in the Armed Forces is gay-related?

No. Where you got those ideas is beyond me.

[LostinVA]

106. You are ignoring historical precedent: they HAVE done it

It has nothing to do with MPs.

[MADem]

94. If DOD didn't throw away all of the crap from just pre-DADT, after Clinton was elected,

those procedures are already sketched out. Boxes and boxes of stuff, too. Now, most of the instructions and notices will have to be repurposed because a lot of them have been superseded in the intervening years (they redid the UCMJ/MCM a couple of years ago, with a few BushCo additions), but it will give people a starting point.

Every single instruction/notice/order/regulation went through a full scrub and draft rewrites were done--everything from medical issues to counselling to professional comportment. No stone was left unturned. The one thing that probably could use more attention is the EO stuff, because EO was in its early days back then. However, it's not like there's a lack of staff with sufficient experience to work those issues and come up with the appropriate guidance.

That stuff is old, almost two decades old, but it's a starting point--if they kept it. It would speed the process considerably.

[anigbrowl]

102. Agreed 100%.

I do think they should be moving on it as quickly as possible.

[MADem]

103. Maybe they already are--I don't keep in touch with anyone in that end of things anymore.

I will tell you that the work started back in the Clinton era the SECOND he won the election, based on his campaign assertions.

The work progressed with the ASSUMPTION that gays would be integrated into the military. It was almost done when the wheels got gummed up.

It was only when the GOP and others in Congress (and a few in DOD, but not as many as people might think--there were others who argued the opposite POV) started whining and getting all shitty and pissy that the effort was racheted back to the compromise DADT solution. At that point, the stuff that had been worked on was abandoned (and like I said, most of it was done, just needing a few final "OKs" to make it work) and the tasks shifted to a different emphasis, centered primarily around the four pillars of DADT (which included, of course, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue...and the Big Secret One, mandated celibacy, that most civilians are unaware of--Don't ACT on gay orientation).

It could be they've got it all done--it's sensible contingency planning, IMO. Way easier than having to work twenty hour days to update stuff, poorly, and then have to go back and fix it again and again.

[GodlessBiker]

34. You refute your own point. If there is still racial violence to this day, does that mean Truman...

should not have integrated the troops way back when?

Since when does the violence used by a criminal against a minority define the rights the minority should have?

[Gormy Cuss]

43. +1

If we had waited for violence against racial groups to disappear the military would still be segregated.

DADT is a bullshit policy. Maybe when people are free to let others know their true selves then more of their peers will recognize that it's that big of a deal.

[LostinVA]

37. Your OP is so rife with offensiveness and stupidity, I don't know where to start

Maybe YOU should start with educating yourself.

[Lex]

47. It's "let's wait until the bigots feel better about it."

Sheesh.

[GodlessBiker]

49. That's a good synopsis of the argument.

[LostinVA]

50. Yes, exactly

I have relatives who are quite racist, so I guess we shouldn't have passed the Civil Rights Amendment quite so soon. And that Loving vs. Virginia thing? Pfft!

:wtf:

:wow:

:wtf:

[myrna minx]

53. That's a perfect summary of the OP's position.

Why isn't the OP here to defend his "notions". :eyes:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

56. +1

[AndyA]

38. Thanks for your thoughts.

Now you can take off your asbestos suit and crawl back under that rock you've been under.

Excuses come so cheaply, don't they?

Let's give discrimination another 5 or 10 years and see what happens, right?

Being gay is NATURAL. It's not a CHOICE. You don't choose what your natural hair color is, the color of your skin, eyes, or your gender. You also don't choose to be gay or straight.

People do, however, CHOOSE TO HATE. They make the choice to discriminate against others. They choose to have a problem with gay people, even though being gay is as natural as being born with brown hair. And that's their problem. Their choices, freely made, should not be given any consideration whatsoever. Especially when it condemns a group of people to second class status, without the same basic rights everyone else has.

[LostinVA]

39. -1

[Lex]

44. Same old tired arguments that were used when integrating the military.

Pathetic and sad.

Yes, let's wait 'til the bigots feel better about it.

[Starry Messenger]

55. Oh. My.

[Archae]

57. Before anyone else jumps on my ass...

Read post 41.

[LostinVA]

60. We already read your scathingly brilliant OP

[Caliman73]

78. pos 41 doesn't really help your point...

The military has a code and procedures for dealing with misconduct. Nothing has to be changed within the structure or procedures to end discrimination. What needs to change is the attitude of permission to be bigoted. Tolerance for homophobic, sexist, and racist attitudes is a blight on the military's honor. That is what needs to change, and waiting 5 to 10 years is not acceptable.

[LeftishBrit]

61. People don't HAVE to tell if they don't want to; making it a law just reinforces the attitude of the

bullies.

People who are openly gay serve in the military here in the UK, without disastrous consequences. Not having a law like DADT does not equal legally enforced 'outing'; it should be up to the individual.

[LanternWaste]

66. However, it was state sanctioned equality...

"More than 50 years ago, Harry S. Truman ended segregation by race in the military.
Did that end all racial violence in the military? Nope...."

However, it was state sanctioned and state recognized equality-- which was I believe, a major part and parcel of the goal. "Obama and his people know this also."

[Starbucks Anarchist]

70. Your contradiction is visible even under that ton of bullshit.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lex]

76. Breathtaking, isn't it?

nt

[donco6]

91. Yes.

But I guess I was too naughty.

[Warren Stupidity]

119. How does the flamebait OP get to stand while the obvious reactions

get deleted?

:shrug:

[Lex]

133. Reasonable people can disagree about homophobia.

Or so it is said.

[MADem]

141. Personal insult is against forum rules.

Example:

I vociferously disagree with your idiotic assertion---OK.

You are an idiot--not OK.

You can't go after the person, only their ideas.

[donco6]

150. But they can go after entire classes of people.

And that's A-OK.

[MADem]

151. Well, if ya see that happening, there's always bringing it up to a mod or

discussing it with an admin. About the only class of person it's acceptable to go after here are...Republicans.

[donco6]

152. Yeah . . . sure. n/t

[MADem]

153. I think the admins do listen. And the mods do their best--they follow the

rules to the best of their ability, but there is that appeal process when there's a question.

For example, there's a guy here who is working on a fire tower to make sure that the forest doesn't burn down. His experience is very interesting, and he posts these really neat pictures and updates as to what he does there. Because his posts weren't overtly political (though they do go to preservation of natural resources, the environment, funding allocations, and the National Park Service) the mods put his posts in the lounge where they weren't seen by most. He protested and now they're staying in GD where more of us will see them.

I think if you have an objection they'll listen. They'll at least explain their logic if they don't see things your way.

[RetroLounge]

77. Wow, teh Stupid is Huge with this one...

Damn, really? Wait until the bigots are more comfy?

:eyes:

RL

[Toasterlad]

113. +1

[Javaman]

80. oh for the love of pete...

a buddy of mine was serving in the military in the early 80's. He told me that roughly a 5th of his barracks was gay.

Any you know what? No. One. Cared. They did their duty like everyone else. The hated guard duty like everyone else, carried a their weapon like everyone else and followed orders like everyone else.

So please, stop this crap. It's really annoying and colossally counter productive.

Freedom for all Americans. Period.

[Greyhound]

84. Well, you'd be wrong. The only way to change is to change.

Oh never mind, what's the use...

[4lbs]

85. Didn't the military start letting in people with criminal backgrounds and racists

to make up for the lack of people volunteering to join the ranks?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/01/ING42LCIGK1.DTL

http://www.thecommentfactory.com/irregular-army-the-rise-of-assorted-criminals-and-felons-in-the-us-military-2183


I would think these people would be extremely homophobic and very prone to attack an openly gay person serving next to them, regardless of the consequences.

So, yes, the military has a much higher percentage of homophobic enlisted men than the US populace as a whole.


I am for full repeal of DADT, however, the above will be a major issue to deal with when it happens.

[donco6]

89. So we should kick out the NONracists and NONcriminals

To keep them safe?

Wow again.

[4lbs]

108. Where did I say that? I said that once DADT was repealed, there will be this other issue that will

need to be dealt with, otherwise, it could get pretty ugly pretty quickly.

[MADem]

90. People who disobey direct orders are subject to severe discipline.

When those orders come from the Commander in Chief, or the Secretary of Defense, only a nitwit would disobey them unless they had a strong wish to start on a downward spiral and throw away all of their military education and training, to say nothing of their pay, promotion, and pension prospects.

There were and are a lot of RACISTS in the military, too. I served with 'em. Not all of these racists are caucasian, either. The vast majority of them, though, don't run around beating up the people they don't like.

See--they hold the opinion, but they don't ACT on their views. You are not required to fall in love with whites, blacks, latinos, gays, women, Muslims, Jews, Mormons or Wiccans--what you ARE required to do is treat them professionally. That's the order that will come down, one day, and that's the order that will be obeyed.

[4lbs]

109. I'm not sure the neo-Nazis that join the military would care about what a black President says.

Those neo-Nazis would have to be the first ones that people keep an eye on when DADT is repealed.

[MADem]

140. They'd have a chance to think about that attitude while enjoying the accomodations at Leavenworth nt

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

98. +1

[Warren Stupidity]

121. +1

Whatever it was, it must have been appropriate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Given the number of nations where gays and lesbians openly serve only tells me one thing

if you are right. This country is ass backwards and proud of it.

Then again it was the next to last to get rid of slavery... (brazil was last) and we still use the British system... while the rest of the world has moved on. So perhaps we are not as civilized or advanced as we believe.

For the record, it will TAKE A FRACKING EXECUTIVE ORDER for the reasons you stated. Our Senators and Congressmen are well behind the power curve and well behind the people of the US.

[armyowalgreens]

110. The OP is full of so many fallacies, it's scary.

1. As stated previously, many countries allow openly gay men and women in their armed forces. They aren't getting the shit kicked out of them.

2. Even if there was the possibility of violence, which there isn't, are we really going to allow fear and intimidation to win over what is right?

3. You are basically painting a broad brush that our men and women of the armed forces are a bunch of back woods hillbillies that hates the "gays". Which is fucking stupid.

4. Homosexuals are more accepted in society today than ever before. We are making progress and the next step in that progress is to make all laws against homosexuals illegal.

[varelse]

111. What makes you so sure that most of their comrades in arms don't already know?

The "unseen" barricade to dumping DADT is the growing dominionist influence in the military. That needs to be removed or controlled for many reasons.

[LostinVA]

127. To quote my BIL, who was an offcier in Army Intelligence:

(he broke his back and was medicaled out)

"I don't fucking care if they are gays in the ilitary -- I already know I showered and shit in front of gay guys. Big fucking deal!"

My sister and him are/were best friends with a lesbian who was a Colonel when she retired.

[Warren Stupidity]

117. My opinion on your post...

is that it is a steaming pile of homophobic shit.

[Bluebear]

118. How nice, protecting the delicate gays. WHY DON'T YOU LET *THEM* DECIDE?!

What a miserable idea of a post yours was.

[keepCAblue]

120. ZERO recs. Gee, wonder why...

:shrug:

[JerseygirlCT]

123. Shouldn't that be something

a: taken care of by legal means (and yes, I know. Women have been attacked with litle or no prosecution)

b: a decision for the person enlisting?

Saying we need to discriminate because people won't behave legally is wrong. The same had (and has) been used to keep women in inferior positions for centuries. It's patronizing. And it just underlines the idea that there's something right in the discrimination.

[noamnety]

128. I think we should keep DADT but modify the policy

Let gays and lesbians serve openly, but apply DADT to bigots. If you are a homophobic ass, you can stay in ONLY if you can keep it hidden from public view. If you reveal that you're a bigot, you get a dishonorable discharge.

[donco6]

135. Well, that certainly addresses the REAL problem!

LOL

[AntiFascist]

131. There were some openly Japanese-American soldiers during WWII...

what would you say about them?

http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/asian/history_heritage/voa_nisei_soldiers_0507.asp

[Skittles]

132. did you ever serve, Archae?

because I served with plenty of gay folk and they were not targeted for violence - and that was over 30 freaking years ago

[Renew Deal]

148. Soldiers are supposed to be adults and the military is supposed to be a job.

There's no other job where adults in their jobs are allowed to "beat up" their coworkers. Soldiers can either accept who they serve with or leave. And gay soldiers have a responsobility too. They must follow the rules on conduct like everyone else.

You have to consider that these are adults and should be expected to behave that way.

[donco6]

149. This thing is still open?

Figures.