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.

Relapse wrote:Dogma, you are going so far off in this conversation by throwing out stupid examples, you are proving again and again what a straw man is.

Pretty sure that saying gays are going to abduct you with a shotgun after you refute their advances is far more of a strawman than anything Dogma has given.

I keep bringing up the combat issue, because you are the one saying that people who put themselves in a situation where they can see combat need to man up.

You keep bringing it up because you're misunderstanding and getting offended by something that isn't there.

Saying that someone needs to "man up" because they might have to bunk with a homosexual isn't the same as saying that someone needs to "man up" because they'll see combat.

Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

Soladrin wrote:Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

But where oh where will we put the bisexuals?

Blindfolds for everyone!

But then how will you know which is the shampoo and which is the conditioner? :(

Every good answer makes three more questions.

Back on topic: I have a feeling most gay people have enough willpower to not attempt to bugger every guy they meet. I have a gay friend. Slept in the same room with him once.



Edit: Missed out a very important 'not' in that.

Soladrin wrote:Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

...I suppose that would work..

Basicly I was looking at things from a " straight male soldier" in the "role" of a female solider perspective ( if that makes sense)...

Female soldiers would most likely be unhappy about the prospect of having to shower with "straight male soldiers" ...so I can understand ( to a degree) where "straight male soldiers" may be unhappy about the prospect of showering with homosexual soldiers...

One could hardly expect the female soldiers to be told to "man up" and deal with it...
And I suppose from a certian perspective the same could be said for the " straight male soldier" as well...

It would be uncomfortable ( for anyone) to be in a situation in which which their nudity may be looked upon in a "lustful" manner....( not saying homosexuals are more or less "lusty" than a straight soldier in a shower full of female soldiers may be).

purplefood wrote:

Thread won. +1 Internets.

purplefood wrote:

...I just had a Margaret Cho flashback moment and almost fell out of my chair.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I know you don't like your prejudice against the queers being compared to the old prejudice against the coloreds, but they're both simple hatred of someone based on something basic to how they were born. You want to think that you're more progressive than the guys who didn't want to drink from the same water fountain as one of those people who's skin was darker, but it's all the same thing. It actually has nothing to do with behavior, someone who says 'whao I'm attracted to guys' but never sleeps with a guy gets kicked out for violating DADT.

I don't think there's anything progressive about it. I think the situation is different and not directly comparable. There's a bigger cultural background to bias against gays than bias against black people, and the bias is different itself.

It's not a debate, it's simple fact, anyone debating it is simply in denial and needs to accept reality. There are gays in the military, the whole point of DADT is 'you can be gay as long as we don't know'. That means they're already in your showers, and barracks, and foxholes, and gyms, and wherever else.

DADT changed nothing in the military. Prior too it no gays could serve. After it, gays could serve as long as no one knew about it. Effectively the situation didn't change (especially when gays started getting kicked out because of DADT). DADT was a compromise the military got because it meant they didn't have to deal with any of the questions or the trouble of integration.

Something doesn't need to be true or a fact for people to debate it.

Again, gays are not segregated in society. You can say nonsense about 1000 years of tradition, but it simply doesn't happen - there are bathrooms for 'men' and 'women', but not for 'straight men' or 'gay women'. There are gym locker rooms for men and women, but none specifically based on gayness. The idea that the army suddenly has to come up with a segregation that hasn't been needed for the roughly 20 years that gays have been allowed in the military and that isn't practiced in the outside world is just silly.

Again, I never said the argument was valid. It's just something that's said and thrown up as a "reasonable" excuse to keep DADT around or keep gays out. People come up with "reasonable" justifications to hide behind when being hateful or biased all the time. It's quite common, especially in political culture. The 1000 years of tradition is not a justification, but an attempt to explain why we're still have this debate over homosexuality in the US while many European nations seem to have largely moved on to other issues. The US has a much stronger tradition of evangelism and fundamentalism than Europe at large does and I think that background is one of the leading reasons we still have the gay rights debate in the US as strong as we have it. EDIT: As far as I know, we're the only developed western nation that doesn't allow gay marriage.

dogma wrote:Well, the better part of New England anyway.

The mid-west states and southern colonies as well. Maryland was filled with Catholics from England who had become more defensive religiously and as English Catholics at a time long after the formation of the Church of England were likely much more conservative in thought and more defensive religiously. No I guess they don't fall under the hyberbolic radical umbrella but you get the point. The south later on had its heavy institutionalization of Christianity as its justification for slavery and American slavery is different from European slavery as it pertains to the cultural integration of the practice and the justifications for it. The tone of the rhetoric in Europe was more focused on 'European' civilization, while the tone in the US was more focused on 'white' civilization.

LordofHats wrote:You are much kinder than I.

Hey, the brimstone and hellfire Puritans and Calvanist folks started small but after the Great Awakening they was everywhere We still have a few running around. I actually find them a little scary. They got a lot of passion for what they're preaching

Soladrin wrote:Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

Yeah, but then every dude joining the Army would be "gay" and showering 3 times a day.

Monster Rain wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

Yeah, but then every dude joining the Army would be "gay" and showering 3 times a day.

...I see I may have started a ball rolling that I didn't intend to..

I know the whole " shower" thing may seem a bit silly...it's just something I was musing about...

" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Absolutely not..Straight Male soldiers with female soldiers)
" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Right away Sir...Gay Male soldiers with Straight male soldiers)...

...Just seems a bit off to me is all.

As I said, I believe anyone who wishes to should be allowed to serve in the Military, my point is more one of " propriety".

I know what you're saying.

I think painting anyone who objects to this as homophobic is pretty closed-minded too, if I'm honest. If a woman didn't want to shower with a man for the same reason and the reply was "Oh, he probably doesn't want to feth you anyway" I don't think it would be nearly as well received. I'm totally for letting gays serve in the military, but ridiculing people for having a concern like this is only going to make them less receptive to it.

Relapse wrote:Dogma, you are going so far off in this conversation by throwing out stupid examples, you are proving again and again what a straw man is.

I cannot prove a definition, first of all.

I might be able to illustrate one, but that is different.

Anyway, the fact that you believe I am going off the reservation is illustrative.

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

Yeah, but then every dude joining the Army would be "gay" and showering 3 times a day.

...I see I may have started a ball rolling that I didn't intend to..

I know the whole " shower" thing may seem a bit silly...it's just something I was musing about...

" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Absolutely not..Straight Male soldiers with female soldiers)
" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Right away Sir...Gay Male soldiers with Straight male soldiers)...

...Just seems a bit off to me is all.

So we should start having Homosexual and Heterosexual showers in gym locker rooms?

It's kind of obvious that there's no real issue in having homosexual teenagers showering with heterosexual teenagers in schools, nor does it seem there's also any issue with adults who have to use locker rooms in public facilities.

It really seems like the military is the only voluntary institution(read: not prisons) where this paranoia of "they're gonna get us when we're naked and unsuspecting!" is a problem, which could lead one to theorize it might just be the mindset of the soldiers based on upbringing.

Monster Rain wrote:
I think painting anyone who objects to this as homophobic is pretty closed-minded too, if I'm honest. If a woman didn't want to shower with a man for the same reason and the reply was "Oh, he probably doesn't want to feth you anyway" I don't think it would be nearly as well received.

It isn't a 1-1 comparison, though. Hetero culture allows for same-sex showers without...ambiguity.

Relapse wrote:
I'm totally for letting gays serve in the military, but ridiculing people for having a concern like this is only going to make them less receptive to it.

Maybe, but there has been mileage in marginalizing people when their beliefs are....not congenial?

dogma wrote:It isn't a 1-1 comparison, though. Hetero culture allows for same-sex showers without...ambiguity.

This isn't going to take place on a message board or a place of pure logic and reason. There are real people with real hang-ups about this that are going need to be reached, and as I said before, ridicule and straw-man arguments don't help that. In fact, it does the opposite. Everyone who might have an issue with this isn't Fred Phelps crazy.

dogma wrote:...but there has been mileage in marginalizing people when their beliefs are....not congenial?

What if we tried getting the same effect without making people resentful? Maybe educate people instead of saying "You're an backwards donkey-cave, get over it."?

Maybe I'm just feeling idealistic today.

Kanluwen wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

Yeah, but then every dude joining the Army would be "gay" and showering 3 times a day.

...I see I may have started a ball rolling that I didn't intend to..

I know the whole " shower" thing may seem a bit silly...it's just something I was musing about...

" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Absolutely not..Straight Male soldiers with female soldiers)
" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Right away Sir...Gay Male soldiers with Straight male soldiers)...

...Just seems a bit off to me is all.

So we should start having Homosexual and Heterosexual showers in gym locker rooms?

It's kind of obvious that there's no real issue in having homosexual teenagers showering with heterosexual teenagers in schools, nor does it seem there's also any issue with adults who have to use locker rooms in public facilities.

It really seems like the military is the only voluntary institution(read: not prisons) where this paranoia of "they're gonna get us when we're naked and unsuspecting!" is a problem, which could lead one to theorize it might just be the mindset of the soldiers based on upbringing.

You chopped off the last bit of my post there Kan...

I don't know that the military is the only voluntary institution in which straight guys may be paraniod about showering with gay guys....perhaps it's experianced in High schools and public gyms as well...
Also, I'm not saying that I particularly agree with that "paranoia"....

My point was that I could understand it on a certian level...

In the same way I would understand a females "paranoia" about showering around a group of straight males.

Edit:...

I'm simply looking at the situation in various ways...
For example, Im sure you wouldn't tell a group f woman that they are simply being "paranoid" and intolerant , or that it was a matter of mindset and upbringing if they addressed a concern about having to be in a shower with a group of men...would you?

FITZZ wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

Yeah, but then every dude joining the Army would be "gay" and showering 3 times a day.

...I see I may have started a ball rolling that I didn't intend to..

I know the whole " shower" thing may seem a bit silly...it's just something I was musing about...

" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Absolutely not..Straight Male soldiers with female soldiers)
" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Right away Sir...Gay Male soldiers with Straight male soldiers)...

...Just seems a bit off to me is all.

So we should start having Homosexual and Heterosexual showers in gym locker rooms?

It's kind of obvious that there's no real issue in having homosexual teenagers showering with heterosexual teenagers in schools, nor does it seem there's also any issue with adults who have to use locker rooms in public facilities.

It really seems like the military is the only voluntary institution(read: not prisons) where this paranoia of "they're gonna get us when we're naked and unsuspecting!" is a problem, which could lead one to theorize it might just be the mindset of the soldiers based on upbringing.

You chopped of the last bit of my post there Kan...

Indeed I did. I didn't feel it was really relevant to your point overall. "Propriety" has no history worth mentioning that precludes homosexuals and heterosexuals from utilizing the same facilities.

I don't know that the military is the only voluntary institution in which straight guys may be paranoid about showering with gay guys....perhaps it's experienced in High schools and public gyms as well...

The point is that the military is the only institution which is voluntary(you're not FORCED to join the military) in which it would be required or a common, everyday occurrence where you MIGHT know someone is gay and you have to spend as much time around them as you do your family when you're a minor.

However: you don't have to shower in high school after gym class(I know that at my high school, they didn't actually allow us to use the showers after gym class. Only the sports teams got to use it, and even then only after practices never after games) or at a public recreational facility.

Also, I'm not saying that I particularly agree with that "paranoia"....

I never said you did, Fitzz.

My point was that I could understand it on a certain level...

I can understand it about as much as I can understand being worried that I will be mauled by a velociraptor.

In the same way I would understand a females "paranoia" about showering around a group of straight males.

The difference is that a large number of females have been raped by straight males.
While we cannot say conclusively that straight males have not been raped by gay males, most likely due to the stigma associated with such incidences and the psychological trauma usually incurred, the fact that they don't have armed guards at the YMCA showers says a lot.

FITZZ wrote:

Edit:...

I'm simply looking at the situation in various ways...
For example, Im sure you wouldn't tell a group f woman that they are simply being "paranoid" and intolerant , or that it was a matter of mindset and upbringing if they addressed a concern about having to be in a shower with a group of men...would you?

Overall I agree with you Kan....again I'm just examining various points of view.
The simple fact is they're are those who are uncomfortable with the idea ( for whatever reason) and these issues should be addressed.

What seems like "no big deal" to some is clearly a huge issue to others and unfortunately all the "common sense" in the world won't make that go away.

There are a slew of issues that no one here has even begun to bring up.

For example, married soldiers get extra pay (a housing allowance) or special on-post housing (an appartment/house vice living in the barracks). Their dependants get a bunch of tax payer subsidized benefits (the right to shop in the PX and commissary, the rght to use DoD medical facilities/health insurance, various death benefits if their service member spouse gets capped....)

In the Army, re-enlistment NCOs and commanders know they have to get the spouse to buy off on their soldier re-enlisting, you 're-enlist the family'. Soldiers may very well be able to be ordered to Deal With Homosexuals and Drive On. Getting the families to buy off on that is not something you can Order to Happen. That is an issue, whether you like it to be or not, it is.

Look up recruiting stats that show zip-code maps of who enlists from around the country. You will see that the Army for example is predominantly middle class form conservative areas. Yes, there are others that enlist too, BUT since currently the types of kid most likely to raise his/her hand and volunteer to endure some really crappy things, and do it in time of war are coming form places other than the liberal parts of the country where openly gay folks are much more tolerated, recruiting once DADT is finally dead may be an issue, again, whether you think it should be or not, it is. Getting little Johny's Mom and Dad to buy off on him enlisting, well you do need to deal with THEIR feelings on the matter too.

Since there are States that do not recognize gay marriages, the dependent issue is going to be a big one. Right now when DADT goes away, there is NO provision to allow gay marriage in the military, so in fact, openly homosexual soldiers WILL BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. Don't blame the DoD, blame Congress and the Pres, one writes the laws, the other signs them.

Once that gets worked out, it all also has to be funded. In case you didn't notice we are in a budget crunch. The military has some maintenance and medical bills coming due.

And you have to prevent the two troops who 'get married' just to draw the housing allowance (yes, it happens now with straight troops, the probelm WILL increase when they don't have to find someone of a different sex. Trust me, I know soldiers.

Another issue, and this is one many of you will deny will happen, but I can point to several real world cases that convince me it will be an issue. The first time an openly gay troop gets pissed at a straight supervisor/leader, they WILL pull the discrimination card. That is going to have several effects. It will cause some leaders to hesitate to discipline a gay trooper. It will cause some good leaders to get crucified as sacrifice on the Alter of Political Correctness. Again, you can deny that this will happen, but your denial does not make your position correct.

What about the many, many chaplains who cannot, according to their religion, support or advocate for gay troopers? You really cannot force someone with religious issues to just Shut Up and Deal With It. Many of our Chaplains are totally professional and will handle themselves well, BUT the religious orders that nominate and approve clergy for the Chaplain service, folks who are NOT soldiers, may be hesitant to encourge clergy to become chaplains. No law can make them... Again, it will be an issue. A big one? Probably not, but still an issue.

Bottom line, DADT may have been a half assed way for Congress and the Pres to address the issue, but the replacement is going to be painful too. The issue of marriage and dependents should have been part of the package, but the politicians would not commit.

Now, many of you think you know my position based on reading this. I submit you do not. My position is pretty easily defined as If they wanted the change, they should have done it correctly. How many of the above issues have you seen the politicians and the press address in detail? Just curious, I haven't seen much.


Since the military seems to be the one Federal entity that Gets Stuff Done, thye will make this work. By law they have to. By nature they hate failing. I, again submit, the politicians could have done a damn better job than they did.

Jake

CptJake wrote:There are a slew of issues that no one here has even begun to bring up.

For example, married soldiers get extra pay (a housing allowance) or special on-post housing (an appartment/house vice living in the barracks). Their dependants get a bunch of tax payer subsidized benefits (the right to shop in the PX and commissary, the rght to use DoD medical facilities/health insurance, various death benefits if their service member spouse gets capped....)

In the Army, re-enlistment NCOs and commanders know they have to get the spouse to buy off on their soldier re-enlisting, you 're-enlist the family'. Soldiers may very well be able to be ordered to Deal With Homosexuals and Drive On. Getting the families to buy off on that is not something you can Order to Happen. That is an issue, whether you like it to be or not, it is.

Look up recruiting stats that show zip-code maps of who enlists from around the country. You will see that the Army for example is predominantly middle class form conservative areas. Yes, there are others that enlist too, BUT since currently the types of kid most likely to raise his/her hand and volunteer to endure some really crappy things, and do it in time of war are coming form places other than the liberal parts of the country where openly gay folks are much more tolerated, recruiting once DADT is finally dead may be an issue, again, whether you think it should be or not, it is. Getting little Johny's Mom and Dad to buy off on him enlisting, well you do need to deal with THEIR feelings on the matter too.

Since there are States that do not recognize gay marriages, the dependent issue is going to be a big one. Right now when DADT goes away, there is NO provision to allow gay marriage in the military, so in fact, openly homosexual soldiers WILL BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. Don't blame the DoD, blame Congress and the Pres, one writes the laws, the other signs them.

Actually, you'd be blaming the States, not Congress or the President. Obama made a special mention of the States in a statement about DOMA.
States are the ones who are in charge of marriages, not the federal government.

Once that gets worked out, it all also has to be funded. In case you didn't notice we are in a budget crunch. The military has some maintenance and medical bills coming due.

And you have to prevent the two troops who 'get married' just to draw the housing allowance (yes, it happens now with straight troops, the problem WILL increase when they don't have to find someone of a different sex. Trust me, I know soldiers.

What? People fake marriages to get benefits?
Shock! Gasp!

Another issue, and this is one many of you will deny will happen, but I can point to several real world cases that convince me it will be an issue. The first time an openly gay troop gets pissed at a straight supervisor/leader, they WILL pull the discrimination card. That is going to have several effects. It will cause some leaders to hesitate to discipline a gay trooper. It will cause some good leaders to get crucified as sacrifice on the Alter of Political Correctness. Again, you can deny that this will happen, but your denial does not make your position correct.

...lol?
You know, this actually brings up a good point. It's clear that there's going to be discrimination.

Just like we've had cases where females have been sexually assaulted while serving in the military, by their own comrades, and nothing has been done.

In all seriousness, it's not hard to avoid this issue. Let someone pull the discrimination card all they want. If it has no clear basis, then you'll probably be okay. So long as you're not sending Sergeant Silar to the front of the formation and snickering about "now he can't watch me wiggle" or doing something absurdly stupid or so ridiculously based upon stereotypical homosexual images--you will not have an issue.

What about the many, many chaplains who cannot, according to their religion, support or advocate for gay troopers? You really cannot force someone with religious issues to just Shut Up and Deal With It. Many of our Chaplains are totally professional and will handle themselves well, BUT the religious orders that nominate and approve clergy for the Chaplain service, folks who are NOT soldiers, may be hesitant to encourage clergy to become chaplains. No law can make them... Again, it will be an issue. A big one? Probably not, but still an issue.

Religious officials need to Shut Up And Deal With It too. The time for their halfcocked crap, wherein they say that "<Insert Religious Deity Here> made every one of us the same, in his own image...except the people we don't like, who we have to kill because they're WRONG!" is over.

Bottom line, DADT may have been a half assed way for Congress and the Pres to address the issue, but the replacement is going to be painful too. The issue of marriage and dependents should have been part of the package, but the politicians would not commit.

It's almost like the politicians are hamstrung by the fact that their constituency has mixed feelings on matters. Shock!

Now, many of you think you know my position based on reading this. I submit you do not. My position is pretty easily defined as If they wanted the change, they should have done it correctly. How many of the above issues have you seen the politicians and the press address in detail? Just curious, I haven't seen much.


Since the military seems to be the one Federal entity that Gets Stuff Done, they will make this work. By law they have to. By nature they hate failing. I, again submit, the politicians could have done a damn better job than they did.

Jake

Yes, the 'one federal entity that gets stuff done'...other than the Post Office.

You've never worked for the Post Office, have you?

Hey. My mail gets delivered, same time every day.

I call that "Getting Things Done".

No, I'm not blaming the States, DoD is a Federal entity. And just like the Federal Gov't passed Civil Rights laws, they could have passed laws to cover this. They did not.

Instead they leave DoD to try to implement a broken law to the best of their ability. If the politicians could not get their constituents to buy off on something, maybe they should have done what they perceive as RIGHT vice some mealy mouthed compromise. Soldiers are expected to face consequences for doing what they consider right, it would be nice if the folks in DC would do the same once in a while.

And you really didn't address a lot fo the issues I mentioend, except to mock them or say they are not issues. When you are implementing something like this, I think it only fair to think through these types of issues and address them. Obviously YOU don't have to implement the new policy and choose not to recognize that there may be some issues that will need to be dealt with. Hooah. That doesn't make the job of the folks that do have to implement it any easier.

It is also clear you have never seen how discrimination charges and allegations work in the military. Trust me (someone who has held company level commands twice, and who has a wife who held three and is now in a battalion level command, and we both have dealt with alleged discrimination issues, even at the congressional inquiry level MULTIPLE times), that one will be an issue.

Again, there is more than 'I don't want someone seeing my penis' going on here. Again, the press and our politicians do not seem to have addressed the issues.

Jake

CptJake wrote:No, I'm not blaming the States, DoD is a Federal entity. And just like the Federal Gov't passed Civil Rights laws, they could have passed laws to cover this. They did not.

You're missing the point. The whole "gay marriage" issue is an issue for the states to decide, on a state by state basis.

The Fed could probably step in and force something, but we all know how well that goes over.

Instead they leave DoD to try to implement a broken law to the best of their ability. If the politicians could not get their constituents to buy off on something, maybe they should have done what they perceive as RIGHT vice some mealy mouthed compromise. Soldiers are expected to face consequences for doing what they consider right, it would be nice if the folks in DC would do the same once in a while.

Are you really turning this into an "us versus them" thing?

The only arguments I ever see AGAINST the repeal of DADT are from soldiers who are openly homophobic to a degree that it's mindboggling or from hardcore religious conservatives who can only say "God wills it!".

And you really didn't address a lot of the issues I mentioend, except to mock them or say they are not issues. When you are implementing something like this, I think it only fair to think through these types of issues and address them. Obviously YOU don't have to implement the new policy and choose not to recognize that there may be some issues that will need to be dealt with. Hooah. That doesn't make the job of the folks that do have to implement it any easier.

Because a great many of them aren't issues. The argument against the repealing of DADT presented here is that soldiers on the frontline are uncomfortable, to a degree that their morale and combat effectiveness is impacted, with the mere thought of homosexuals bunking or showering with them.

In that case, it's the soldiers being directly affected. The family isn't really an issue there.

It is also clear you have never seen how discrimination charges and allegations work in the military. Trust me (someone who has held company level commands twice, and who has a wife who held three and is now in a battalion level command, and we both have dealt with alleged discrimination issues, even at the congressional inquiry level MULTIPLE times), that one will be an issue.

Then enlighten us as to how they work.
An allegation is filed, and it goes from there to where?

Again, there is more than 'I don't want someone seeing my penis' going on here. Again, the press and our politicians do not seem to have addressed the issues.

No, there's really not more than that in a great many of these arguments. There's a lot of excuses that amount to "I don't want a GAY to see my penis, he might like it!" or are based upon the stereotype of the "nancyboy" homosexual being combat ineffective.

Actually, you'd be blaming the States, not Congress or the President. Obama made a special mention of the States in a statement about DOMA.

States are the ones who are in charge of marriages, not the federal government.

The Defense of Marriage Act is a federal law and it prevents the DoD from giving any marriage benefits to gays because Federal law defines marriage as being between and man and a women. That's not on the states and it's not an issue that disappears just because the Obama administration no longer defends it. Hint hint. Obama won't be president forever. His successor may well start defending it again, and then there's the House which is trying to find a way to defend it without the DoJ.

This problem isn't solved the moment DADT gets repealed. The repeal brings up a host of other problems that then have to dealt with (and DADT was a huge effort to try and avoid dealing with those problems).

CptJake wrote:

biccat wrote:

coolyo294 wrote:I don't got the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Why was it ever considered necessary?

Because in the '90s,CONGRESS HAD A LAW FOR the military
that anyone who was gay would be kicked out. Some people wanted to change this, others wanted to keep it.

DADT was a compromise between both sides that allowed service members to continue to serve, but they weren't allowed to be openly homosexual.

Turns out, this great compromise had a pretty limited shelf life. Not surprising, considering the parties negotiating it.

Fixed that for you. Let us not forget that the military does not make its own rules. They are rightfully imposed by the civilian government. Which is the reason when certain organizations and universities did/do not allow military recruiters and the like access because they do not like the 'military rules' like DADT it is a load of stinky poo, usually a weak excuse to engage in an anti-military hatefest which would have existed anyway.

Jake

Damn dirty civlians, expecting certain rights in regard to the people working for them. The military should just be allowed free reign over the people they're supposedly trying to protect.

Kanluwen wrote:

CptJake wrote:No, I'm not blaming the States, DoD is a Federal entity. And just like the Federal Gov't passed Civil Rights laws, they could have passed laws to cover this. They did not.

You're missing the point. The whole "gay marriage" issue is an issue for the states to decide, on a state by state basis.

The Fed could probably step in and force something, but we all know how well that goes over.

Instead they leave DoD to try to implement a broken law to the best of their ability. If the politicians could not get their constituents to buy off on something, maybe they should have done what they perceive as RIGHT vice some mealy mouthed compromise. Soldiers are expected to face consequences for doing what they consider right, it would be nice if the folks in DC would do the same once in a while.

Are you really turning this into an "us versus them" thing?

The only arguments I ever see AGAINST the repeal of DADT are from soldiers who are openly homophobic to a degree that it's mindboggling or from hardcore religious conservatives who can only say "God wills it!".

And you really didn't address a lot of the issues I mentioend, except to mock them or say they are not issues. When you are implementing something like this, I think it only fair to think through these types of issues and address them. Obviously YOU don't have to implement the new policy and choose not to recognize that there may be some issues that will need to be dealt with. Hooah. That doesn't make the job of the folks that do have to implement it any easier.

Because a great many of them aren't issues. The argument against the repealing of DADT presented here is that soldiers on the frontline are uncomfortable, to a degree that their morale and combat effectiveness is impacted, with the mere thought of homosexuals bunking or showering with them.

In that case, it's the soldiers being directly affected. The family isn't really an issue there.

It is also clear you have never seen how discrimination charges and allegations work in the military. Trust me (someone who has held company level commands twice, and who has a wife who held three and is now in a battalion level command, and we both have dealt with alleged discrimination issues, even at the congressional inquiry level MULTIPLE times), that one will be an issue.

Then enlighten us as to how they work.
An allegation is filed, and it goes from there to where?

Again, there is more than 'I don't want someone seeing my penis' going on here. Again, the press and our politicians do not seem to have addressed the issues.

No, there's really not more than that in a great many of these arguments. There's a lot of excuses that amount to "I don't want a GAY to see my penis, he might like it!" or are based upon the stereotype of the "nancyboy" homosexual being combat ineffective.

Allowing mixed race marriages wasn't left to the states. Allowing mixed race schools wasn't left to the states. How is this different? You can't, in my mind, say Gay Rights are like Civil Rights but then not be willing to actually treat them like they are. And if you DO leave it to the states, again, you will have issues with DoD troops in states that do not recognize their marriages, or you just deny them the right to marry.

To think families of soldiers, and potential soldiers/candidates for recruiting are not an issue, you don't get it. http://www.goarmy.com/parents.html The Army considers it an issue, which is why they even have a web page for parents of recruits. Make the influencers happy, make the soldier happy. For recruits that is parents for the most part, for troops already in, it is usually the family.

Actually, you know what? Forget it. This will be my last post on the topic. I'm convinced the issues I brought up are valid and will need to be addressed, even if at the unit level. I am basing that on over 35 years active duty between my wife and I. I very well could be wrong. In a year or two from now we'll see.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend. I got to go make sure my daughter is getting showered and ready for bed.

Monster Rain wrote:I know what you're saying.

I think painting anyone who objects to this as homophobic is pretty closed-minded too, if I'm honest. If a woman didn't want to shower with a man for the same reason and the reply was "Oh, he probably doesn't want to feth you anyway" I don't think it would be nearly as well received. I'm totally for letting gays serve in the military, but ridiculing people for having a concern like this is only going to make them less receptive to it.

Are there separate showers for men and women in the army now? Yes. Are there separate showers for gays and straights in the army now? No. Are there separate showers for gays and straights outside of the army now? No. It's a completely different situation, because people are 'concerned' about a situation that's existed in the military for almost 2 decades, and exists in society as a whole with no problems. It doesn't matter if they're receptive to it or not, they're in the army. Just like when Truman ended segregation, they'll either become receptive to it or end up at Ft. Leavenworth.

And again, this is not about allowing gays to serve in the military. Gays have been allowed in the military for almost 2 decades now, and their showering arrangements have not actually caused any problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:Look up recruiting stats that show zip-code maps of who enlists from around the country. You will see that the Army for example is predominantly middle class form conservative areas. Yes, there are others that enlist too, BUT since currently the types of kid most likely to raise his/her hand and volunteer to endure some really crappy things, and do it in time of war are coming form places other than the liberal parts of the country where openly gay folks are much more tolerated, recruiting once DADT is finally dead may be an issue, again, whether you think it should be or not, it is. Getting little Johny's Mom and Dad to buy off on him enlisting, well you do need to deal with THEIR feelings on the matter too.

Back in Truman's time, the bulk of the army came from areas with racial segregation, and those people and their parents thought that the coloreds needed to be segregated. They got over it, and they'll get over seeing gay people who don't pretend to be straight.

What about the many, many chaplains who cannot, according to their religion, support or advocate for gay troopers? You really cannot force someone with religious issues to just Shut Up and Deal With It. Many of our Chaplains are totally professional and will handle themselves well, BUT the religious orders that nominate and approve clergy for the Chaplain service, folks who are NOT soldiers, may be hesitant to encourge clergy to become chaplains. No law can make them... Again, it will be an issue. A big one? Probably not, but still an issue.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

It's only an issue with chaplains who have no respect for God, and are willing to swear a false oath in his name to advance their position in this world. Any chaplain has sworn to follow the orders of the president and officers over them, and to follow regulations and the UCMJ. If they refuse to do so, they are violating an oath they took in God's name. Now, obviously there are plenty of charlatans pretending to be clergymen, but I don't think that worrying about the feelings chaplains willing to tell a lie and forswear in God's name is really imporant for us to do. Does anyone really need clergymen who's oath before God is worthless?