A promise to end Don't Ask Don't Tell

[Enkidu Warrior]

If we seriously need to keep profesionals from seeing each other nekked in the course of duty, then humanity is screwed anyway. Freaking hopeless. No more doctors performing surgery on females... cause they might get horny.

Exactly what I was saying. There's just something a bit pathetic about an unstoppable war machine that's terrified of showering with girls. Toughen up.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm not going to answer unless you explain how it's relevant.

Rofl. Its relevant because our nation is in such a mess right now. But if your too scared to answer the question, then ok.

Aaaand another dodge. You questioned why I should care about DISCRIMINATION in the military if I were not trying to join the military.

Not all discrimination is the same. Nor is all of it illegal. Even you know this (I hope).

You get the point.

You mean the point that you misrepresented his comment and in turn ignored his clarification? Yup.

Do you honestly think we will lose less troops if we allow gays to openly serve? Because I don't. Such a policy will drive away far more people from the service than the 1000 or so out of a couple million that are driven out under current policy. Particularly when you take into consideration that most gays are driven out via DADT under other provisions in the UCMJ, such as sexual assault or sexual harassment.

Most likely this is true. The fact that we would lose more soldiers than what we do currently under DA/DT does pretty much render that arguement moot.

But it hasnt been my experience that most homosexuals are processed via military justice actions. By far most of them are voluntary discharges via self-disclosure and simply an admin procedure...not UCMJ.

 

[hossam]

just a little something to keep the discussion going:

btw, im assuming that the gays will probably join the navy, 6 months at a time at sea with nothing to do? buttsecks!

 

[Lord Gay]

Ya, I'm gonna start telling girls "If my starring at you makes you uncomfortable, too bad, its your problem." lol, that will go over well. We have seperate Male and Female heads. At OCS, we got checked every morning to make sure we had jock straps on so our dongs wouldn't be flopping around around in our PT shorts, because we had females on deck. No nudity in the squad bay, either, even though the females were in another building on a different floor. We still have seperation in this regard, do you think it should be repealed or thats it unreasonable? (honestly we did, lol, noone wanted to wear jock straps)

Thanks for responding.

Let's be frank for a moment. Were there occasionally guys in the showers with hard-ons? What about when guys in the next bunk were jerking off at night during Basic? Did you know if these guys were gay or straight? Did you care?

As I mentioned before, some young guys are very shy and timid about their nudity, even around other males. I'm sure you've encountered guys like this at some point in your life. How did other guys respond? Did they laugh at and tease them for being shy, or did they completely respect their sensitivity and not say a word? Is that timidity tolerated in the head, or are guys razzed out of that behaviour pretty quickly?

If nudity in the showers or bathroom is too much, then what about shower stalls? Would that address your concern?

No, but please don't deny that workplace romances happen, either. Take a young gay kid and put him in a unit with 50 other men his age, and tell me there won't be any issues and I'll call you a fool. There were only like 5 women in my TBS platoon, to about 40 dudes, do you think there was any fratnerization? Hell, I'll admit, 2 of them were smoking hot. Mixed units have problems, its nature. You telling me gays are different? We understand gay men have normal sexual appetites, lol, and it doesn't help your cause. Especially working in as close quarters as they do in the infantry. They literally live at work, and creating close bonds is a necessity.

There are gays NOW in the military. Apparently they manage just fine. DADT has nothing to do with self-control and self-restraint. Perhaps also you're unaware of how many gays see the world. When a straight guy looks at a girl, the assumption is that sex is possible. All you have to do is be charming enough, smooth enough, whatever, and you might get her. When a gay guy looks at a man, the assumption is that sex is NOT possible. Almost every female you ever see MIGHT sleep with you. Almost every guy I'll ever see WON'T sleep with me. Living in a reality of sex denied is part of being gay.

Anyway, some units can deal with men and women working together, and I think they can deal with gays. But they don't live together or shower together, there is still some seperation, so I understand Merk's point. Not sure if we should be discharging dudes with otherwise great records or special skills (language for instance) because they are gay, there can be other solutions. But in combat arms, we can't be dealing with these issues and drama. Its not conducive to our training and the unit cohesion we need to be succesful at a job where failure means we die (or worse). Sorry if it hurts your feelings. Anyway, I'm still new, so my opinion may change, but right now thats where I'm coming from so you can have a better understanding.

I'm not clear on this last point. Are you saying that gays shouldn't serve in combat because of the drama they'll cause by ogling, groping, drooling over other men, or because of the drama caused by other guys being uncomfortable just knowing PFC Pedro over there is gay? What drama are you referring to?

I appreciate your concern for my feelings, thanks . My ultimate view though is that keeping gays out, like keeping any other group out, is bigoted, wrong, and IMHO, unconstitutional. If keeping gays out is out of the question and off the table, how then to make this work? If concern about being ogled in the showers is one, install stalls. If housing is simply too awkward for straights to bear, though I think it wrong, then possibly separate barracks could address that. I'm opposed to segregated units, as I think it coddles fear of gays too much, and possibly validates it ("why is the military keeping gays separate from us unless all those rumors about them are true?")

I appreciate your sharing and it does give me a better understanding, thanks.

EDIT

@ Useless

That brasseye was hilarious, thanks!

EDIT 2

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/browse/

Whadya guys think about this site?

Interesting. Gay issues p. 15, #290-294

EDIT 3

Or do they segregate gays into their own showers, which I'd think that for the segregation to be justified must be perilously close to porn films every time the water gets turned on (along with all the showerers).

Thank you, thank you, thank you for those dirty, dirty thoughts.

 

[Earthling]

Patroklos, as you know I'm not given to jumping into arguments on Ecofarm's side, but he is steadily demolishing your argument. Why do recruits age profiles matter?

Ralph, you know I'm not given to jumping into arguments on Patroklos's side, but his argument seems to be destroying Ecofarm's. Like he said, Ecofarm's own numbers even show that a large proportion of recruits are quite young. The training/military culture and discipline established at recruitment likely has a huge impact on their future careers, and this includes things like sexual harassment policies and behavior. Not to mention the fact that a huge number of potential recruits never make it through, and likely at the same ages - and thus the influences on the ones that do and why are very important as well.


Edit:
Sorry to point this out again but,

If concern about being ogled in the showers is one, install stalls. If housing is simply too awkward for straights to bear, though I think it wrong, then possibly separate barracks could address that. I'm opposed to segregated units, as I think it coddles fear of gays too much, and possibly validates it ("why is the military keeping gays separate from us unless all those rumors about them are true?")

Wrong line of argument. This is not addressing the concerns others have expressed at all. I mean "build shower stalls and separate barracks," in the middle of the mountains in Afghanistan?

 

[LucyDuke]

Rofl. Its relevant because our nation is in such a mess right now. But if your too scared to answer the question, then ok.

Um... okay. I think that's a crappy reason. Why don't you ask in every thread? It'd be relevant, right?

No, DADT is not more important to me than all other things. So... what was I supposed to be scared of? What's your point? I sure hope it's something ridiculous like "you shouldn't expect the President to address anything other than the ONE THING you think is THE SINGLE MOST important"...

Not all discrimination is the same. Nor is all of it illegal. Even you know this (I hope).

Too scared to answer the question...

Or course not all discrimination is the same or illegal. Not all discrimination is even wrong. But the type of discrimination DADT involves is as wrong as the type that keeps the black kids out of the Little League, and arguably as illegal. It's certainly discrimination worth caring about, which is the root of this tangent you're trying to drag me on. I suppose caring about discrimination isn't something you're big on.

You mean the point that you misrepresented his comment and in turn ignored his clarification? Yup.

Oh, okay, you don't get the point. So sorry. Still don't give a crap about the card.

 

[warpus]

Perhaps also you're unaware of how many gays see the world. When a straight guy looks at a girl, the assumption is that sex is possible. All you have to do is be charming enough, smooth enough, whatever, and you might get her. When a gay guy looks at a man, the assumption is that sex is NOT possible. Almost every female you ever see MIGHT sleep with you. Almost every guy I'll ever see WON'T sleep with me. Living in a reality of sex denied is part of being gay.

You know, that's pretty insightful. Is that depressing, or what?

 

[Ecofarm]

Ref. quote above....

Oh please. Aim low, avoid disappointment.

*smallest violin in the world playing "my heart bleeds for you*

For 90%+ of the men out there, there is no chance in hell with any decent looking chick.

You're just not that hot. Don't cry.

When it comes to getting laid, there is only one question: how low are your standards willing to go? That's true for everyone. You're like a guy in the museum lamenting that he cannot afford the art... ya, you and everyone else there.

"A life of sex denied". Haha. No crap. Beautiful women fail to throw themselves into my bed everyday. I dunno what they're doing that's better, but I feel cheated.

 

[Lord Gay]

That's fine. I'm not saying that gay men shouldn't serve in the military. Neither does the current policy.

People are expelled simply for being gay.

Spoiler :

(1) The member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited
another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are approved further
findings that:
(...)
(2) The member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual
unless there is a further finding that the member is not a homosexual or bisexual.
(3) The member has married or attempted to marry a person known
to be of the same biological sex (as evidenced by the external anatomy of the persons
involved) unless there are further findings that the member is not a homosexual or
bisexual and that the purpose of the marriage or attempt was the avoidance or
termination of military service.

http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/regulation41.pdf

These are all strawman arguments.

I believe you missed my point. I was suggesting that there are issues that others feel VERY strongly about, strongly enough to become physical. Perhaps my examples were poor choices, or insufficiently clear. Privacy is obviously important to you. There are issues that are important to others as well.

You do not address my broader point with this argument. My argument is that in society we segregate changing areas everywhere to protect the sexual privacy of all individuals, and that the DADT policy is no different than segragating changing rooms in a department store. We don't let guys shower with gals in any public area for protection of privacy. Why should it be any different in a military setting? Are you suggesting that when women and men are in the field that they should have the same sleeping quarters, the same shower areas, and all shower together? Because it's no different when you tell straight male men that they should have to shower with straight female men. Or do women's foibles matter, and just not straight guys...

The reason we keep separate areas is because of the Puritanical (cursed be their name) mores on sex and nudity. There's also the very real concern of rape. A typical man is much stronger than a typical woman and can force himself on her. This is not the case with two men, or two women.

But your concern is about privacy. I'll repeat the suggestion I made to Capslock: what about shower stalls? Would they address your concern? What about separate barracks altogether? Separate units? How far away do gays have to be from you for you to feel comfortable?

That's right. That's why I discussed heterosexual assault problems in the military as well. But, as luck may have it, this is a discussion about the issues associated with the DADT policy. And, as luck may have it, that happens to revolve around homosexuals. Which is why that statement was about homosexuals.

Forgive me, but the tone of that paragraph implied that night-stalking was something ALL homosexuals did... or that homosexuals were generally rapists, which is why I changed it. The allegation that gays are sexually aggressive, that straight men have to watch their backs (literally), that gays want nothing more than to corrupt the purity of heterosexual men, that gays are brutes and rapists, are all messages I have heard a thousand times before and is simply projection of the straight man's fear of the gay man. (odd that gays are both mincing fairies and savage rapists at the same time)

Gays are no more inclined to rape than straight men, and DADT has zero bearing on that. Having DADT won't stop gay men from raping, and lacking DADT won't encourage gays to rape.

I didn't say or suggest any of this. If you distort my statements or take my quotes out of context one more time I'll tattle on you to a mod. Either address the point of privacy being the primary issue directly, or stay out of the argument.

You're gonna tell on me? Should I threaten you with a wet willy?

That's a fine position to take if you want to ignore privacy issues. But the military's policies in general are constructed as such as to not discriminate against people and allow as many people from as many different backgrounds to serve as possible. If you want to take this attitude, that's your business, but the military's business is attracting as many qualified people as they possibly can. If you allow homosexuals unfettered access and to be openly gay in the military you are going to lose a significant number of qualified personnel.

You took the words right out of my mouth, only they sound better coming from you, since you're in the military. Yet you seemingly contradict yourself. How can you acknowledge this basic principle of fairness, and say in a previous post as you did that you genuinely want gays to serve, but then say that you don't want them in the same tent as you, nor the same foxhole, nor would you ever spar with them?

It sounds like you think gays should be able to serve 'in theory', but you don't want to actually have any of them anywhere near you. Is this the case?

I'll drudge up the old example of blacks. There were many whites who sure as hell didn't want any of 'those people' anywhere near them, didn't want to bunk with them, didn't want them getting their 'blackness' all over the pure white sheets and bathrooms. They were utterly disgusted at the notion that they might have to train with blacks or spar with them, and many threatened to leave, and did, when blacks were allowed to join.

Do you think the military was wrong to let blacks in? Were they foolish to play with this social experiment? Was it right to keep blacks out, so some soldiers didn't feel uncomfortable?

I'm not trying to trivialize or belittle your concerns, I'm simply trying to contrast them to other examples in the hopes that it will make my point more clear. As I said before, you are certainly entitled to feel however you do about your body and nudity. Hopefully I'm making clear that what you're proposing is a grossly unreasonable request of others. If your ONLY concern is the showers, then put up shower stalls and problem solved. If it's nudity, separate barracks. If it goes beyond that to having to fight next to gays, then I would gently propose that you reconsider what you're asking of others, and ask if you would be willing to do a fraction of it yourself.

Nobody is bothered by the current policy because you don't know who's looking at you, and it forces homosexuals to be respectful and contain their sexuality when in the presence of others. The second you allow them to be open about their sexuality it's just like having a woman in the shower room. It gives them a ticket to the all you can eat buffet and allow them to disrespect other individuals sexuality without recourse.

No, no straight person is bothered by the current policy, but then, straights aren't being asked to do outrageous things, nor are their very jobs at risk. Tell me, do you contain your sexuality when in the presence of others, out of respect for gays? If you really want an environment where nobody knows who's who, then clearly no guy should ever talk about sex whatsoever.

And I don't understand your "all you can eat buffet" or "disrespect other individuals' sexuality without recourse". Are you saying that without DADT, gay men are going to stick their faces two inches from men's crotches? Are they going to suggestively masturbate in the shower while winking at other men? Are they going to laugh and joke and point at straight men who will just have to sit there and take it? Is this what you're suggesting? Please explain.

 

[MobBoss]

Or course not all discrimination is the same or illegal. Not all discrimination is even wrong. But the type of discrimination DADT involves is as wrong as the type that keeps the black kids out of the Little League, and arguably as illegal.

Please. If it were remotely illegal it would have been challenged successfully and ended long ago. Its not.

No one has a *right* to serve in the armed forces. Its volunteer, but many are indeed discriminated against for a large number of reasons. Flat feet. Previous injury/illness. Mental issues. Etc.

It's certainly discrimination worth caring about, which is the root of this tangent you're trying to drag me on. I suppose caring about discrimination isn't something you're big on.

Of course I am big on it...if its illegal discrimination. This isnt.

And guess what? Its going to take a bit more than you saying it is to make it so.

 

[Lord Gay]

In response to something I saw earlier, technically DA;DT is a military policy and as such it shouldn't be repealed based solely on the mere whims of the civilian populace. If it's repealed, it should be repealed on the basis that it's a bad military policy which negatively affects military operations.

I'm no Con scholar, but from a legal standpoint, I think it should be repealed as it unfairly encroaches on the Executive domain. As CIC, the pres has full control of the military. I think Congress passing laws on who can or can't serve is outside their purview. Congress says how much they'll pay, and whether the pres can go to war or not (yeah right), but other than that, the internal affairs of the military are the pres's domain.

But I could well be wrong.

 

[JollyRoger]

I mean "build shower stalls and separate barracks," in the middle of the mountains in Afghanistan?

Who has time for that when it is such an opportunity for ogling?

 

[Cutlass]

I'm no Con scholar, but from a legal standpoint, I think it should be repealed as it unfairly encroaches on the Executive domain. As CIC, the pres has full control of the military. I think Congress passing laws on who can or can't serve is outside their purview. Congress says how much they'll pay, and whether the pres can go to war or not (yeah right), but other than that, the internal affairs of the military are the pres's domain.

But I could well be wrong.

Actually, Congress controls up until the point where they mess with the Constitution. In this case they have have ignored the Constitution. However the courts do not always uphold the Constitution in cases that are socially disruptive. Here, the courts have punted. DADT cannot pass Constitutional muster by any definition. But it still requires people willing to do the right thing.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm no Con scholar, but from a legal standpoint, I think it should be repealed as it unfairly encroaches on the Executive domain. As CIC, the pres has full control of the military. I think Congress passing laws on who can or can't serve is outside their purview. Congress says how much they'll pay, and whether the pres can go to war or not (yeah right), but other than that, the internal affairs of the military are the pres's domain.

But I could well be wrong.

Your wrong. In fact, congress has to ratify the promotion of pretty much all of our general officers in the military.

Congress has a lot of say and oversight in how the military does its job. Always has. And it should. While the president is the commander in chief, his powers over the military are still limited by law and overseen by congress. Take that away, and we are just mere steps away from a military junta or dictatorship occurring.

 

[MobBoss]

Actually, Congress controls up until the point where they mess with the Constitution. In this case they have have ignored the Constitution. However the courts do not always uphold the Constitution in cases that are socially disruptive. Here, the courts have punted. DADT cannot pass Constitutional muster by any definition. But it still requires people willing to do the right thing.

If it cant pass constitutional muster then why hasnt it been challened in front of the SCOTUS?

EDIT: In looking it up I guess it was brought up to SCOTUS: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aC_i2I17f9Ng

‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy Left Intact by U.S. High Court

By Greg Stohr

June 8 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to question the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that prohibits openly gay people from serving in the military, turning away a constitutional challenge to the ban.

I guess that answers that then.

 

[Cutlass]

The Supremes aren't always right....

 

[JollyRoger]

it was brought up to SCOTUS: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aC_i2I17f9Ng



I guess that answers that then.

It was one of thousands of cases denied cert that year - just like many 2nd Amendment cases were denied cert until Heller.

 

[MobBoss]

The Supremes aren't always right....

Rofl. Well, at least they are until they get enough libs on it....right?

But my point stands. They had an opportunity right there to correct this 'dreadful wrong' .....and didnt. /oh well.

Maybe your're not right here....that thought ever cross your mind?

 

[Lord Gay]

I was specifically referring to whether you have evidence rape is occuring on the "front lines" in combat. This is the concern most often expressed by many with regards to homosexuals destorying morale/discipline/etc... and is directly what Merkinball and others were referring to ("having to sleep in a tent with other soldiers etc...") Since the US military doesn't allow women to serve there, I don't think they're getting raped. So, this is not the way to counter that argument.

No, I don't. I'm aware of soldiers raping civilians in enemy territory. I'm unaware of, but wouldn't be surprised by, stats on the raping of enemy soldiers. But as to rapes of US on US, no, I do not.

Mobboss seems to imply that he works in a related area, perhaps he has info. I remember the personal story of an old veteran deployed in the South Pacific decades ago, but it's anecdotal in any case.

But fear of rape from an entire group is just lunacy. Besides, what about the male rapes in prison? How many of these are done by straights? Perhaps we should follow Bill's suggestion about chemical castration for all men, just to be safe...

Do they still put saltpeter in soldiers' food?

 

[JollyRoger]

The gay rape fanstasies among some so-called straight males here hints at why not telling would be a priority.