DADT repeal vote

[sook]

I agree, I do not believe the study was to decide and outcome, rather to inform implementation. As many of our rights have changed, so this falls in place. Non-landowners, women, blacks, etc. should all receive equal rights in our society and the should include the military. Most likely that back in the day, a white soldier having to share a bunk or bunker with a black soldier was a bit uncomfortable. So, comparisons to dorm room, shared living quarters, standing naked, and showers are similar. IMHO, most will roll with this and some will remain uncomfortable.

 

[Maximus]

I agree, I do not believe the study was to decide and outcome, rather to inform implementation. As many of our rights have changed, so this falls in place. Non-landowners, women, blacks, etc. should all receive equal rights in our society and the should include the military. Most likely that back in the day, a white soldier having to share a bunk or bunker with a black soldier was a bit uncomfortable. So, comparisons to dorm room, shared living quarters, standing naked, and showers are similar. IMHO, most will roll with this and some will remain uncomfortable.

Yikes! Landowners....How old are you?

 

[Maximus]

Just a question to the many here that are way smarter than I: will the military relax their stance on heterosexuals in a service academy having dependants while in the academy, after they allow homosexuals to openly serve? Because...they have had to live in the shadows for years dammit, especially since we're doing things totally Democratically?

As we know, because we all read the thread here talking about how females handle pregnancy now in the academies...head to Highland Falls Planned Parenthood and have an abortion or go home on leave till they're not "with child"...will that change or will only one class of Cadet have to adhere to the tradition standards?

TYIA

 

[Christcorp]

I agree, I do not believe the study was to decide and outcome, rather to inform implementation. As many of our rights have changed, so this falls in place. Non-landowners, women, blacks, etc. should all receive equal rights in our society and the should include the military. Most likely that back in the day, a white soldier having to share a bunk or bunker with a black soldier was a bit uncomfortable. So, comparisons to dorm room, shared living quarters, standing naked, and showers are similar. IMHO, most will roll with this and some will remain uncomfortable.

Fine, then I want to see Co-ed Dorm rooms. If a person has to get over being uncomfortable, then make the dorm rooms co-ed and tell the female that she has to get over it. Same with co-ed showers. There's a difference between race and sexual attraction. If you can't see that, I guess it's time for me to move onto a new topic. I'm not asking anyone to agree with my position, but there's some really bad comparisons being made. There's a big difference between a woman working along side you, or serving and living with someone of a different race, and sexual preference.

 

[sook]

I understand we will disagree. No problem with that. Perhaps, as I mentioned, some will remain uncomfortable. It is happening now, however, the gay person cannot let on that he or she is gay. With the change, bunk mates may freely let each other know what their sexual orientation is. Fraternization will and does occur between heterosexuals and homosexuals in dorms,etc. in spite of separate living quarters. Also, there art still those that remain uncomfortable with women, blacks, being in the military (and maybe some old school landowners too!).

 

[sook]

"As we know, because we all read the thread here talking about how females handle pregnancy now in the academies...head to Highland Falls Planned Parenthood and have an abortion or go home on leave till they're not "with child"...will that change or will only one class of Cadet have to adhere to the tradition standards? "

It takes two to tango!

 

[Mongo]

Each fall, countless hundreds of thousands of young men and women go off to college and move in with the roommate to whom they have been assigned. It has been awhile since I have helped fill out an application but I can almost assure you that there are not boxes to check for the half dozen or so ‘types’ which CC envisions. However, they seem to survive.

I would also think that knowing one’s roommate is homosexual and dealing with it is probably better than the current uncertainty of suspicion but the inability to prove one way or the other.

So what if the berthing PO has to work a little harder and reassign those who truly feel uncomfortable. How many soldiers and airmen share rooms anymore anyway? Or is the true issue the jealousy of two people of the same sex being able to get it on while those of the opposite sex must jump through the untold hurdles in place just for the purpose of preventing such couplings.

I would also suspect that a homosexual knows much better than us old fogeys anyway the discrimination, or lack thereof, that he is likely to face with those his age with which he will be rooming and if it makes him uncomfortable or feels that it will make others uncomfortable, unless he is attempting to make a statement, might even forego the military.

I agree with Adm Mullen when asked why it is not brought up in the question and answer period of half of his base visits. It is not a big deal.

Fine, then I want to see Co-ed Dorm rooms.

I know you do not approve of repealing the DADT policy and I suspect you would be opposed to coed dorms. Is the above recommendation an example of where you think two wrongs do indeed make a right.

 

[Christcorp]

Each fall, countless hundreds of thousands of young men and women go off to college and move in with the roommate to whom they have been assigned.......... However, they seem to survive.
Yea, and they are pretty much able to change roommates any time they want. They are "Paying" for the room. They are also free to go get an apartment off campus. Somehow I think you're trying to compare apples with steak.

So what if the berthing PO has to work a little harder and reassign those who truly feel uncomfortable.....
That is actually what needs to happen. Those in charge of assigning housing for singles or unaccompanied individuals, whether on land or sea, need to be considerate of these issues.

How many soldiers and airmen share rooms anymore anyway?.......
A lot more than you think. ALL of basic training. The vast majority of all further technical training after basic. As well as the majority of lowest ranking single soldiers on a post or base. And this isn't even taking in consideration those aboard ships/subs.

I would also suspect that a homosexual knows much better than us old fogeys anyway the discrimination, or lack thereof, that he is likely to face with those his age with which he will be rooming and if it makes him uncomfortable or feels that it will make others uncomfortable, unless he is attempting to make a statement, might even forego the military......
Discrimination is a totally DIFFERENT topic all together. Actually, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we're talking about.

I know you do not approve of repealing the DADT policy and I suspect you would be opposed to coed dorms.....
Obviously, you don't know anything about me. Even if you don't know who I am, if you had read my previous posts in this thread alone, you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement.

Is the above recommendation an example of where you think two wrongs do indeed make a right.......
On the contrary. It's an example given to show that some people aren't looking at the issue logically or realistically, but rather with a "Can't we all just get along" attitude. Which will not work. Living conditions are REAL issues. They aren't imaginary. They aren't something you ORDER the soldiers/sailors/airman to "Get Over".

Personally, I don't think the overwhelming majority of soldiers/sailors/airmen really care if they are working along side someone who is gay. I don't think it bothers most people. I retired in 1999, and I knew someone stationed with me who was gay. I knew if for quite a few years. And while we didn't have the "Don't ask don't Tell", had he been found out, he would have been immediately discharged. But, he was a friend, and I didn't say anything. And I'm OK with that. He separated after 6 years. I retired after 21. He still lives nearby and we try and get together whenever possible. And I think most in the military would have no issues with this. But living conditions are different. If you can't recognize that working, hanging out with, getting drunk with, etc... is different than bunking with, getting undressed in front of, or taking a shower in front of; then this discussion has become a complete waste of my time.

So, you can have the last word, or as many as you want. I won't be responding to this thread any further. Life is too short.

 

[Pima]

Why is it that people have an issue with accepting logistics as an answer. I have yet to hear one person say, if they logistically figure out berthing, and benefits prior to repealing DADT that they would be opposed to the repeal.

Many of the posters are not against the repeal, they just want to make sure that this is not a repeat of 93 DADT, where, it appeared to the service members that they did not think it through all the way.

Honestly, this is no sweat off my back, our DS won't be AD for 2 more yrs and by that time the kinks should be worked through (hopefully), but it will play a huge impact on the current military as soon as it is rolled out.

I am sure the obvious questions will be addressed by the heirarchy, but it is how they answer them that will place the final outcome on the acceptance by the troops.

If they recognize homosexuals, but not partners as they do in the Fed., this will create a lawsuit. If they accept HOR recognize civil unions, than those from states that do not have civil unions will sue. The only way I can see is to accept all civil unions regardless of the state recognition, which then puts them in a quandry for heterosexuals who live together not married and receive no bennies...hmmm can we say lawsuit?

If they force a homosexual to room with a heterosexual, there may be problems. Let's realize and admit, that some people believe from their religious upbringings that this is a mortal sin. They do not accept that this is not a nurture issue, but a nature issue. They believe it is a choice. They will vehemently defend their position and that is not good for moral cohesion. 18 yo brains have been proven through scans that the emotional side is not fully formed yet. Take a conservative 18 yo who believes they have never met a homosexual and room them with a homosexual, you may be asing for problems. Are they now to do questionnaires like colleges, asking preferences before making their dorming decision? Maybe they do already, I don't know?

As Mike said to them it would be equivalent to co-ed dorming. Right or wrong in their way of thinking, that is how they will feel.

Without a doubt DADT will be repealed, it should be repealed, but with the levity of the situation this should be one time where we spend every dime and make sure we do it slowly with purpose to integrate in the least disruptive way.

Think of it like this: Dad comes home and says I met a wonderful woman, we are getting married, and OBTW she has 3 kids and they are all moving in TOMORROW. You know there will be disruption, compared to if Dad slowly introduced her and included the kids with the idea that they were moving in, allowing the children to be a part of the decision making process before the implementation.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

I have yet to hear one person say, if they logistically figure out berthing, and benefits prior to repealing DADT that they would be opposed to the repeal.

Because figuring out berthing etc is all subjective. Those who say they are for it as long as these issues are "figured" know deep down in their heart they will never "figure" these issues out satisfactorily, for them.
This way they can continue to speak with forked tongue - claiming they are not against the repeal of DADT since the caveat will never be met. Read Christcorps.


RE: Coed college living arrangements - Many colleges require freshmen to live on campus unless they live with their parents. Many colleges also don't readily allow roommate transfers. There are gay college students who room with straight college students.

Basic training is the time to weed out those who are unfit for military service. Military service is not a right. If you have a problem with serving in close quarters with Blacks, Asians, Females, Gay etc...... then perhaps you are not fit for military service.
A few men show up for Basic training who have a problem with females. They learn they must either conform or get out.

If don't know about the other service academies but in Beast at West Point some time is spent in the field. There might only be one female in the squad but she is expected to be out there with the males - all day and all night. While females and males do not share a room, the living arrangements are indeed close. Unlocked doors, walking down the hall in a bathrobe to shower - all of this was of great concern 35 years ago - not so much today. Folks adjust. Those who WANT to adjust will adjust. Those who don't want to adjust can rethink their desire to be in the military.

 

[Pima]

This way they can continue to speak with forked tongue - claiming they are not against the repeal of DADT since the caveat will never be met.

I think the caveat can and will be met. I have that faith.

Now let's say that CC felt this way (NOT SAYING HE DOES!)...so in your opinion, too bad, so sad, don't like it get out is your answer? Their personal feelings should be thrown aside?

How does help create moral cohesion? How does that not create animosity? How does that not stoke the fires? You can't say, screw you military, I quit and leave the next day. You have to fulfill your commitment, which could be months or yrs, all along the time you beaach, moan and groan creating tension within the unit.

That is the logistics some of us are talking about. That is the minutia that some of us fear by Ram rodding this through.

You can say, great have the homophobes leave, it will be a better service, but without the completion of the study we don't know how many homophobes are out there. We don't know how the AD military member wants the implementation to occur for moral cohesion. We know squat from them and thus, we will not be able to predict the fall out from any decision made by the hierarchy.

I do agree that people adjust. I actually think the military probably adjusts faster than society, since it is this is it, deal with it situation. However, to ignore the fact that even you said they do not share quarters. Mike had a valid point. Why not? Why are women now going on subs not sharing quarters with men? What's the reason for not allowing it? Could it be a woman may not feel comfortable sharing quarters with a man, from a sexual standpoint? If so, why can you not accept that a heterosexual man could feel just as uncomfortable?

I don't believe every man wants to have sex with every woman, do you? Just as I don't believe every homosexual wants to flip a heterosexual! Thus, my point is still valid...why not berth women with men? If you believe that sex is not an issue than we should have co-ed dorming. If you believe that some people do not have that open mindness to co-habitation, than you can understand why sex plays a large issue in the situation.

It is still interesting how people only pick up on the berthing more than they pick up on the bennies. Yes, they have been touched upon, but nobody has addressed if the military will follow the Fed in benefits or not, and some bennies are not Fed employee bennies. Remember, BAH is not taxable, thus it goes on your Fed Income Tax return...how do you do that if the Fed does not recognize your marriage? COLA is determined by dependents, this could be under the Fed program. Lot's of gray here.

 

[Zaphod]

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. 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.

Stop making sense before they call you a bigot.

 

[SamAca10]

Basic training is the time to weed out those who are unfit for military service. Military service is not a right. If you have a problem with serving in close quarters with Blacks, Asians, Females, Gay etc...... then perhaps you are not fit for military service.

Excuse me, but this probably one of the more disturbing posts I've read on here, not to mention one of the most intolerant. You are basically saying "All people in the military must accept and approve of homosexuality or being in the proximity of a homosexual in close quarters or else they should be kicked out." That doesn't sound very American to me. While I would have no problem working with/around a homosexual, I don't think I would really want to live (dressing in front of, taking a shower in front of, etc.) a homosexual. Of course, you'll most likely argue that not every homosexual looks at every person. It isn't about that. It's about trying to make all groups as comfortable as possible; violating the privacy of heterosexuals doesn't seem quite right.

As PIMA said, this is a logistics issue at most, while also being a benefit issue. The repealing of DADT would be simplified, as many have said before, if homosexual unions were recognized by the Federal Government.

You must acknowledge that Gay is different from Black, Asian, and Female integration because it is inherently an issue of sexuality, which is an entirely different ball park than that of race or gender.

 

[SamAca10]

There might only be one female in the squad but she is expected to be out there with the males - all day and all night. While females and males do not share a room, the living arrangements are indeed close.

You've hit the nail on the head. living arrangements are close, but not in the same room. People here are arguing that they should be separate for heterosexuals and homosexuals, or that things should be completely integrated.

 

[Luigi59]

Excuse me, but this probably one of the more disturbing posts I've read on here, not to mention one of the most intolerant. You are basically saying "All people in the military must accept and approve of homosexuality or being in the proximity of a homosexual in close quarters or else they should be kicked out." That doesn't sound very American to me. While I would have no problem working with/around a homosexual, I don't think I would really want to live (dressing in front of, taking a shower in front of, etc.) a homosexual. Of course, you'll most likely argue that not every homosexual looks at every person. It isn't about that. It's about trying to make all groups as comfortable as possible; violating the privacy of heterosexuals doesn't seem quite right.

As PIMA said, this is a logistics issue at most, while also being a benefit issue. The repealing of DADT would be simplified, as many have said before, if homosexual unions were recognized by the Federal Government.

You must acknowledge that Gay is different from Black, Asian, and Female integration because it is inherently an issue of sexuality, which is an entirely different ball park than that of race or gender.

What are you so afraid of?

I hope you realize that you will be living, dressing, showering, and serving right alongside gay service members whether or not DADT is repealed or not.

 

[flieger83]

What are you so afraid of?

I hope you realize that you will be living, dressing, showering, and serving right alongside gay service members whether or not DADT is repealed or not.

Precisely.

Well said.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[Maximus]

"As we know, because we all read the thread here talking about how females handle pregnancy now in the academies...head to Highland Falls Planned Parenthood and have an abortion or go home on leave till they're not "with child"...will that change or will only one class of Cadet have to adhere to the tradition standards? "

It takes two to tango!

Wasn't the point.

 

[Emsa]

Precisely.

Well said.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

Yes quite, the key issue that proponents on the living arrangments argument conveniently brush over, that the question is not whether your room mate is gay or not merely whether he tells you or not...

And related does this sentence make the slightest bit of sense to anyone???

You must acknowledge that Gay is different from Black, Asian, and Female integration because it is inherently an issue of sexuality, which is an entirely different ball park than that of race or gender.

Beyond of course the near earth shattering revelation that Gay is inherently an issue of sexuality

 

[TheKnight]

Excuse me, but this probably one of the more disturbing posts I've read on here, not to mention one of the most intolerant. You are basically saying "All people in the military must accept and approve of homosexuality or being in the proximity of a homosexual in close quarters or else they should be kicked out." That doesn't sound very American to me. While I would have no problem working with/around a homosexual, I don't think I would really want to live (dressing in front of, taking a shower in front of, etc.) a homosexual. Of course, you'll most likely argue that not every homosexual looks at every person. It isn't about that. It's about trying to make all groups as comfortable as possible; violating the privacy of heterosexuals doesn't seem quite right.

As PIMA said, this is a logistics issue at most, while also being a benefit issue. The repealing of DADT would be simplified, as many have said before, if homosexual unions were recognized by the Federal Government.

You must acknowledge that Gay is different from Black, Asian, and Female integration because it is inherently an issue of sexuality, which is an entirely different ball park than that of race or gender.

I take issue with the bolded parts of your post. While I can't say I disagree with the rest, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the rights given by our Constitution. They are not to make all groups "as comfortable as possible" in the sense that they should be able to live in a world where they can deny the existence of certain things they don't like. Rather, the purpose is to make people comfortable in that they can freely express themselves in the manner they choose.

Basically, my freedom to express myself as I choose does not ever infringe on your freedom to do the same. That's the purpose of our Constitution. No one has a freedom from seeing/hearing/knowing about someone else's expression. Regardless of how much they don't like that other person's expression.

If that were the case the religious should never be allowed to express their beliefs publicly. The argument you're putting forth is often used by those who wish to curtail religious expression, and it comes from a misunderstanding of the way rights in America work.

 

[Pima]

I think that we should all take a step back for a second. Instead of attacking, we should join together and discuss how the military should address this issue. I believe we are all in agreement that DADT should be repealed, and expect it to occur in the near future.

I believe many posters are misinterpreting other posters as being opposed to repealing the current program. I do not see this as the case. I see them, myself included, saying do it, but do it right.

Every poster knows there are homosexuals currently in the military, the majority of people who have served know at least one that left because they were gay....and believe it or not, it was not a shocker that they came out after separating.

This is not an issue of do you believe that gays are not serving, this is an issue of how to logistically give them every right and benefits that heterosexuals receive, when our govt refuses to acknowledge homosexual unions.

Emsa, you keep telling me I am hanging onto the Titanic. Tell me, have you ever lived in the military life? Do you understand how BAH, COLA, PCS, and TLF pay is calculated? Do you realize that the military pays for dependents to move? Do you understand that anything with the word "allowance" in it is not taxable? You may say this is a red herring, but it isn't. The military needs to address these issues before they repeal, otherwise, day 1, there will be a lawsuit fighting for those allowances. Don't believe me, tell me how many lawsuits were created over DADT and rights?

We need to acknowledge that how the military chooses to go forward, depending on our govt, we may be forcing them to do it with one hand tied behind their back. Shouldn't we demand the govt to untie the hand?