Don't Ask - Don't Tell is Repealed

[fly boy]

Because the country needs a military. Generally speaking, privileges are things that one can do without. A nation cannot do without a military. Thus it is not a privilege to serve in the military. Not in the general sense anyways.

On a personal level, I can see how it can be a privilege and be rewarding, but this isn't true (so I think) on a general level.

Either way, it's semantics and not really the purpose of this thread.

I agree that it's really not the purpose of the thread, but I believe that the "privilegeness" of military service is relevant to the discussion, and thus may be addressed without straying from the subject.
It's one thing to say that it is not a privilege to serve. It is quite another to say that it is not a privilege for a country to have a military, infering that it is thus, not a privilege for an individual to serve. I still believe that it is a privilege to serve your country in the military, though I do agree that it is not what you would call a privilege for a country to have a military.

 

[Maximus]

That's called piss poor leadership. The Marine Corps is not a democracy. The majority of his subordinates would like a lot of things...more pay, less PT, and beer at lunch. But that's not how we do business as a military. I'm glad that 60 years ago the leadership had the courage and "intestinal fortitude" not to listen to the subordinates' views on blacks.

Leadership is about doing what's right, not what's popular. You don't lead soldiers by committee.

In the "out of context" examples you cite, it could be called bad leadership; in this example, (IMO) when asked to report back on an issue that his subordinates have been extensively polled on, and a consensus was shown, it's called "intestinal fortitude".

The easy rubber stamp of approval is what Courtney Massengale would have done, we have a Sam Damon here

 

[Maximus]

What confuses me regarding the "don't ask don't tell" controversy is that the military shouldn't be a place to propagate personal life at all in the first place.

The US Military is a professional work environment. Bringing personal lifestyles and customs into this work environment allows soldiers to detract from their objectives and priorities, especially when personal matters are brought into the chain of command.

Even with "Don't ask don't tell repealed", that should not permit people to bring private matters into a military setting, just as soldiers do not wear civilian clothing when on duty.

Just my two cents.

Right, and that's exactly why Gen. Amos is putting his stellar career on the line; the possibility of people dying is paramount to a political social issue that Congress and the President don't have the political nerve or will to address [again] in public.
That's the dirty little secret here, the President and Congress are using this unique situation (the Military, not a Democracy) to push an agenda (right or wrong is not the question) on a constituency that has soundly disapproved of, in numerous polls.

BTW, go read the actual poll the military took, it's slanted to say the least.

Again in my opinion, let Congress properly address the gay rights issue, not the military while fighting a war. And no we are not always in a war, for example, back when DADT was passed, Clinton took the easy road allowing this bigoted and homophobic policy to pass during peacetime.

 

[Mongo]

What confuses me regarding the "don't ask don't tell" controversy is that the military shouldn't be a place to propagate personal life at all in the first place.

The US Military is a professional work environment. Bringing personal lifestyles and customs into this work environment allows soldiers to detract from their objectives and priorities, especially when personal matters are brought into the chain of command.

Even with "Don't ask don't tell repealed", that should not permit people to bring private matters into a military setting, just as soldiers do not wear civilian clothing when on duty.

Just my two cents.

Extrermely naive and impractical.

Family education and support is extremely important for deployed sailors, soldiers, and airmen. To ignore this vital part of the military would cause huge morale and retention issues.

When and if you ever become a leader you will realize that the well-being of the families of those under you is probably more important to your charges than the well-being of those individuals themselves.

 

[Mongo]

Again in my opinion, let Congress properly address the gay rights issue, not the military while fighting a war. And no we are not always in a war, for example, back when DADT was passed, Clinton took the easy road allowing this bigoted and homophobic policy to pass during peacetime.

Yep, nothing like causing those on the line ready to give their lives for their country also having to worry about being involuntary separated by a law that everyone agrees is arcane.

 

[Maximus]

Yep, nothing like causing those on the line ready to give their lives for their country also having to worry about being involuntary separated by a law that everyone agrees is arcane.

Let's take a flying guess how many this effects? Everyone

Again, cart...horse...political expediency

See kids, this is exactly why the CiC and his sycophants are pushing this issue, this way; how do you argue with such rhetoric lol

 

[Maximus]

Extrermely naive and impractical.

Family education and support is extremely important for deployed sailors, soldiers, and airmen. To ignore this vital part of the military would cause huge morale and retention issues.

When and if you ever become a leader you will realize that the well-being of the families of those under you is probably more important to your charges than the well-being of those individuals themselves.

Lol, since this was directed...er I mean, let me help out with the answer....Clinton's law was not planned to punish, it was planed to halt questioning military members on their personal preference, it fell short of that expectation, but that's because Clinton was a "moisten the finger and see which way the wind blows" policy maker. The issue is much more complex.

Again for the umpteenth time, "Family" is the most important part of the Military community, don't force the military family to hammer out the nasty details of this political issue, all the while fighting a shooting war. Let Obama put his reputation on the line and not people that already have life and death on their plates.

I think it's pathetic that Obama now sits in Hawaii (vacationing again....) after a quick victory signing ceremony in Washington this week, while Marines in Afghanistan (all military), will have another totally "unrelated to battle" bureaucratic training lesson on their hands, and, be test subjects for an issue he (Obama) can't ram through Congress IE: Gay Marriage.
If you haven't been in the military, imagine a guy that will argue/discuss/indoctrinate to the finest irrelevant point, and even though all the while, the subordinates got it a long time ago, to have to waste time on this unproductive PC garbage when they should be either relaxing while off duty, have training for real duty or worse yet, missing important duty.

For young folks out there, this is not as it's portrayed; sympathy for a very small vocal minority (suffereing...sic...) in the Military. It's a political football, and this is just the next step the Admin. is taking to push this with a Lame Duck Congress. What will the "new" out members of the military do when in States that don't recognize gay unions?
Hmmmm, lets see, so, next step.... now we can't have "military heros" discriminated against and benefits denied (the crux of the issue ) Gay Marriage will just have to be made law, TS 60- 70%+ American Voters, issue circumvented a popular vote! Even if it's voted on the Military will be used as a precedent.

 

[Mongo]

Lol, since this was directed...er I mean, let me help out with the answer....Clinton's law was not planned to punish, it was planed to halt questioning military members on their personal preference, it fell short of that expectation, but that's because Clinton was a "moisten the finger and see which way the wind blows" policy maker. The issue is much more complex.

Again for the umpteenth time, "Family" is the most important part of the Military community, don't force the military family to hammer out the nasty details of this political issue, all the while fighting a shooting war. Let Obama put his reputation on the line and not people that already have life and death on their plates.

I think it's pathetic that Obama now sits in Hawaii (vacationing again....) after a quick victory signing ceremony in Washington this week, while Marines in Afghanistan (all military), will have another totally "unrelated to battle" bureaucratic training lesson on their hands, and, be test subjects for an issue he (Obama) can't ram through Congress IE: Gay Marriage.
If you haven't been in the military, imagine a guy that will argue/discuss/indoctrinate to the finest irrelevant point, and even though all the while, the subordinates got it a long time ago, to have to waste time on this unproductive PC garbage when they should be either relaxing while off duty, have training for real duty or worse yet, missing important duty.

For young folks out there, this is not as it's portrayed; sympathy for a very small vocal minority (suffereing...sic...) in the Military. It's a political football, and this is just the next step the Admin. is taking to push this with a Lame Duck Congress. What will the "new" out members of the military do when in States that don't recognize gay unions?
Hmmmm, lets see, so, next step.... now we can't have "military heros" discriminated against and benefits denied (the crux of the issue ) Gay Marriage will just have to be made law, TS 60- 70%+ American Voters, issue circumvented a popular vote! Even if it's voted on the Military will be used as a precedent.

Mostly totally irrelevant red herrings. Just goes to show how far those who are really opposed to something will go to cloud the issue. My argument was that ignoring family in the military was suicidal to morale and retention and that seperating personal and military issues was totally impractical. I don't see how this was addressed in the above response.

How will it affect those in the field? Roughly 2% of military members are gay. Of those, 85% have indicated that they will not reveal themselves. That works out to an average of one gay per 333 individuals where the issue will require some amount of addressing immediately while in a combat zone. And don't forget that 70% of the remaining 332 individuals have no problem with it. Hardly a reason to make excuses to postpone it's implementation.

 

[Maximus]

Mostly totally irrelevant red herrings. Just goes to show how far those who are really opposed to something will go to cloud the issue. My argument was that ignoring family in the military was suicidal to morale and retention and that separating personal and military issues was totally impractical. I don't see how this was addressed in the above response.

How will it affect those in the field? Roughly 2% of military members are gay. Of those, 85% have indicated that they will not reveal themselves. That works out to an average of one gay per 333 individuals where the issue will require some amount of addressing immediately while in a combat zone. And don't forget that 70% of the remaining 332 individuals have no problem with it. Hardly a reason to make excuses to postpone it's implementation.

As usual you cherry pick your numbers and facts, my numbers were related to the Marine Corps specific poll, and in case you haven't noticed, their casualty rate is a tad higher than most of the other services. And, 70% of Marines did not like the repeal of DADT as reflected by the poll.

Oh and are you saying that only 1 in 330 service members will be needing orientation in this sweeping new policy? LOL It's more like 98% of Service Members will be forced into an new sexual harassment orientation training program, and millions will be spent on protecting the (lets not say rights either, it's not law till gay marriage is a right ) sexual preference of a fraction of a fraction?

So OK, lets play along...by you numbers, it's important to have 2% dictate policy on a personal sexual preference issue and potential jeopardize retention and moral of 98% of the current military? What way do you want it?

 

[Mongo]

As usual you cherry pick your numbers and facts, my numbers were related to the Marine Corps specific poll, and in case you haven't noticed, their casualty rate is a tad higher than most of the other services. And, 70% of Marines did not like the repeal of DADT as reflected by the poll.

Oh and are you saying that only 1 in 330 service members will be needing orientation in this sweeping new policy? LOL It's more like 98% of Service Members will be forced into an new sexual harassment orientation training program, and millions will be spent on protecting the (lets not say rights either, it's not law till gay marriage is a right ) sexual preference of a fraction of a fraction?

So OK, lets play along...by you numbers, it's important to have 2% dictate policy on a personal sexual preference issue and potential jeopardize retention and moral of 98% of the current military? What way do you want it?

I would say that it all works out. The less accepting a type unit is, the lesser the odds of someone coming out of the closet. Say, if only 50% of combat marines are accepting, I would say that even less than 15% would reveal themselves. Really, miniscule.

Please read my post. I was referring to issues that would require IMMEDIATE addressing while in a combat situation. Yes, down range new sexual harrasment training will be incorporated. But I was addressing your combat ready concern only.

And yes, the military is having more and more difficulty enlisting highly qualified individuals. To increase this eligible pool of enlistees, no matter how small, is a worthy endeavor. Not to mention that it is the right thing to do. I take it that not only are you aginst the repealing of DADT but also opposed to the entire concept and feel that gays do not belong in the military at all?

 

[Luigi59]

So OK, lets play along...by you numbers, it's important to have 2% dictate policy on a personal sexual preference issue and potential jeopardize retention and moral of 98% of the current military? What way do you want it?

The EPC of the 14th, as well as all civil rights legislation, was never designed to protect the rights of the majority. They don't need them.

If our "policies" ever become 3 wolves and 1 sheep voting on "what's for dinner?", we are doomed as a civilized society.

 

[SamAca10]

Gay Coastguardsman, ex-Admiral discuss repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"

Saw this article on the news and thought it'd be something good to look at.

To sum up in one of my favorite phrases "Just because you can doesn't mean you should"

The repeal of the law commonly known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) will allow gays and lesbians to serve openly for the first time in the United States Coast Guard.

In anticipation of the change two gay Coast Guardsman— a retired rear admiral and an active duty enlisted man now serving at Air Station Kodiak — discussed serving under the law and their thoughts on the repeal.

For the active duty Coast Guardsman, DADT may be going away, but he declined to volunteer his name because it is not yet clear when or how the policy will change.

The official word this morning is that the policy will remain in its current form for at least a 60-day certification period.

Besides, just because the new policy will let him come out of the closet it does not mean he plans to. He liked the “don’t ask” part of the law and plans to continue keeping his sexuality a secret at work.

But he called the repeal of DADT inevitable because he strongly disagrees with the notion that military units cannot work together if it becomes known that there are gay or lesbian members. He sees working with people who are different as part of his job.

“There’s already people at work who don’t get along, but that doesn’t affect the fact that we have to do our job,” he said. “There’s people at work who I don’t really care for, I don’t hang out with them when I’m off. But I’m not going to be rude and argue with them because that’s obviously not productive.”

There have been other signs the policy is on its way out.

In his experience, he seldom worried about being discharged, even when he had a boyfriend. He does keep his Facebook account at a high security level and is careful about personal phone calls to keep people from finding out.

He does not think anyone at Air Station Kodiak believes he is gay, but there are others who people generally assumed are gay who are sometimes teased about it. He has served in the Coast Guard for more than five years and does not know anyone who has been discharged under DADT.

At a previous Coast Guard station he remembered he was once surprised to run into someone from the Coast Guard while off duty at a gay bar. Neither one ever said anything about it.

“In the time I’ve been in, it’s been a policy, but it’s never been something you hear about much,” he said. “Maybe it is in the other branches.”

According to the Coast Guard public affairs office, 228 Coast Guardsmen were discharged under DADT from 1996 to 2010, although this figure does not include one year. The Coast Guard now has approximately 42,000 active duty members. The number of discharges for the entire military since the law went into effect is more than 15,300, according to the Associated Press.

But the status of DADT has been discussed more frequently in recent months because of the national political debate taking place on the subject, the Coast Guardsman said.

Some 54 percent of active duty Coast Guard service members nationwide and 39 percent of spouses recently participated in the comprehensive survey on the subject conducted by the Department of Defense.

Some 72 percent of Coast Guard respondents said they have already served with coworkers who they believe to be gay.

Among the services, respondents in the Navy were most likely to say they had previously served alongside gays or lesbians and were also more likely to say the presence of homosexuals would not affect their unit cohesion or combat readiness. The Marine Corps and combat units in general were more likely to say that serving alongside gays or lesbians had negative effects.

Although the survey results confirm a reputation the Coast Guard already had for being more liberal about homosexuals among the military services, the Coast Guardsman interviewed for this story said Air Station Kodiak tends to be a little different because it’s male-dominated and more macho than other stations he has served at.

Following national trends he said the younger generations tend to be more accepting of the idea of gays and lesbians in the Coast Guard. Opposition is likely strongest among senior enlisted personnel within a few years of retirement, he said. He’s heard a few jokes about the Coast Guard setting up its own “rainbow cutter” or a separate air station for gay and lesbian Coast Guardsmen.

The issue of privacy in the close quarters of a Navy ship or a Coast Guard cutter came up in the Department of Defense’s review of DADT. The report makes a strong recommendation to not segregate bunks or showers based on sexuality. It suggests that local commanders address any concerns about privacy case-by-case.

At the top

Retired Rear Adm. Alan Steinman entered the military in the 1970s well before DADT came on the scene in 1993. In that era the military asked new recruits if they were homosexual and actively worked to find and expel gays and lesbians.

Because he entered through the Public Health Service, Steinman did not have to directly lie about being gay. But he remembers he had to lie in other ways, like going on sham dates.

“As a single man they were always trying to fix you up,” he said. “Particularly as an eligible young doctor.”

Steinman served briefly as a flight surgeon in Kodiak in 1987. He went on to become the director of health and safety at Coast Guard headquarters, a flag officer position.

He retired from the Coast Guard in 1997 and publicly came out of the closet in 2003 on the 10th anniversary of DADT. He became a prominent advocate for overturning the law. As a former three-star officer, he is the highest-ranking former member of the U.S. military who is openly gay.

Steinman is now a cold water medicine consultant and lecturer in Washington state and serves on the board of the Service Members Legal Defense Network, an organization that advocates for people who have been affected by DADT.

He said he was encouraged by the results of last month’s Department of Defense study of gays and lesbians in the military, because he said it showed that service branches most exposed to gay and lesbian soldiers were least likely to object to allowing them to serve openly. He did not see the lower acceptance of gays and lesbians in the Marine Corps as a serious problem.

“The Marine Corps are a special case because the Marine Corps leadership has let it be known that they don’t want gays in the military,” he said. “They let their dislike of gay people be known publicly and the junior Marines pick up on that. When you’re a marine you follow orders, you follow your leaders.”

Coast Guard commandant Adm. Robert Papp testified to the Senate Committee on Armed Services alongside the other service chiefs earlier this month. He said implementing a repeal of DADT would be challenging, but within the abilities of the Coast Guard.

http://www.kodiakdailymirror.com/?pid=19&id=9421

 

[TheKnight]

I agree that it's really not the purpose of the thread, but I believe that the "privilegeness" of military service is relevant to the discussion, and thus may be addressed without straying from the subject.
It's one thing to say that it is not a privilege to serve. It is quite another to say that it is not a privilege for a country to have a military, infering that it is thus, not a privilege for an individual to serve. I still believe that it is a privilege to serve your country in the military, though I do agree that it is not what you would call a privilege for a country to have a military.

Eh, like I said semantics. I think that because it isn't a privilege for a country to have a military, then serving in the military isn't a privilege. You don't "get to" serve in the military as a privilege. You do it because there is a call for those willing to fight and die for their country and you answer that call.

Again for the umpteenth time, "Family" is the most important part of the Military community, don't force the military family to hammer out the nasty details of this political issue, all the while fighting a shooting war. Let Obama put his reputation on the line and not people that already have life and death on their plates.

How would it be a battle to implement repeal?

Personally, I don't see DADT as being any different than any other issue. Higher has an agenda (it happens, higher is determined by politics) and sends down what it wants done and how it wants it done. Those below higher follow suit and do so seamlessly.

To say that people will die, or be more vulnerable because of it is to insult the ability of our military to adapt to changing situations. I would question the ability of any marine or soldier to adapt to changing combat situations if they couldn't adapt to there being gay personnel in their units.

When there are bullets flying and quick decisions need to be made, I doubt any competent American would stop and think "Oh no, that gay guy is somewhere around here. I just can't focus on the fight" and then get shot and killed.

So OK, lets play along...by you numbers, it's important to have 2% dictate policy on a personal sexual preference issue and potential jeopardize retention and moral of 98% of the current military? What way do you want it?

Do you honestly think that people will leave the military or lose moral on an issue that is so small and insignificant?

And even if some would, are they the sort of people you would trust to fight anyways?

If I got to my first unit as a PL and we were in a combat situation and I had soldiers that couldn't fight as well because there was a gay guy or someone of a different religion or for any other reason than serious physical/psychological injury I would be beside myself.

To say that repeal would jeopardize the military in terms of moral and retention is to say that we have people with child-like mindsets serving who wouldn't be able to do so unless their candyland perspective on reality was maintained. As a straight person who intends to go into combat someday, I find it absolutely ridiculous that people actually believe this about those who fight for our nation.

 

[Maximus]

I would say that it all works out. The less accepting a type unit is, the lesser the odds of someone coming out of the closet. Say, if only 50% of combat marines are accepting, I would say that even less than 15% would reveal themselves. Really, miniscule.

Please read my post. I was referring to issues that would require IMMEDIATE addressing while in a combat situation. Yes, down range new sexual harassment training will be incorporated. But I was addressing your combat ready concern only.

You know I read it and that's what you wrote, unfortunately I can't "hear inflection" over the INTERNET and took what you wrote as your meaning.

And yes, the military is having more and more difficulty enlisting highly qualified individuals. To increase this eligible pool of enlistees, no matter how small, is a worthy endeavor. Not to mention that it is the right thing to do. I take it that not only are you against the repealing of DADT but also opposed to the entire concept and feel that gays do not belong in the military at all?

Let me preface this with: I'm keenly aware of some of the problems gays have; my youngest brother was (unfortunately now deceased) Gay, my favorite Uncle is gay and I actually have a couple of gay friends and associates, so, I base some of what I say on their input. And trust me, we talk(ed) about everything imaginable in regards to gay issues. My Uncle sat proudly next to us at the last Army game we attended [with his 35 year plus life mate] at West Point, and their opinions is: don't repeal DADT. I'm sure you don't believe that as well as disagree with it but, their opinion is not from a politically motivated activist stance, it's from a fiscally conservative business persons perspective. They actually are very active in their community and I wish I could share some of their thoughts on Barney Frank here lol

I believe the gay issue needs to be hammered out in the public forum and not forced on the Military Community; this is not the race issue of the '60's when you were growing up and thriving. Racial integration of the Military was definitely long overdue. I also believe that homosexuals should (and do) serve proudly, with that, I also believe that if they are openly gay and want to be openly gay, they should be housed in separate bath/housing facilities, just like the separation of males and females. Oh and not because I'm bigoted, because I believe heterosexuals have rights also. I truly don't care about other peoples lifestyles, homosexuals marrying is not even an issue to me, I couldn't care less! Let them Marry! The only reason I speak up about issues here like this is because; it's always pigeonholed into a racist/bigot/sexist card, and the real issues are clouded with the popular PC whipping horse usually ending up punished with loss of Constitutional rights.

 

[Maximus]

Eh, like I said semantics. I think that because it isn't a privilege for a country to have a military, then serving in the military isn't a privilege. You don't "get to" serve in the military as a privilege. You do it because there is a call for those willing to fight and die for their country and you answer that call.



How would it be a battle to implement repeal?

Personally, I don't see DADT as being any different than any other issue. Higher has an agenda (it happens, higher is determined by politics) and sends down what it wants done and how it wants it done. Those below higher follow suit and do so seamlessly.

To say that people will die, or be more vulnerable because of it is to insult the ability of our military to adapt to changing situations. I would question the ability of any marine or soldier to adapt to changing combat situations if they couldn't adapt to there being gay personnel in their units.

When there are bullets flying and quick decisions need to be made, I doubt any competent American would stop and think "Oh no, that gay guy is somewhere around here. I just can't focus on the fight" and then get shot and killed.



Do you honestly think that people will leave the military or lose moral on an issue that is so small and insignificant?

And even if some would, are they the sort of people you would trust to fight anyways?

If I got to my first unit as a PL and we were in a combat situation and I had soldiers that couldn't fight as well because there was a gay guy or someone of a different religion or for any other reason than serious physical/psychological injury I would be beside myself.

To say that repeal would jeopardize the military in terms of moral and retention is to say that we have people with child-like mindsets serving who wouldn't be able to do so unless their candyland perspective on reality was maintained. As a straight person who intends to go into combat someday, I find it absolutely ridiculous that people actually believe this about those who fight for our nation.

You're taking what I wrote totally out of context and I'm a former enlisted Marine; I have an idea what I'm talking about with the unit cohesion in Wartime.

Have a wonderful Christmas TheKnight.

 

[temp]

For those that worry about the "radical homosexual agenda," why do you (general term) care if gays can serve openly, marry, or be protected from workplace discrimination like any other minority? It doesn't affect your rights or institutions. I've always felt that if, for example, the institution of marriage is so threatened by two men or women being happily married, then it must not be a very strong institution. In other words, why not skip all the debate, slap homosexuality alongside race, gender, disability, etc. in anti-discrimination laws, then move on with life since for anyone who is not gay, they won't be impacted, and for anyone who is, they will have a better quality of life. What is wrong with that?

For Maximus, you argue about the rights of heterosexual members. They have a choice not to shower with homosexuals if that really bothers them. Right now, they already are! What is the difference if the person is known or not? The same thing happens in gyms, colleges, and other public facilities across the country and world. Why hasn't the military caught up there? The next argument would be that homosexuals can't be in a shower/bath facility together cause they'd have a giant orgy! They must have private, single person facilities because it's unfair to the heterosexuals that they don't have the opportunity to fondle....this is why leadership has made clear that separate shower and living facilities are not going to happen and if someone really does have issue, then the commander can adjust living conditions if truly necessary. Mechanisms are there to protect the actual bigots if they are bothered by an openly gay member in their unit.

 

[Maximus]

For those that worry about the "radical homosexual agenda," why do you (general term) care if gays can serve openly, marry, or be protected from workplace discrimination like any other minority? It doesn't affect your rights or institutions. I've always felt that if, for example, the institution of marriage is so threatened by two men or women being happily married, then it must not be a very strong institution. In other words, why not skip all the debate, slap homosexuality alongside race, gender, disability, etc. in anti-discrimination laws, then move on with life since for anyone who is not gay, they won't be impacted, and for anyone who is, they will have a better quality of life. What is wrong with that?

For Maximus, you argue about the rights of heterosexual members. They have a choice not to shower with homosexuals if that really bothers them. Right now, they already are! What is the difference if the person is known or not? The same thing happens in gyms, colleges, and other public facilities across the country and world. Why hasn't the military caught up there? The next argument would be that homosexuals can't be in a shower/bath facility together cause they'd have a giant orgy! They must have private, single person facilities because it's unfair to the heterosexuals that they don't have the opportunity to fondle....this is why leadership has made clear that separate shower and living facilities are not going to happen and if someone really does have issue, then the commander can adjust living conditions if truly necessary. Mechanisms are there to protect the actual bigots if they are bothered by an openly gay member in their unit.

Temp I don't care if gays marry as I stated in the above post, I also have zero problems with public displays of affection for that matter. I gave my concerns and I'll expand further, how about the whole person concept score at a service academy? You just called homosexuals "Minorities" do they rate special benefits or privileges?

When DS was applying to the local state universities for ROTC scholarships, the schools (not all but more that half) had a box to cross off if you were a homosexual or trans-gender person, that bothered me because I knew it was a positive tic on the application.

As to your question about why it's important to have separate bathing facilities if "you out yourself"; it's because some people are very squeamish about modesty, this is one more level of modesty pealed back, showering with a person that might be looking at you sexually, whether or not they have an orgy I always laugh when that example is tossed out like we're all Neanderthals and can't control ourselves or hide our pent up hidden proclivity toward homosexuality lol.
If you don't understand that, then why separate the men from women? Would your wife or girlfriend mind you showering with someone of the opposite sex or vice versa? I have no problems in that area, I'll shower with anyone, especially if they want my body

 

[temp]

Temp I don't care if gays marry as I stated in the above post, I also have zero problems with public displays of affection for that matter. I gave my concerns and I'll expand further, how about the whole person concept score at a service academy? You just called homosexuals "Minorities" do they rate special benefits or privileges?

When DS was applying to the local state universities for ROTC scholarships, the schools (not all but more that half) had a box to cross off if you were a homosexual or trans-gender person, that bothered me because I knew it was a positive tic on the application.

As to your question about why it's important to have separate bathing facilities if "you out yourself"; it's because some people are very squeamish about modesty, this is one more level of modesty pealed back, showering with a person that might be looking at you sexually, whether or not they have an orgy I always laugh when that example is tossed out like we're all Neanderthals and can't control ourselves or hide our pent up hidden proclivity toward homosexuality lol.
If you don't understand that, then why separate the men from women? Would your wife or girlfriend mind you showering with someone of the opposite sex or vice versa? I have no problems in that area, I'll shower with anyone, especially if they want my body

lol I did get a good laugh out of that. The first paragraph is fine, my first paragraph was a general statement and not aimed at you. We're on the same page.

I am 100% fine. If someone is squeamish for the particular reason of sexuality, so be it. I'm always curious why it mattered so much when forward deployed, who watches baby wipe showers anyways? LMAO. My only lingering point is with the military used as a social agenda. Gays showering in public already occurs in gyms, colleges, etc. across the country. In this instance, the military is now on par with the public.

 

[fly boy]

Eh, like I said semantics. I think that because it isn't a privilege for a country to have a military, then serving in the military isn't a privilege. You don't "get to" serve in the military as a privilege. You do it because there is a call for those willing to fight and die for their country and you answer that call.

Label it what you will, it does not change the fact that it is an integral part of the subject. You can't just sweep it and hope it goes away. The subject of whether it is or is not a privilege to serve is not semantics. I agree that one ought to serve because there is a need. However, I still believe that for those who have served, they would consider it a privilege to be of service to their country in that way.

 

[fly boy]

To say that people will die, or be more vulnerable because of it is to insult the ability of our military to adapt to changing situations. I would question the ability of any marine or soldier to adapt to changing combat situations if they couldn't adapt to there being gay personnel in their units.

When there are bullets flying and quick decisions need to be made, I doubt any competent American would stop and think "Oh no, that gay guy is somewhere around here. I just can't focus on the fight" and then get shot and killed.

How would that be insulting? So should we make our units more vulnerable in order to praise the ability of our military to adapt to changing situations? Forgive my royal butchering of the English language, but is it insulting to say that people will die, or be more vulnerable because we equip them, say with squirt guns. Is saying that insulting to their ability to adapt? "Oh, they can adapt," we say. So we are then justified to break down the chain of command, break up unit unity, etc. just because to refuse to do so would be "insulting to their ability to adapt?"