Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Heard on the news today that President Obama intends to scrap the US Military rule (law?) of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.

I'll assume everyone knows what this involves, so I'll skip that bit.

So, how do you feel about this? Me, I'm a definite advocate of equal rights for homosexuals. I don't buy into the Religious view that it's wrong or unnatural. You fancy who you fancy, and there is precious little anyone can do about it. Nor do I feel it should be a source of shame.

HOWEVER......I am also very much against the Homosexual Community using it as an identity, or something that defines them for the very reason I believe in the equal rights. I have never met a straight person who felt the need to tell everyone, but I have met homosexuals (mainly male) who seemed to be itching to tell me. So to a degree, I found 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' to be a perfectly sensible policy, though the practice of discharging a Soldier just because he's 'out' is to me inexcusable.

So where does scrapping the rule (law?) take us? Fundamentally, I like to think it won't change anything. For the same reason I wouldn't go into a 'Black' club, I don't see gay and lesbian service people making things known. The military (from what I've been told, including on Dakka) can be a pretty homophobic environment.

So the sentiment behind Obama's thinking (nobody should be forced to live a lie) I totally get, but I do worry that we'll see all sorts of shenanigans and pressure from Gay Lobby groups advocating Servicepeople outing themselves.

I also don't get why gay and lesbian people feel the need to 'come out'. I mean, I've been known to do a little switch hitting now and then, but never really felt the need to identify myself to anyone with regards to my preference of sexual partner.

How do you feel about this? A good thing, bad thing, neutral thing, political showboating?

I pretty much agree with you on it.

I suppose abolishing the policy is a good thing over all, but it doesn't seem like it should be that huge of a deal either way.

All I can say is that you can get rid of the policy, but all the unwritten policies are still going to stay in.

All Obama has to do is get Congress to change the UCMJ. That shouldn't be to hard. As CiC he has the power to do many things regarding the military; changing the Uniform Code needs an act of Congress though. If I recall correctly.

As far as what do I think? I think changing the culture of the military is difficult and that you can't legislate away prejudice. It might shake it up for a little while but eventually the military will get over it and move on. Most of the arguments against homosexuals serving are the same against blacks and that worked out fine.

Well exactly. However, I think this move goes some way to encouraging a more liberal view of a persons sexual predelictions.

As such, I think you can legisilate away prejudice, to a degree. All the time 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' is in operation, it's arguably endorsing negative stereotypes. Take it away, and you 'demistify' the thing suffering the prejudice. Equally of course, it will take play from both sides. After all, you cannot claim any sort of equality when one side, however much non-prejudice is advocated, keeps on playing it's card, you have an inequality.

I think that makes sense....well, it does to me, but I might have fudged it a little.

Ahtman wrote: Most of the arguments against homosexuals serving are the same against blacks and that worked out fine.

.....

Right, cause everyone in a combat unit is worried about catching Mr. T eyeballing your junk while takeing a shower.

Don't ask don't tell helps stop snooping.
It gives the ability for someone of indeterminate rank to ask in reply:
"Are you asking, Sir?"
Which is a nice option for someone of lower rank.

Higher ranks are just getting over the fact that people with a vagina can kill people just as well as people without.
I doubt they are ready to openly accept queers into their ranks.

Being out is gives support to the members of the queer community that are not out.
I'm not talking about -In the media- human fiasco out.
I'm talking about feeling safe talking about your boyfriend/girlfriend to an acquaintance in a public place without punitive social action.

When people stop feeling uncomfortable about 'out' people is when people won't need to come 'out'.
Basically, when the majority of the population can understand why it was necessary to come out, then people won't need to (come out).

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:As such, I think you can legislate away prejudice, to a degree.

I don't think you can legislate the prejudice of an individual, but you can legislate prejudice out of government policy.

If that policy is lending credence to the prejudices of individuals, then I suppose you're - if not legislating their prejudice away - legislating away something that adds to their prejudice. Really, people should be able to think what they want, but a government that represents everyone, takes money from everyone, etc, should need a good reason to be splitting those people up.

jp400 wrote:All I can say is that you can get rid of the policy, but all the unwritten policies are still going to stay in.

Yes, like the ones about sexually assaulting servicewomen. Remember Tailhook?

Homophobic and misogynistic members of the armed forces are not immune to the law. They can expect to be prosecuted if caught gay-bashing.

On other aspects of the topic, religious strictures about sexuality are completely irrelevant to the armed forces of a republic with a strict separation between state and religion. Anyone who thinks differently should consider emigrating to Iran.

The reason why some gay people feel a need to affirm their identity is because it is different to heterosexuals' identities. The reason why heterosexuals do not feel the same need to affirm their identities is because it is the default setting and needs no affirmation.

A soldier who would prefer to be in a foxhole next to a hetero pantywaist rather than a homo Sgt Audie Murphy ought to get their head examined.

To be fair, Women in the Military is a slightly different Kettle of Fish, as they are liable to different treatment should they be taken Prisoner....

And with regard to the coming out thing, I think it's a 50/50 deal. All the time people come out, they are identifying themselves as notably different, which creates the prejudice, as at it's heart prejudice is a fear of the different.

Belphegor wrote:
Higher ranks are just getting over the fact that people with a vagina can kill people just as well as people without..

Yeah.... Have to disagree with you here.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:As such, I think you can legislate away prejudice, to a degree.

I don't think you can legislate the prejudice of an individual, but you can legislate prejudice out of government policy.

If that policy is lending credence to the prejudices of individuals, then I suppose you're - if not legislating their prejudice away - legislating away something that adds to their prejudice. Really, people should be able to think what they want, but a government that represents everyone, takes money from everyone, etc, should need a good reason to be splitting those people up.

Very well said sir! Better than my attempt at the same sentiment.

jp400 wrote:

Ahtman wrote: Most of the arguments against homosexuals serving are the same against blacks and that worked out fine.

.....

Right, cause everyone in a combat unit is worried about catching Mr. T eyeballing your junk while takeing a shower.

That may be some uniformed homophobic's concern, but the ones that actually are making the decisions aren't. They are worried about unit cohesion and morale. They aren't worried about the shower staring, they are worried about the ignorant people that think that gay people can't control themselves and go around staring at people in the shower. What were the main concerns for integration, in a nutshell? Unit cohesion and morale.

Of course the truth is that people already serve with gay people. The difference between now and if they change the law is you can't create cognitive dissonance. If you are worried about some guy noticing your penis you may as well quit now because it has probably already happened. Did you know that even if you are not gay your eye still work so that when you put a bunch of people in an enclosed area they will notice each other. It is what eyes do, they see things.

Ahtman wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Ahtman wrote: Most of the arguments against homosexuals serving are the same against blacks and that worked out fine.

.....

Right, cause everyone in a combat unit is worried about catching Mr. T eyeballing your junk while takeing a shower.

That may be some uniformed homophobic's concern, but the ones that actually are making the decisions aren't. They are worried about unit cohesion and morale. They aren't worried about the shower staring, they are worried about the ignorant people that think that gay people can't control themselves and go around staring at people in the shower. What were the main concerns for integration, in a nutshell? Unit cohesion and morale.

Of course the truth is that people already serve with gay people. The difference between now and if they change the law is you can't create cognitive dissonance. If you are worried about some guy noticing your penis you may as well quit now because it has probably already happened. Did you know that even if you are not gay your eye still work so that when you put a bunch of people in an enclosed area they will notice each other. It is what eyes do, they see things.

Yeah, guess spending 5 years active duty and 25 months in Iraq as part of said combat unit I wouldnt know anything about what the first hand concerns are in the unit. And their is a difference between walking by an open shower and "takeing it all in" and walking into the shower and getting your kicks.

And by all means, if your so happy with them they you can be his battle buddy and share everything. Me... Ill stick with a FM 22-102 to deal with this problem.

So you are saying that because someone is attracted to members of the same sex, they should be killed?

Srsly?

Killed. No.

Informed that they should put in for a transfer out of my unit. Yes.

jp400 wrote:Yeah, guess spending 5 years active duty and 25 months in Iraq as part of said combat unit I wouldnt know anything about what the first hand concerns are in the unit

Apparently you don't. You confuse experience with knowledge. If I wanted to know about fighting in your area of Afghanistan than I would ask you. If I want to make major legal, social, and political changes, that experience doesn't help me at all. Just being in the military doesn't make one an expert nor does it necessarily make them that knowledgeable. Being in the military doesn't give one magical insight. You get conflicting stories and experiences from veterans. Why? Because at the end of the day they are people and like all people some are smart and some are not. Some are kind and some are not. No individual can speak for the entirety of the military. You can speak for yourself and you are scared of gay people. Ok, we get that. That doesn't mean your opinion is that of every military personnel. Your concerns are not the same as others. Are you a Colonel or a General? Do you make administrative decisions that effect the military as a whole in the present and looking for into the future? Do you have to liaison on a regular basis with political arm of the country? If not, you problems are micro whereas their problems are macro.

Ahtman wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Ahtman wrote: Most of the arguments against homosexuals serving are the same against blacks and that worked out fine.

.....

Right, cause everyone in a combat unit is worried about catching Mr. T eyeballing your junk while takeing a shower.

That may be some uniformed homophobic's concern, but the ones that actually are making the decisions aren't. They are worried about unit cohesion and morale. They aren't worried about the shower staring, they are worried about the ignorant people that think that gay people can't control themselves and go around staring at people in the shower. What were the main concerns for integration, in a nutshell? Unit cohesion and morale.

Of course the truth is that people already serve with gay people. The difference between now and if they change the law is you can't create cognitive dissonance. If you are worried about some guy noticing your penis you may as well quit now because it has probably already happened. Did you know that even if you are not gay your eye still work so that when you put a bunch of people in an enclosed area they will notice each other. It is what eyes do, they see things.

I may be wrong in my interpitation,but I belive what jp400 may have been getting at was the posiability of "sexaul desire" in the "eyeballing of junk",and,in a way I understand where he's coming from,in so much as,males and females in the military don't shower together,as the "norm" would be to asume this would on some leval cause,at least for some,"sexaul desire/arousal",thus,having homosexaul men (who are by their nature atracted to men) showering with straight men,would in fact be a simalar situation.

I love this idea that gay people can't control themselves so we should be worried. So should women in the military be scared because some male might be attracted to them? Is there some gene I don't know about that make gay men unable to control themselves? Were the ones people already served with and didn't have a problem with a freak occurrence? Once it is ok to be open it is going to be a sodomy marathon all of a sudden? I mean really?

Thay are already there. We aren't going to integrate them. We are going to allow them to not be scared that who they are will stop them from doing the job they already have.

I don't see the difference between being in the army, going on patrol, then taking a shower and a gay man looking at your knob, and being in a large software company, going to the gym, then taking a shower and a gay man looking at your knob.

In either case it is somewhat rude.

The only way it could make any difference is if gay men were no good at being soldiers. Which has been proved such complete nonsense over the millenia that no-one should think once about it, yet alone twice.

TBH I would feel slightly uncomfortable if any man was eyeing my knob in the shower whether he was gay or not. Come to think of it, if he was gay, at least he's got a legitimate reason to be eyeing it up.

More importantly, he is assuming that he's going to be a subject of their lust.

Chances are they won't fancy you, just like the vast majority of women don't all fancy a particular person. He might well prefer the more effeminate male to the muscle mary from the army.

No Ahtman,don't get me wrong,it's not that I belive that gay people can't control themselves,nor was I insinuating that some orgy of sodomy and interior decorating would errupt.
I was simply stating that since it is improper for male and female military members to have co-ed showers,due to the obvious concerns of it creating sexaul tensions,dose not the straight/gay shower situation create the same situation.

Killed. No.

Informed that they should put in for a transfer out of my unit. Yes.

Yeah, guess spending 5 years active duty and 25 months in Iraq as part of said combat unit I wouldnt know anything about what the first hand concerns are in the unit. And their is a difference between walking by an open shower and "takeing it all in" and walking into the shower and getting your kicks.

And by all means, if your so happy with them they you can be his battle buddy and share everything. Me... Ill stick with a FM 22-102 to deal with this problem.

bye then,

I was simply stating that since it is improper for male and female military members to have co-ed showers,due to the obvious concerns of it creating sexaul tensions,dose not the straight/gay shower situation create the same situation.

No, it doesn't. Frankly, if you can't control yourself to not jump on a naked girl in order to rape her without some kind of law to stop you, it's your fethin problem. That the military sees the need to point this out says a lot about the people they recruit.

Well indeed. I've seen plenty of my girly friends in the nuddy without anything happening, and when I wear my Kilt pretty much everyone gets to see my meat and two veg. And yet barring a couple of girlies, people manage to refrain from putting said twig and berries somewhere other than back under the Kilt.

Remember people, a phobia is an irrational fear of something. So Homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuals. It's your call whether you wish to assosciate with them or not. But if it's a paranoia that they all want to bum you vigorously, I suggest you consider growing up sometime soon.

As I am all for separating one's personal life from their professional life, I actually approve of DADT. Why is there a problem with this? It enables gays and lesbians to serve and it keeps what they do in their private life separate, as it should be. At your normal workplace you don't go around letting people how gay you are, or if you are at all, you do your job, get paid and go home. Why shouldn't the professionalism that lets work be work and personal be personal not also apply to the military? Bill Clinton's institution of this policy was a stroke of genius and a valuable compromise to both sides of the debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Remember people, a phobia is an irrational fear of something. So Homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuals. It's your call whether you wish to associate with them or not. But if it's a paranoia that they all want to bum you vigorously, I suggest you consider growing up sometime soon.

Are you implying that all people who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle are homophobic?

Ok yet again I feel the point of what I was saying is being missed,my point wasn't about homosexauls lack of control over their actions,nor was it about fear of people comiting rape in showers.
It was simply about people who are sexauly atracted to the people they are showering with as being improper in a military enviorment.
Men/Women=sexauly atracted to one another,hence they are not allowed to shower with each other.
Homosexaul=atracted to same sex,yet shower with same sex.
I'm not questioning self control,I'm questioning propriority.

@jeb, so why does it need to be a compromise? There isn't another side to the debate, prejudice is prejudice.

I think it's more the 'we find out and you're out on your arse' that's the problem. As I said in my original post, I actually back the sentiment of Don't Ask Don't Tell for precisely the reasons you just gave.

As for the second bit where you quoted me, quite the opposite. If you just find homosexuals not to your liking, then ok, avoid them all you like. But if you're view is coloured by expecting them all to jump you first chance they get, then you are being homphobic. I find some of the Gay men I have met to be highly irritating, as thats all they are to the world. Gay. They allow it to define them, and everything they do is conforming to a stereotype. Thus, I try not to assosciate with them wherever possible. Although it's their behavour linked to their sexuality I find objectionable, it's not their sexuality I'm objecting to. Just their behaviour.

Hope that makes sense. Nasty habit of confusing the hell out of people me.

Reading through this thread, I began to get the distinct feeling of a fear of showers... hmmm... at what point did all showers become places of rape on all occasion. Walk into the showers, to wash up you know, and I... well... I just had too . Now, I can freely say that I would have a hard time (in more ways than one ) showering with a group of women... wait, let me daydream about this for a minute.

Both sides have a pretty rational argument if you ask me. There is nothing creepier... NOTHING, worse that being hit on by some gay dude in the shower. NOT. THE. TIME. DUDE. Like, well hey there buddy, nice penis you got there... yeeaaahhhh... okay then. Don't get me wrong, I would probably die laughing if someone actually said those exact words to me, so all in all, I wouldn't have to worry about the rape part. One thing that I need to work on is accuracy with my soap defense. Take the bottle, aim at their eyes, and fire, pretty simple really.

Am I worried about actually being raped? Well, I don't worry about pigs flying all that often... sooooo. The math behind this is really quite simple, my fist, your balls. Now we can get back to the shower and the naked chicks, which is clearly not a situation involving rape. If you could actually manage to do that without giving the ole one eyed salute, you sir, are a master of space and time...

Clearly I think that this whole rape thing is very silly, but it is obvious that there is some reasoning for keeping things the way they are. As long as no one brings lube and a dildo to a fox-hole, Wrex doesn't care.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Remember people, a phobia is an irrational fear of something. So Homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuals.

I see no reason to use "phobia" correctly, if you're going to completely ignore what "homo" means.