Just_A_Mom
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 4,774
Maximus - are you saying Admiral Mullen has flip flopped on DADT?
DADT repeal vote
- Thread starter Pima
- Start date
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...78-percent-favor-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell
CNN Poll finds 78% in favor of overturning
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/02/10/poll-shows-support-for-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell/
57% favor homosexuals serving openly.
66% see DADT as discrimination.
65% said it won't effect military capability
82% said stop disciplining those outed against their will.
Military households are about equal, 48 v. 47.
Congress' constituents apparently want it overturned.
TBH, I'm not sure there's really that much to consider regarding implementation. Being openly gay is no longer an issue. Move along now...
He has not flip flopped. Go back and read his initial statements on the subject, just after becoming CJCS. He intended to repeal it from his first day as JCS. Let's stop attempting to politicize this. No honorable person would ask anyone to lie or deceive in order to carry out their mission. Adm Mullen is an honorable person. He is taking advantage of a favorable political climate to achieve his ends. I applaud him.
Oh, no problem mongo, I'll be happy to answer.
I'm perfectly fine with/have zero problems with gay people. The standard, but very true answer for me is: I have a few of gay friends and actually, I lost a very close gay family member. I know how difficult it is for gay people as described to me from that same close family member.
More background, I was an enlisted Marine (as you know seeing as you remember the honor concept discussion...before your mongo moniker was a member here
) way back, but not as far back as your service in the Navy, that policy was black and white then. I didn't question it as it was just accepted then, and I never really thought about it at 19. I know that doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense but I had other issues to think about. That was c. 1980 and you know what that policy was, gay and out.<period At the time, I really didn't know any gay people (so I thought) and it was never an issue to me. Many moons later when Slick Willy created DADT, I thought it was incredibly stupid. It had nothing due to politics, I had none at the time although, I did vote for Reagan prior; it was more toward the issue of my experience in the Corps. Where would they put gay men in the squad bay? I've always looked at this issue on a legal and personal rights side. As I said, I've never really had any problems with homosexuals. Fast forward a few years and I really thought about how good DADT was, it kept the door open for all people but, it made people adhere to the military decorum and customs that keep order vital to the Military. IMHO you are always part of your unit and in the thick of things, you'd fight and die for a squad mate, white, black, albino, gay or straight.
Again, the whole problem I have with repealing DADT is there will be some that will use this as a social engineering experiment and force the issue. The secondary problem is the inevitable legal issues and waste of money it will cause. Tax dollars! DADT makes everyone in the military act like a professional IMVHO. Sure it will suppress some discussions standing fire watch with a buddy and talking about how you shared a candle lit dinner with Steve last night but again, this is the Military and it serves a larger/higher purpose that forcing Americans to take sides in what some consider a political issue.
I don't care that there are gay people in the military, and it's completely acceptable to me to serve with or under them....no pun intended
Just don't set up a disastrous three or four gender military society, and keep your personal affairs personal....out of the professional military.
You can't say to me with intellectual honesty, that Obama is doing this to help the poor suppressed military members, living in the shadows. You and I both know he's doing this because he doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to legalize gay marriage. That is the real issue.
No, he flip flopped on the survey. First it was important before a vote, and now it's not; it's important to implement the repeal of DADT, or so you say he implied in his article.
I'd love to see the scientific data for both polls, just like Californians want gay marriage...but, my questioning the polls are not the issue.
We'll see if there are no issues. I believe there will be a S.S. of issues like berthing and legalizing gay marriage benefits instantly.
Wow, that's interesting, this page has an ad for Gay Military Relationships lol
www.GayMilitaryDating.com
www.GayMilitaryDating.com
Pima
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,900
TPG Myself and many other posters have gone down this route as why they should not push the repeal of DADT. Trust me, your opinion like others before you fall on deaf ears. You can scream for days, that it is not a sexual orientation issue, but a benefits issue, and in the end you will get the same feeling as the rest of us before you
You will eventually give up after you get the fact that they don't get BAH/Medical/Commissary are tied to your marriage certificate...no HOR marriage certificate...no bennies. OH that's right...we don't have a federal law regarding same sex unions, let's use the military as guinea pigs.Next, I would prefer that this thread actually stay away from the repeal of DADT, but the actual point if Mullen was correct to push a vote before the survey it was completed.
I had a conversation with Bullet about this over dinner, and I asked him did he think this was Waste and Abuse? He said, Yes, because why should the survey be completed if they made their decision?
Military surveys are very expensive. Mullen at this rank should know that. To tell the troops, we hear you and want your input, while pushing forward is an insult to the troops. As JCS, the leader of all of the troops, shouldn't he at least respect the CS of all of the branches? Tell me what was the need to get it done now, why couldn't they wait 6 months? Maybe, I am cynical when it comes to politics, could it be the WH wants to Rahm it through for mid-term elections or summer recess? Explain the dire need to not complete the survey? Explain to me where is the media outcry of Govt Waste for a survey that is ongoing, but has no bearance on the MOC vote?
I actually mean this in seriousness, how is any MOC on committees tied to the military, accepting the fact that this "survey" is not completed and decided to vote on it? Why did they ignore 4 CS opinions regarding this matter? How is this flying as copacetic? The only way I can see ignoring the letters and pushing through before the survey is completed is totally POLITICAL.
Last edited:
Christcorp
15-Year Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 5,380
TPG, you are totally correct. That's why the CNN poll listed is totally meaningless. I bet the overwhelming number of Americans want everyone in the country to not live in poverty and to have health care. But when the actual health care bill on "How" it would be done, they had no where near the support.
That's why you can't just in the swoop of a pen, say that there is no more DADT or basically that gay military members is acceptable. It doesn't matter if there are gays in the military or not. What matters is how it is addressed. The simplest and most basic of issues is for basic training and single soldiers/airmen/sailors who live in shared dormitory type settings.
What would a normal heterosexual female soldier say if you said: Here's your room mate; and it was a male soldier. MOST, probably wouldn't like that idea. And if you asked why, it would be probably because of embarrassment and shyness. Getting dressed in front of the guy. Being naked in front of the guy. Sleeping a few feet away. This is natural and common. Not just in the military, but in society. Well, that same exact scenario happens again when you tell a male soldier, here's your room mate, and he's gay. Or to a female soldier, here's your room mate, and she's gay. A guy or girl in a dorm room with a room mate who potentially finds them at all appealing, can and WILL become uncomfortable. And anyone who says it won't, is a liar. 100%. I don't care if a guy and a girl have no initial attraction for each other at all, if you make them room mates, and they are having to deal with nudity and such in front of each other, it will be uncomfortable. There will be some attraction there. Physical attraction normal. Seeing a nude person, of the gender you prefer, standing in front of you, will elicit certain feelings and emotions. And it will be uncomfortable.
The only mathematical means of having room mates is either heterosexual males; heterosexual females; or a gay man and a lesbian woman. ANY other combination can cause at least one of the parties to become uncomfortable. And, if you allow gays to room with other gays; believing that is a viable solution, then you MUST allow heterosexual men and woman to room together if THEY want to. It is the same potential attraction.
And what I've described is the most basic of issues that have to be confronted before you abandon any prohibition on openly gay service. Others have already mentioned many of the other issues. But this is the most basic that needs to be addressed. This is the 1st day of basic training. This is the first duty station. The only possible solution is to ensure ALL service members NEVER have a room mate. That might work for "Permanent Party" military; but for basic training and tech schools where room mates are the norm, that won't work. Let alone the cost.
Unfortunately, NONE of these issues have been addressed. Polls can be spit out that America is all for getting rid of the DADT policy. But I tell you right now, they are NOT for telling a girl that she has to have a boy room mate. Or that a heterosexual guy has to have a homosexual room mate. Or any of the other combinations. And right now, the military is not set up logistically to do this. Now, had at the time that Billy-Bob made this policy, he instructed the military that within "X" number of years, they would be able to satisfactorily handle the logistics of both gays and heterosexuals in the military, then that would have been great. But Billy didn't. He told everyone to just close their eyes. And now, here we are.
Now I know what needs to be done. Unfortunately, this is a forum, and our opinions mean absolutely nothing. We have no impact or significance on decisions being made. NOTHING we say here matters. And unfortunately, the congressmen and those in the JCS and Secretary of Defense office, care way more about politics and their futures than they do resolving this issue. If you think they REALLY CARE,,, you're wrong. If they can find a "convenient" means of resolving the problem, they will. If it potentially can harm their future careers, they will side-step every bit of it.
That's why you can't just in the swoop of a pen, say that there is no more DADT or basically that gay military members is acceptable. It doesn't matter if there are gays in the military or not. What matters is how it is addressed. The simplest and most basic of issues is for basic training and single soldiers/airmen/sailors who live in shared dormitory type settings.
What would a normal heterosexual female soldier say if you said: Here's your room mate; and it was a male soldier. MOST, probably wouldn't like that idea. And if you asked why, it would be probably because of embarrassment and shyness. Getting dressed in front of the guy. Being naked in front of the guy. Sleeping a few feet away. This is natural and common. Not just in the military, but in society. Well, that same exact scenario happens again when you tell a male soldier, here's your room mate, and he's gay. Or to a female soldier, here's your room mate, and she's gay. A guy or girl in a dorm room with a room mate who potentially finds them at all appealing, can and WILL become uncomfortable. And anyone who says it won't, is a liar. 100%. I don't care if a guy and a girl have no initial attraction for each other at all, if you make them room mates, and they are having to deal with nudity and such in front of each other, it will be uncomfortable. There will be some attraction there. Physical attraction normal. Seeing a nude person, of the gender you prefer, standing in front of you, will elicit certain feelings and emotions. And it will be uncomfortable.
The only mathematical means of having room mates is either heterosexual males; heterosexual females; or a gay man and a lesbian woman. ANY other combination can cause at least one of the parties to become uncomfortable. And, if you allow gays to room with other gays; believing that is a viable solution, then you MUST allow heterosexual men and woman to room together if THEY want to. It is the same potential attraction.
And what I've described is the most basic of issues that have to be confronted before you abandon any prohibition on openly gay service. Others have already mentioned many of the other issues. But this is the most basic that needs to be addressed. This is the 1st day of basic training. This is the first duty station. The only possible solution is to ensure ALL service members NEVER have a room mate. That might work for "Permanent Party" military; but for basic training and tech schools where room mates are the norm, that won't work. Let alone the cost.
Unfortunately, NONE of these issues have been addressed. Polls can be spit out that America is all for getting rid of the DADT policy. But I tell you right now, they are NOT for telling a girl that she has to have a boy room mate. Or that a heterosexual guy has to have a homosexual room mate. Or any of the other combinations. And right now, the military is not set up logistically to do this. Now, had at the time that Billy-Bob made this policy, he instructed the military that within "X" number of years, they would be able to satisfactorily handle the logistics of both gays and heterosexuals in the military, then that would have been great. But Billy didn't. He told everyone to just close their eyes. And now, here we are.
Now I know what needs to be done. Unfortunately, this is a forum, and our opinions mean absolutely nothing. We have no impact or significance on decisions being made. NOTHING we say here matters. And unfortunately, the congressmen and those in the JCS and Secretary of Defense office, care way more about politics and their futures than they do resolving this issue. If you think they REALLY CARE,,, you're wrong. If they can find a "convenient" means of resolving the problem, they will. If it potentially can harm their future careers, they will side-step every bit of it.
Have you folks been living in caves? You should know how this stuff works.
1. Our MOCs or the President determines what will be popular with voters
2. They pass or revise laws
3. They join hands and sing Kumbaya
4. Later....they find ways of paying for these new laws......or not. If not (usually) the government goes further in debt.
5. In 4/8 years a new administration assumes power and blames the last group of politicians for our financial issues.
Money? We don't need to worry about no stinkin money!
1. Our MOCs or the President determines what will be popular with voters
2. They pass or revise laws
3. They join hands and sing Kumbaya
4. Later....they find ways of paying for these new laws......or not. If not (usually) the government goes further in debt.
5. In 4/8 years a new administration assumes power and blames the last group of politicians for our financial issues.
Money? We don't need to worry about no stinkin money!
Evidently Admiral Mullen and the President are interested in ASKING WHY, they just aren't interested enough in the answers to wait before changing policy. Can't the military just "order" the heterosexual female soldier not to be embarrassed or shy in front of a heterosexual male soldier? Think of the money savings! Uni-sex bathrooms and showers. Certainly professional soldiers would control any sexual urges if ordered to do so by the President and Admiral Mullen.
Luigi59
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,566
If you believe that gay Americans are serving today in the military (of course they are) then your "scenario" is already happening. And has been happening since Washington crossed the Delaware.
How does eliminating DADT alter your scenario at all?
Do gay British soldiers and sailors have less attraction or less emotion or less embarrassment than an American would? What about gay Canadian soldiers and sailors? What about gay Australian soldiers and sailors? Denmark? Belgium? Germany? New Zealand? Russia? Spain? Israel?
Is there something unique about a gay American soldier that makes him radically different from the military members of other countries where openly gay service is allowed?
Christcorp
15-Year Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 5,380
Sorry Luigi, but your argument isn't logical. 1st: In a DADT policy environment, it's simply not spoken of. Maybe ignorance is bliss. But unless one roommate suspects the other one of being homosexual, it's pretty much not spoken of. Without the DADT and same scenario environment, now there isn't any reason for the gay individual to refrain from mentioning his/her sexual preference.
Forget what you think the rules are, reality is what matters. In the current situation, gays are either quiet about their preferences or they lie to fit in. Guys sitting around watch tv, movie, BSing, etc... Talking about girls, sex, and all the things most girls accuse us of being PIGS about; even though the girls talk similar about boys in their own groups. And this socially acceptable behavior. (Even if some of the older adults might not think so). But if in that same conversation, your roommate who previously hid his sexual preferences, mentions the guys he wouldn't mind "Doing", just like the guys were talking about the girls they wouldn't mind "Doing", things automatically change.
No you can believe that a dormitory can be made neutral. You'd be totally wrong, but you can believe that. Sex is a very popular subject to talk about among young people; and military members are no different. Most of it is "BS" stories, but that's also part of the socializing. Guys talk this stuff with other guys, and girls talk this stuff with other girls. And just like most guys would feel out of place talking this way with the guys if a girl suddenly walked in, it would get similar if all of a sudden, over night because the rules changed, you found out that your roommate was not actually socializing with the "same" common interest that you had.
As much as a despised Bill Clinton, the DADT was actually a good thing. The PROBLEM WAS: he forgot to tell the military that it was only a temporary solution until the military could find a more permanent solution. Well, now you have a lot of ignorant people, who think "Social Norms" can be changed over night with the stroke of the president's pen, believing that the answer is to just get rid of DADT and that all the problems will work themselves out.
And please don't bring up european or other countries. I lived there a large part of my adult life. Their society and social norms are no way similar to ours. To even bring them up is comparing apple to oranges and somehow trying to come up with beef stew. Our social acceptance of sex is totally different. In Europe, you grow up around nudity. It's not uncommon for a child to walk into mom/dad's room on saturday morning wanting breakfast, and mom/dad are "Doing it", and they literally don't "Miss a stroke" while telling their kids they'll be down in a minute. I know this first hand. The embarrassment, shyness, modesty, etc... isn't anywhere NEAR the same as ours. Don't compare them. You cant.
So yes, the American sexual culture is different and unique. Not better, not worse. Just different. Tell you what. When you can EQUALLY act and talk around girls, EXACTLY the same way you do with guys in ALL SUBJECTS. (I'm trying real hard to not get too graphic, even though you all know exactly the point I'm trying to make); then I'll back off and say that we're "MATURE ENOUGH" to handle it. The point is, socially, we're not. I have no problem at the gym, walking into the locker room and getting naked and taking a shower. I WOULD have a problem walking into the girls locker room and doing the same thing. And because "Most" sexual preference is kept private, I'm sure there are gays in the locker room while I'm there. But because it's private, ignorance is indeed bliss. But I would NOT go to an openly gay gym/locker room or similar environment. And with DADT, individuals are forced to keep their sexual preference private, IF it deviates from the socially acceptable norm. Without DADT, they could openly discuss their sexual preferences, fantasies, etc... (Just like must heterosexual people do at one time or another), except now it's not a secret, and it could just as easily be your roommate.
I don't know if I'm explaining it correctly. But I know how this will go down. Now this is not to say that DADT is good. It definitely should have had a PHASE-2 to it. Clinton made the right decision, but didn't finish up on it. Obama, congress, JCS, or whomever, can fix all this by giving a time line to the military for how they will logistically address these issues. Along with many of the other social issues that society doesn't accept, such as Marriage. How do you handle significant others who aren't your spouse because you can't legally marry them; adopted kids; "joint-spouse" assignments; ??? Definitely need to eventually get rid of DADT; but they need to do what Clinton didn't do 10 years ago. Give the military a timeline to work out the logistics. And DON'T SAY they had 15 years. If you don't tell the military to do something, they aren't going to do it. Forget the past. Set the rule now.
Forget what you think the rules are, reality is what matters. In the current situation, gays are either quiet about their preferences or they lie to fit in. Guys sitting around watch tv, movie, BSing, etc... Talking about girls, sex, and all the things most girls accuse us of being PIGS about; even though the girls talk similar about boys in their own groups. And this socially acceptable behavior. (Even if some of the older adults might not think so). But if in that same conversation, your roommate who previously hid his sexual preferences, mentions the guys he wouldn't mind "Doing", just like the guys were talking about the girls they wouldn't mind "Doing", things automatically change.
No you can believe that a dormitory can be made neutral. You'd be totally wrong, but you can believe that. Sex is a very popular subject to talk about among young people; and military members are no different. Most of it is "BS" stories, but that's also part of the socializing. Guys talk this stuff with other guys, and girls talk this stuff with other girls. And just like most guys would feel out of place talking this way with the guys if a girl suddenly walked in, it would get similar if all of a sudden, over night because the rules changed, you found out that your roommate was not actually socializing with the "same" common interest that you had.
As much as a despised Bill Clinton, the DADT was actually a good thing. The PROBLEM WAS: he forgot to tell the military that it was only a temporary solution until the military could find a more permanent solution. Well, now you have a lot of ignorant people, who think "Social Norms" can be changed over night with the stroke of the president's pen, believing that the answer is to just get rid of DADT and that all the problems will work themselves out.
And please don't bring up european or other countries. I lived there a large part of my adult life. Their society and social norms are no way similar to ours. To even bring them up is comparing apple to oranges and somehow trying to come up with beef stew. Our social acceptance of sex is totally different. In Europe, you grow up around nudity. It's not uncommon for a child to walk into mom/dad's room on saturday morning wanting breakfast, and mom/dad are "Doing it", and they literally don't "Miss a stroke" while telling their kids they'll be down in a minute. I know this first hand. The embarrassment, shyness, modesty, etc... isn't anywhere NEAR the same as ours. Don't compare them. You cant.
So yes, the American sexual culture is different and unique. Not better, not worse. Just different. Tell you what. When you can EQUALLY act and talk around girls, EXACTLY the same way you do with guys in ALL SUBJECTS. (I'm trying real hard to not get too graphic, even though you all know exactly the point I'm trying to make); then I'll back off and say that we're "MATURE ENOUGH" to handle it. The point is, socially, we're not. I have no problem at the gym, walking into the locker room and getting naked and taking a shower. I WOULD have a problem walking into the girls locker room and doing the same thing. And because "Most" sexual preference is kept private, I'm sure there are gays in the locker room while I'm there. But because it's private, ignorance is indeed bliss. But I would NOT go to an openly gay gym/locker room or similar environment. And with DADT, individuals are forced to keep their sexual preference private, IF it deviates from the socially acceptable norm. Without DADT, they could openly discuss their sexual preferences, fantasies, etc... (Just like must heterosexual people do at one time or another), except now it's not a secret, and it could just as easily be your roommate.
I don't know if I'm explaining it correctly. But I know how this will go down. Now this is not to say that DADT is good. It definitely should have had a PHASE-2 to it. Clinton made the right decision, but didn't finish up on it. Obama, congress, JCS, or whomever, can fix all this by giving a time line to the military for how they will logistically address these issues. Along with many of the other social issues that society doesn't accept, such as Marriage. How do you handle significant others who aren't your spouse because you can't legally marry them; adopted kids; "joint-spouse" assignments; ??? Definitely need to eventually get rid of DADT; but they need to do what Clinton didn't do 10 years ago. Give the military a timeline to work out the logistics. And DON'T SAY they had 15 years. If you don't tell the military to do something, they aren't going to do it. Forget the past. Set the rule now.
SamAca10
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,045
That's why the policy is called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Before 93, all potential service members were asked if they were homosexual. If they answered yes, they wouldn't be allowed to join up. The recruiters/ military officials would not ask the recruits or service members, and the service members in turn would not have to tell.
It doesnt fall on deaf ears it falls on diagreeing ears. Dont fall into the trap of imagining that if people disagree with you it must be because they are just to thick to understand what you are saying...
We all know your argument around this Pima after all you cling to it like a Titanic passenger clinging to a deck chair but I think it is just down right wrong. I refuse to beleive that the massive administration full of brilliant strategic thinkers that plan for the US military would be so stumped by this issue as to be rendered paralysed. Seriously, yes some specific planning would need to go into the way in which service members who are barred from marrying are dealt with but is this really so impossible. The British allowed gay servicemen to serve long before they allowed civil unions yet they seem to have managed to deal with it without the downfall of civilisation as we know it, and yes I know their military is much smaller, but then so is the administration that runs it.
Serioulsy the benefits argument holds no water, its nothing but a smokescreen....
tpg said:
Not quite following you here tpg. I am sure how these issues which you mention are the reasons for the survey, I do not quite follow the Money argument. All heteros receive benefits. No gays receive them. Are you saying that our defense budget relies on a certain percentage of closeted DADTs in order to stay within accepptable limits, that we are unable to fund the gays to the extent of benefits that all other service members receive, that should DADT be repealed and we go backwards to not allowing gays in the service at all, that we would go broke?
I can see it now. An active recruiting campaign for gays only since they are less costly to our budget.
I don't think you understood my question. I apologize for being obtuse. Allow me to rephrase. So you have no problem with someone being required to lie and deceive in order to maintain their military career? If they pop positive on a drug test, it is okay to say anything in order to maintain their career? If they are flunking out of TBS, it might be okay to cheat on a test? Or are you implying that there are varying degrees of honesty? That honesty is not black and white?Maximus said:
Sure, DADT allows for unit cohesiveness, but it requires people to LIE and DECEIVE. Is that acceptable to you?
Luigi59
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,566
But you ignore Canada?
Canada has no problem with gay Canadian soldiers or sailors. They ended their ban almost 20 years ago. Haven't seen any problems yet, have we?
Tell me again how their "social norms" are so different from ours?