DADT repealed

Discussion in 'Current News' started by GreenLantern330, Dec 18, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ryan1234

    ryan1234 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    434
    IMHO this agenda would have been pushed regardless of the results of the survey. It is interesting to note that 67 percent of Marines believe that repealing DADT will a have negative effect. Other figures include 60 percent of Special Operations personel and 57 percent of Army Combat units believe it would have a negative effect on combat effectiveness.
     
  2. Pariel

    Pariel New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    40
    Hahahahaha! Nope. And I believe the president hasn't signed the bill yet, so it might be a bit premature to admit it if I were. I liked your question of Seafort better though -- "stand straight". I'm still chuckling about that one.

    Absolutely. I assume gays aren't going to start whipping out scarfs (apologies, Air Force pilots), lisping, and performing limp-wristed salutes, but a straight serviceperson would face the same consequences for doing so.

    And again, I'm asking you to explain to me why DOMA is necessary at all? I don't think the federal government has the right to define what my church calls marriage, even if it is in accord with DOMA. How exactly would allowing gays to marry impose on you, me, or any other straight person? What I've asked for multiple times is an argument backed up by any factual evidence that a civil union between two people of the same sex will somehow "force their beliefs on" you. Show me what is so important that it's worth it to deny American citizens the right to make legal decisions for someone they've made a permanent commitment to. You claim that DOMA doesn't deny gays rights unequally when it's clear it prevents them from forming a legal entity which they would do so otherwise. The governments job is to regulate situations where damage -- whether it be emotional, physical, or financial--would occur because of someone's actions. Marrying relatives is a prime example of this. I'm more than willing to concede my stand if someone can provide some proof that gay marriage negatively affects the rest of us straight Americans.

    I believe that marriage is sanctified not by my government, or by the people of this nation or any nation, but by God. Providing the legal rights of marriage to gays, which are totally unrelated to the actual institution of marriage, doesn't affect that in any way.
     
  3. HueyCobra8151

    HueyCobra8151 Well-Known Member None

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,167
    A huge portion of the military will go an entire career not once thinking about the words "combat effectiveness."
    --

    The biggest change that this will bring as far as I can see: Your next deployment to Thailand just got a whole helluva lot more fabulous!

    My question is, if someone gets drunk and fails to "preflight" the certain someone they take home from the bar, can they still be made fun of the next day?
     
  4. Flugelman

    Flugelman Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2006
    Messages:
    759
    It occurs to me that the new "openness" on sexuality does not bring with it the problem that putting women on ships did.

    That being unwanted pregnancies that affect readiness.:icon_tong
     
  5. Schnugg

    Schnugg It's gettin' a bit dramatic 'round here... None

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,856
    Faerie?? I learned a new one. Thank you Seafork.
     
  6. Floppy_D

    Floppy_D I am the hunted

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    210
    So in essence, "Be gay, just don't be gay about it."
     
    pourts likes this.
  7. Uncle Fester

    Uncle Fester Big veiny triumphant bastard None

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,514
    Makes more sense than the old policy.

    Only beef I have with this is it's going to add to the already-absurd amount of GMT we have to sit through. Hours of training that boils down to, "Keep your hands to yourself, and don't tell any jokes you wouldn't tell your Granny."
     
  8. SWACQ

    SWACQ Active Member None

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    129
    Couple things to chime in on.

    First, a dart about the choice thing. I have friends who are gay. I have friends who are black. I have a friend who used to be gay but is now married with kids. I have no friends who used to be black. 'nuff said.

    As for the survey, I took the survey as did my wife. The questions focussed entirely on mission accomplishment, ie, what is really important or otherwise contributes to mission success. There were no opportunities within the survey to convey a moral opposition to the concept of homosexuality nor to otherwise express concern or unease. I suspect the numbers will be skewed to show most respondents do not see an impact on mission accomplishment.

    As an officer, I see the burden here being two-fold. First, I need to add yet another 1 hour powerpoint to my annual sensitivity training that keeps me away from training to fight, and then I'm going to have countless counselling sessions with "ignorant" or "intolerent" Marines who are offensive or insulting explaining to them that they can't talk like that anymore. I further suspect that when you count up administrative actions leading to discharge, that we end up with more paperwork involved and possibly separate more Marines than we do now with DADT. Secondly, as Gen Conway said, I have an obligation to take care of all my Marines equally. The ones who come out of the closet will require some effort to protect. Like it or not, there is a difference between their friends and possibly some co-workers knowing they are gay and them blatanting being "out." If I put two guys together in a room, and one is gay, and the other is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, I am going to have problems. Either I recognize that in advance and address Marine's preferences, or I get ready to NPJ the guy who non-stop offends the gay guy. Or I hire a lawyer for my own defense when I am charged with negligence in failing to take care of the gay guy when I knowingly put him into a hostile situation and he gets beat up or assaulted, or worse. The easy answer of putting two gay guys into a room together doesn't work either, what if one is dominant and the other submissive? Just how far down the rabbit hole do we want to take this?

    Oh yeah, and I'm deploying soon and should be training my guys for combat, instead of asking or answering these questions.
     
    Flying Toaster and eas7888 like this.
  9. twobecrazy

    twobecrazy RTB...

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    871
    I would like to throw my own little piece of speculation in this thread after reading it for the past few days. I have found this thread pretty humorous at times. Such as the quote above that trips to Thailand will be more interesting now... I couldn't agree more as there is some pretty crazy stuff that happens! :icon_smil


    So here is my little piece of speculation. I think they will put restrictions on the serving openly such as they did with females when they were first allowed to serve and just like they did with African-Americans. Gays will not be allowed to serve in a combat environment initially. I wouldn't be surprised if they put restrictions on serving on submarines and for that matter ships either. Watching them kiss their partners and waive to them as they sail away is probably not going to happen right away. Basically they will be allowed to serve in the Air Force or a back of the lines individual in the other branches. Which means many will probably keep their mouths shut initially until they start repealing the restrictions . This would take some time like it did with the other two cases above.
     
  10. Uncle Fester

    Uncle Fester Big veiny triumphant bastard None

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,514
    Are you basing this on anything, or is this just your idea of how things should work?

    Racial and gender integration required allowing people to do things they weren't allowed to do before. That's hardly the case now...are you proposing that every aviator, submariner, ship-driver, infantryman, SEAL, etc, who comes out is going to be redesignated? Or are you somehow under the impression that there aren't any gays in the armed forces now?
     
  11. QuagmireMcGuire

    QuagmireMcGuire Kinder and Gentler

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Messages:
    105
    I imagine it's the affinity for Lady Gaga, Cher and Racheal Ray, bling, and the "wow" factor. You know those 'Murican homos will stop saluting and start emphasizing shit using jazz hands and head rolls. And those dirty bitches will start talking about your flat asses in those flight suits. Okay. Okay.

    For real.
     
  12. twobecrazy

    twobecrazy RTB...

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    871
    I'm basing it off of what I have read and heard about the repeal. It is my humble opinion. Also it is primarily due to the fact that more people think there maybe difficulties in combat effectiveness or unit cohesiveness among the combat units. Until we can rectify this situation I believe the military should be implementing this slowly in certain areas. This also seems like the most logical implementations as sailors, soldiers, marines, etc will be interacting in a less stressful environment. You also begin the sensitivity training now in the Academies, OCS, bootcamps, ROTCs, fleet, etc. People coming from OCS, Bootcamp, etc should be allowed to come out now and they should be admitted now if they choose. By having people not "come out" until they have completed their combat tours or preventing them initially from serving in combat would eliminate the unit cohesiveness/effectiveness issues that is clearly the major problem. According to some of the Joint Chiefs, men and women dying is the major problem that could happen if this issue is implemented ineffectively. I agree with them. I believe as effective leaders we should be able to handle this situation. But we shouldn't risk someone’s life due to a distraction that could arise from someone coming out in a high risk/stress environment. So I believe this would allow for a better way to handle the situation. Once again it is just my opinion.

    I know there are homosexuals serving currently and they did when I was initially in the Navy. You don't require them to redesignate but maybe you can have them become "open" about their sexuality on a shore rotation when they are away from combat for an extended amount of time. By the time these individuals come back out to the fleet for their sea rotation the more apparent problems that could arise will have been observed and properly handled. I think this would again lead to better unit cohesiveness and combat effectiveness as most individuals will have been "out" for a longer period of time. I'm simply implying by eliminating the initial shock we can better manage the effects that may result from someone initially revealing their sexual orientation. Once again just my thoughts.
     
  13. HooverPilot

    HooverPilot CODPilot None

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,284
    Your thoughts are so unrealistic, I don't even know where to begin...

    How in the world would you ever implement something like this?! You either allow people to come out or you don't. You can have this command is a DADT tell command & that one is an 'out' command.
     
  14. Seafort

    Seafort Made His Bed, Is Now Lying In It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    I'll note, that I would expect my chief to tell SN Tammy who is having a Pentecostal Revival or SN Blake who is having European Cultural Heritage Festival to knock that shit off as well.

    So in essence, be you, but don't get in other people's faces about it, and don't bring it into spaces when on duty.

    Concur. As if we don't have enough GMT and PPT out the wazzoo that basically says, "Don't be a douchebag, and don't be stupid."

    You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts. At this point, we don't know for a fact that homosexuality is a choice, but we don't know it isn't either. The problem with saying "nuff said" based on your above personal anecdote is that even if you know the circumstances behind the "change," we do not. You may believe you know enough up this friend that it provides you with justification for your belief, but it doesn't logically follow that you have established fact.

    He may not have been gay before (homosexual experimentation != homosexual orientation), or he may be bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, or someone who outright rejects labels. He may also be lying, either to himself or others, and no change has occurred. Or he could be a special case, whereby his orientation did flip, and his case deserves extra studying because of the light it might shed on sexuality. In the latter case, it means that there are also probably heterosexuals who could flip orientation to homosexual given the correct biological, physiological, or psychological triggers...

    Unfortunately it is not enough for us to say "nuff said." To the contrary, it is a great example of why we need to keep discussing this in scientific circles.

    We don't need to discuss it on the job.

    Have we ever allowed "moral opposition" to impact implementation of policy?

    Unfortunately, there will be individuals on both sides that will cause problems. Both are wrong.
     
  15. twobecrazy

    twobecrazy RTB...

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    871
    Yea it was just wishful thinking. I realize it is unrealistic. Never said it would happen. The only thing I said that has a real chance of happening is not allowing them to serve in a combat environment if they came out. I also initially said serving on certain ships as well but that is unrealistic. It was meant as an opinion of how it would work better than just dumping it on everyone. As I said previously I believe it is the shock factor that will cause the most problems. I’m sure everyone on here has an idea of how they would like to see things happen and that would make this an easier implementation. Things sound better in my head at times before it comes out on paper. This happened to be one of the unrealistic ideas that popped out! I should have stopped when I was writing it. Next time I will take a page out of this book!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page