DADT repeal vote

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....

The benefits argument is secondary, not a smokescreen. Let Obama put his neck on the line with civil marriage before letting the Military do his dirty work.

Emsa, you might want to get a little more life experience before you tell those that really do have military and life experience, how they are ignorant about a policy that's almost as old as you are.
 
I think we are getting off track. I did not intend for this thread to me about repealing DADT. We have had that thread already. I intended this thread to discuss the decision of Admiral Mullen to move forward with the repeal before the study is completed. Also to discuss how the other CS's banded together against his decision. Even how our MOC's ignored the CS's letter to postpone the vote until the study was completed.

We all have our opinions on whether or not DADT should be repealed, that bush has been beaten dead. I don't believe anyone is going to sway anyone else regarding this issue.

The question posed here is did Mullen just waste tax payers dollars by requesting a study, but never waiting for the results of the study before making a decision.

Was he right to ignore the other 4 CS's opinions? Why did the MOC's decide to ignore their letter? Why did they decide that Mullen's decision meant more than the others? Yes, he is the JCS and speaks for the military, but shouldn't they acknowledge that out of 5 CS, 4 opposed this decision? Shouldn't they question Mullen about wasting tax dollars for a study that he has no intention of accepting the results? What if the study came out and 70% of the military members were opposed to overturning DADT, would he still defend his stance for the MOCs to bring it to a vote?

Was he right to let them find out his decision to move forward via a news release from the WH?
 
First, do you really think that the social norms for British Colombia are the same as say Alabama?

No, but I wouldn't think the social norms of Alabama and Vermont would be the same either.

Using your logic, do you really think the social norms for Buffalo USA and Toronto CA are that different?

tpg said:
Secondly, yes we as the United States do ignore all those nations that you keep bringing up. What they do has no bearing upon what we as a nation do.

You are arguing against a point not made. My response was to counter Christcorp's specific argument about attraction, arousal, and embarrassment of same-sex living arrangements if one of the parties was homosexual. He was arguing with humans, not nations.

tpg said:
They are not the United States, we are. While it may look nice to point to them in your arguments, just as their laws have no effect on ours, neither do their domestic policies.

No doubt about that, but the last time I checked, attraction, arousal, and embarrassment are not qualities of nations or military policy, but human emotions common to everyone.

Comparing a Canadian soldier to an American soldier is relevant if one wants to argue the "social norms" point of view.

CC argued that the social norms in Europe are quite different from the USA (not entirely true but for the sake of this argument I'll defer) but Canada is not Europe.
 
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?

Sure, DADT allows for unit cohesiveness, but it requires people to LIE and DECEIVE. Is that acceptable to you?

I knew you were going here :shake:
Really, OK....you want to try to play that game with me then allow me a little indulgence also since you're obviously taking some with your insinuations of me.

Are Airmen, Marines, Soldiers, Sailors or Coasties required/allowed to question each potential roommate before (if there was actually time or allowance to do so) they move into their new living quarters?

Answer, no.

They are told to do so.

The beauty of DADT is simple: "Don't ask" gives the person following military law justification in his or her mind, that rules and regulations are being followed. "Don't tell" prevents a person that is not following a military rule to keep their personal affairs out of the professional affairs. That keeps the military cohesive and professional.

I'm pretty sure I know your next calculated post, so let me save you a few moments before posting it :biggrin: Someone lying about their sexual preference is not an honer issue to me, it's a personal issue and none of my business :thumb:

Let me just leave this comment: The Military is Service to the Nation first, not just a career choice to provide their family with benefits. Essentially this whole thing comes down to bennies and spending money. DADT allowed homosexuals the chance to serve their Country with honor. Now, it's a ways to a means.
 
First, do you really think that the social norms for British Colombia are the same as say Alabama?

I don't really want to get involved in this argument, as it will inevitably turn into a partisan urination contest. Nonetheless, this statement gave me pause. In comparing BC to Alabama to prove that Canada and America have different accepted social norms, I can't help but have an additional question. If we are speaking in generalities like this, are the social norms of Alabama the same as those in Vermont? or Hawaii? or Michigan? My point, is that I don't think that there is one accepted set of American "social norms" when we are an exceptionally divergent group of people (both in ethnicity and in geography).
 
No, but I wouldn't think the social norms of Alabama and Vermont would be the same either.

Using your logic, do you really think the social norms for Buffalo USA and Toronto CA are that different?



.

HA!! Beat me to it. :thumb:
 
Was he right to ignore the other 4 CS's opinions?

FYI - There are a total of 6 members of the JCS.

Chairman - Admiral Michael Mullen (USN)
Vice Chairman - General James E. Cartwright (USMC)
Chief of Staff of the Army - General George W. Casey (USA)
Chief of Naval Operations - Admiral Gary Roughead (USN)
Chief of Staff of the Air Force - General Norton A. Schwartz (USAFA)
Commandant of the Marine Corps - General James T. Conway (USMC)
 
I think we are getting off track. I did not intend for this thread to me about repealing DADT. We have had that thread already. I intended this thread to discuss the decision of Admiral Mullen to move forward with the repeal before the study is completed. Also to discuss how the other CS's banded together against his decision. Even how our MOC's ignored the CS's letter to postpone the vote until the study was completed.

We all have our opinions on whether or not DADT should be repealed, that bush has been beaten dead. I don't believe anyone is going to sway anyone else regarding this issue.

The question posed here is did Mullen just waste tax payers dollars by requesting a study, but never waiting for the results of the study before making a decision.

Was he right to ignore the other 4 CS's opinions? Why did the MOC's decide to ignore their letter? Why did they decide that Mullen's decision meant more than the others? Yes, he is the JCS and speaks for the military, but shouldn't they acknowledge that out of 5 CS, 4 opposed this decision? Shouldn't they question Mullen about wasting tax dollars for a study that he has no intention of accepting the results? What if the study came out and 70% of the military members were opposed to overturning DADT, would he still defend his stance for the MOCs to bring it to a vote?

Was he right to let them find out his decision to move forward via a news release from the WH?

No, he was wrong in letting them know obviously.

Yes, he is wasting more money doing a useless survey/study and then, relabeling it as "helping implement it" some time later. Makes me think the good Admiral had a change of heart, or possibly a future job offer :yllol:

In a nut shell, it's wasting money to force monumental change in our Society, while a political party holds a fleeting numbers advantage. In my opinion, not wanted by the majority of Americans and military, using the Military to "back door" it.
 
I don't really want to get involved in this argument, as it will inevitably turn into a partisan urination contest. Nonetheless, this statement gave me pause. In comparing BC to Alabama to prove that Canada and America have different accepted social norms, I can't help but have an additional question. If we are speaking in generalities like this, are the social norms of Alabama the same as those in Vermont? or Hawaii? or Michigan? My point, is that I don't think that there is one accepted set of American "social norms" when we are an exceptionally divergent group of people (both in ethnicity and in geography).

Looks like we're going to follow another one of Canada's examples and go down the Socialized Medicine route....hmmm, I wonder how that will work out :yllol:
 
luigi, I am not against gays in the military. To be honest, after 21 years in the military, I don't think that the overwhelming military members are against gays in the military. But there are logistical issues that have to be addressed in line with or prior to the president, congress, or jcs declaring overnight that DADT is officially over, and all gay members of the military are now free to proudly claim their sexual preference.

As for Canada, do you know what logistical measures they've taken to handle the living conditions between hetero and homosexuals? Maybe none, maybe some. In europe, I can honestly say, that such socio-moral concerns are not as significant as they are in the USA. As for Canada, I think it would be closer to ours than europe, but Canada is still significantly different than the usa.

All other issues with this topic are legal in nature. They can be fixed in time, and time is not significant. But living conditions in dormitory type environments is not something that can wait. That has to be in place prior to repealing the policy. Maybe it's as simple as: "If you don't want your roommate because S/He is gay, we'll move you to another room with another roommate". Maybe it's more complicated. But in line with the original premise of this thread, these are the things that Mullen needs to address, and the studies and surveys that go along with that information. To push for a repeal, prior to knowing the answers and the pulse of the military members who have to live with this decision, is definitely in line with what a politician, or someone with political motives, would choose as a course of action. Sorry, but I have no respect for a person like that. Good supervisors and managers consider how their decisions will face those subordinate to them when making such decisions. When you don't do your homework prior to making a decision, and worse yet claim to do a study, but want to make a decision before the study is completed, tells me that he decisions are politically motivated and he doesn't care about the military members. Sorry, but these are his decisions, not mine. He set himself up for this one.
 
Thanks Luigi. I didn't realize that the USMC had 2 on the JCS. I was going off of the thought that they had only 1 spot due to the article.

The debate over gays in the military has driven an extraordinary public wedge between the nation's highest-ranking military officer and the four service chiefs who collectively make up the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Adm. Mike Mullen, Joint Chiefs chairman, in February first broke with the chiefs of the Navy, Air Force, Army and Marine Corps by endorsing President Obama's campaign pledge to end the military's ban on open homosexuals.

I assumed that the total was 5. Never to proud to eat crow when I follow the rule of what ASSUME means.

To keep us on track, I wonder if there is anyway to find out the cost of the study that basically will be thrown in the circular filing cabinet? Any AD members here? Just curious what the survey actually asked? For example, did it ask about rooming issues? Benefits? Maybe Mullen saw the survey as a piece of junk and that is why he didn't wait for the results.
 
Last edited:
luigi, I am not against gays in the military. To be honest, after 21 years in the military, I don't think that the overwhelming military members are against gays in the military. But there are logistical issues that have to be addressed in line with or prior to the president, congress, or jcs declaring overnight that DADT is officially over, and all gay members of the military are now free to proudly claim their sexual preference.

As for Canada, do you know what logistical measures they've taken to handle the living conditions between hetero and homosexuals? Maybe none, maybe some. In europe, I can honestly say, that such socio-moral concerns are not as significant as they are in the USA. As for Canada, I think it would be closer to ours than europe, but Canada is still significantly different than the usa.

All other issues with this topic are legal in nature. They can be fixed in time, and time is not significant. But living conditions in dormitory type environments is not something that can wait. That has to be in place prior to repealing the policy. Maybe it's as simple as: "If you don't want your roommate because S/He is gay, we'll move you to another room with another roommate". Maybe it's more complicated. But in line with the original premise of this thread, these are the things that Mullen needs to address, and the studies and surveys that go along with that information. To push for a repeal, prior to knowing the answers and the pulse of the military members who have to live with this decision, is definitely in line with what a politician, or someone with political motives, would choose as a course of action. Sorry, but I have no respect for a person like that. Good supervisors and managers consider how their decisions will face those subordinate to them when making such decisions. When you don't do your homework prior to making a decision, and worse yet claim to do a study, but want to make a decision before the study is completed, tells me that he decisions are politically motivated and he doesn't care about the military members. Sorry, but these are his decisions, not mine. He set himself up for this one.

In an effort to supposedly be fair and open up the pool of recruitment, this will (IMVHO) do neither.
1) Many heterosexuals will think twice about joining the enlisted ranks as I'm constantly reminded that they are overwhelmingly right-wing Christians :eek: and will not volunteer to be part of this and 2) It won't be fair to the many already in the service that didn't sign up for living conditions like this.

For the record, I'm an Agnostic :wink:
 
It won't be fair to the many already in the service that didn't sign up for living conditions like this.

This is my point why I think Mullen was wrong to go forward. He has yet to find the true feelings of the troops.

I don't care if people think he has the pulse on the troops...it is amazing how different people can be when they are allowed to be anonymous. Reminds me of parents....MY KID DOESN'T HAVE SEX...well then riddle me this why do studies show that 70%+ of our hs kids say when asked anonymously they have been sexually active? People publicly never want to appear poorly, i.e in this case homophobic. However, some privately will acknowledge their fears if they know that there is no chance of being revealed.

We really don't know, and now I think we will never know the true pulse because soldiers will feel the survey is a waste of their time...the decision has been made mindset.

The worse thing Mullen did by this rush to judgment is he told the troops that their opinion did not matter. Not through his words, but through his actions. I don't think any soldier bit off on the "still do the survey because your opinion will matter in implementation" statement. They saw it for what it was, BS!
 
But living conditions in dormitory type environments is not something that can wait.

Gay Canadian soldiers and sailors live and work among straight soldiers and sailors.

I think you are attributing some deviant sexual predatory personality to gays, something that simply doesn't exist. Perhaps homophobia clouds your logic, perhaps something else.

But you continue to go back a well that doesn't hold water - your argument that living conditions / barracks arrangement will have to undergo significant changes to compensate for.........

......what?

Embarrassment? Doesn't the modesty argument you use pretty much go away immediately with the shower/bathroom conditions that are currently used by the military today?

With a repeal of DADT, do you fear that the barracks is going to turn into some O street nightclub of lisping flaming queens?

Is there something genetic about a gay soldier that will prevent him to acting professionally under a repeal of DATA that wasn't there before? You do understand that they are serving honorably and professionally today, don't you?

Common myths -

  • Black soldiers aren't as smart as white soldiers and the military cannot be integrated before society accepts it. (Proven false, check you time lines).
  • Woman cannot be a part of the military lest half of the service be out of action at least once per month (proven false).
  • Gay soldiers cannot serve honorably and professionally among straight soldiers because they'll be leering and acting lasciviously toward every attractive male they see. :rolleyes:
 
luigi, I think you are trying to view this in a euphoric manner. In a situation where you have a roommate, at the gym, in the shower, etc... and you are around like minded heterosexuals, the average person doesn't have a problem. Because there doesn't appear to be any attraction, gawking, looking, etc... by the others around you. They are simply not interested. However, knowing that the person next to you in that shower or in the room when you're undressing, might have some interest, does have an affect on a person's modesty. It is EXACTLY 100% the same as if a woman was to undress in front of a man. I don't care how ugly or unattractive the woman may appear to the man, if she's standing there naked, the heterosexual man can't help but stare, gawk, or whatever. That "possibility" is enough to make the woman feel uncomfortable. And rightfully so. Same with a man or a woman in the same position with a gay roommate.

This has nothing to do with that gay will act differently. They won't. Just like the heterosexual man isn't going to instantly rape a girl because she's standing naked in front of him. I don't anticipate any of that. But whenever a person is around another person who possibly or has the potential of finding them attractive, desirable, or anything similar; the one person many times will feel self conscious of their appearance. This IS how it is with men around women, women around men, and potential a hetero man around a homosexual man or a hetero woman around a homosexual woman. If the person around you, does or potentially, can have certain interests, that's enough to make people feel uncomfortable.

And acting "Professional" is silly. Doing your job and living in your dorm are 2 different things. When in the dorm, professionalism doesn't exist. Nor should it. This is your personal life. And this was exactly one of the problems I had with individuals who joined the military at a much older age than their peers. I had a mid level NCO come to me complaining about one of her airman. That he had attitude problems, sometimes back talking, complaining, etc... My response was: "Yes, he's 18 years old. That's normal. It's called growing up". She just could not understand. I told her, when the airman go back to the dorms after work, they are SUPPOSE to *****, gripe, complain, talk with their friends/dorm mates about how their boss sucks, etc... This is all part of the growing up process. But she didn't understand that, because she joined the military when she was 24 years old. She never went through the same growing experience that these young people are going through.

I bring this story up because in the dorm, you can throw out ALL military bearing and professionalism. That is THEIR house, and as long as they aren't doing anything illegal or against military regulations, they live THEIR life. Part of which is growing up. Now, back on subject. A gay soldier is not going to physically do anything because he sees his roommate naked. But if the naked roommate knows the other roommate is gay, there will be a perceived potential that the gay roommate MIGHT find some interest in their nudity. Just like just about any heterosexual guy on the planet would find interest in the nudity of a female roommate. That doesn't mean the male is going to rape or physically do anything else to the female. But it is enough for the female to feel self conscious and uncomfortable. Same with a heterosexual around a homosexual. If you can't see the similarities, then I don't know what to say.
 
tpg said:
Now as for the vote in congress recently, my understanding is that the President was going to push congress to pass such repeal sooner rather than later. I also understand that ALL members of the JCS, along with the Sec. of Defense wanted Congress to wait until after the survey was completed. I also understand that once ADM Mullen and Sec of Defense Gates realized that the vote was not going to be delayed, they won the concession that final implementation would be implemented upon their signature and that they would wait until after the survey was completed to start implementation of the repeal. In other words Both Sec Gates and ADM Mullen want service members to have a say.

You get it!!!!! :thumb: :thumb:
Thank you!
 
luigi, I think you are trying to view this in a euphoric manner. In a situation where you have a roommate, at the gym, in the shower, etc... and you are around like minded heterosexuals, the average person doesn't have a problem. Because there doesn't appear to be any attraction, gawking, looking, etc... by the others around you. They are simply not interested. However, knowing that the person next to you in that shower or in the room when you're undressing, might have some interest, does have an affect on a person's modesty. It is EXACTLY 100% the same as if a woman was to undress in front of a man. I don't care how ugly or unattractive the woman may appear to the man, if she's standing there naked, the heterosexual man can't help but stare, gawk, or whatever. That "possibility" is enough to make the woman feel uncomfortable. And rightfully so. Same with a man or a woman in the same position with a gay roommate.

This has nothing to do with that gay will act differently. They won't. Just like the heterosexual man isn't going to instantly rape a girl because she's standing naked in front of him. I don't anticipate any of that. But whenever a person is around another person who possibly or has the potential of finding them attractive, desirable, or anything similar; the one person many times will feel self conscious of their appearance. This IS how it is with men around women, women around men, and potential a hetero man around a homosexual man or a hetero woman around a homosexual woman. If the person around you, does or potentially, can have certain interests, that's enough to make people feel uncomfortable.

And acting "Professional" is silly. Doing your job and living in your dorm are 2 different things. When in the dorm, professionalism doesn't exist. Nor should it. This is your personal life. And this was exactly one of the problems I had with individuals who joined the military at a much older age than their peers. I had a mid level NCO come to me complaining about one of her airman. That he had attitude problems, sometimes back talking, complaining, etc... My response was: "Yes, he's 18 years old. That's normal. It's called growing up". She just could not understand. I told her, when the airman go back to the dorms after work, they are SUPPOSE to *****, gripe, complain, talk with their friends/dorm mates about how their boss sucks, etc... This is all part of the growing up process. But she didn't understand that, because she joined the military when she was 24 years old. She never went through the same growing experience that these young people are going through.

I bring this story up because in the dorm, you can throw out ALL military bearing and professionalism. That is THEIR house, and as long as they aren't doing anything illegal or against military regulations, they live THEIR life. Part of which is growing up. Now, back on subject. A gay soldier is not going to physically do anything because he sees his roommate naked. But if the naked roommate knows the other roommate is gay, there will be a perceived potential that the gay roommate MIGHT find some interest in their nudity. Just like just about any heterosexual guy on the planet would find interest in the nudity of a female roommate. That doesn't mean the male is going to rape or physically do anything else to the female. But it is enough for the female to feel self conscious and uncomfortable. Same with a heterosexual around a homosexual. If you can't see the similarities, then I don't know what to say.

There are so many assumptions, conjectures, and speculations in this post it is impossible to even debate it.
 
Human nature has had thousands of years of empirical data that shows human behavior. There's no assumptions, conjectures, or speculations. While not every human being may act exactly the same as others, there are enough that will. Therefor, their concerns need to be considered. Just as people, with good intentions, are trying to be considerate of gays, they need to be considerate of non-gays. And that seems to be what some people are overlooking. And that seems to be becoming the norm in our society. E.g. Conventional christians are being told they need to be considerate of other religions, but those religions don't see to be required to be considerate of christians. Whites are expected to be considerate of non-whites, but non-whites aren't being expected to be considerate of whites. Political correctness has become such a downfall of our country's societal moral and value system, that we're heading to the other extreme.
 
luigi, I think you are trying to view this in a euphoric manner. In a situation where you have a roommate, at the gym, in the shower, etc... and you are around like minded heterosexuals, the average person doesn't have a problem. Because there doesn't appear to be any attraction, gawking, looking, etc... by the others around you. They are simply not interested. However, knowing that the person next to you in that shower or in the room when you're undressing, might have some interest, does have an affect on a person's modesty. It is EXACTLY 100% the same as if a woman was to undress in front of a man. I don't care how ugly or unattractive the woman may appear to the man, if she's standing there naked, the heterosexual man can't help but stare, gawk, or whatever. That "possibility" is enough to make the woman feel uncomfortable. And rightfully so. Same with a man or a woman in the same position with a gay roommate.

This has nothing to do with that gay will act differently. They won't. Just like the heterosexual man isn't going to instantly rape a girl because she's standing naked in front of him. I don't anticipate any of that. But whenever a person is around another person who possibly or has the potential of finding them attractive, desirable, or anything similar; the one person many times will feel self conscious of their appearance. This IS how it is with men around women, women around men, and potential a hetero man around a homosexual man or a hetero woman around a homosexual woman. If the person around you, does or potentially, can have certain interests, that's enough to make people feel uncomfortable.

And acting "Professional" is silly. Doing your job and living in your dorm are 2 different things. When in the dorm, professionalism doesn't exist. Nor should it. This is your personal life. And this was exactly one of the problems I had with individuals who joined the military at a much older age than their peers. I had a mid level NCO come to me complaining about one of her airman. That he had attitude problems, sometimes back talking, complaining, etc... My response was: "Yes, he's 18 years old. That's normal. It's called growing up". She just could not understand. I told her, when the airman go back to the dorms after work, they are SUPPOSE to *****, gripe, complain, talk with their friends/dorm mates about how their boss sucks, etc... This is all part of the growing up process. But she didn't understand that, because she joined the military when she was 24 years old. She never went through the same growing experience that these young people are going through.

I bring this story up because in the dorm, you can throw out ALL military bearing and professionalism. That is THEIR house, and as long as they aren't doing anything illegal or against military regulations, they live THEIR life. Part of which is growing up. Now, back on subject. A gay soldier is not going to physically do anything because he sees his roommate naked. But if the naked roommate knows the other roommate is gay, there will be a perceived potential that the gay roommate MIGHT find some interest in their nudity. Just like just about any heterosexual guy on the planet would find interest in the nudity of a female roommate. That doesn't mean the male is going to rape or physically do anything else to the female. But it is enough for the female to feel self conscious and uncomfortable. Same with a heterosexual around a homosexual. If you can't see the similarities, then I don't know what to say.

All this in a nutshell, if I were in again today, I'd demand a private room :eek: lol
 
Back
Top