DADT repealed

[VS FO]

This is a sign of the times. Homosexuality, as a behavior whether innate or learned has become increasingly acceptable in recent years due to mainstream media, entertainment and "progressive" thinking. People as a majority have decided that it is unfair and unpopular to discriminate against a portion of the population due to a behavior which quite possibly they have no control over. The repeal of DADT and the ever increasing rights for gays in modern society is a direct result of our constantly evolving cultural morality. Had this topic of conversation occurred 30+ years ago most of the supporters of this new policy would have been on the other side of the argument. Who knows what behaviors will be deemed acceptable 30 years from now? If the prevailing argument continues to be that it is unfair to discriminate against a group for a behavior which they may have no control over, then who knows how far this "progressive" thinking will go. What are the "immoral" behaviors of today that might be acceptable in the future? I won't list examples, but most of you can probably still think of some. So the question remains, are we becoming more enlightened and better off as a society or on the edge of a very slippery slope. There's a lot to be said about forsaking a fundamental notion of right/wrong that has existed in human civilization and in most major religions for thousands of years. But who knows, maybe our generation knows better than all those who came before us. Only time will tell.
As for the military, I imagine most, including myself will continue to follow the orders of our superiors and defend this country. While, I personally have no problem working with homosexuals, I disagree with this new policy and with the notion that the government now has the right to order me to share living quarters and bathing facilities with openly gay men. It's not the first policy I have disagreed with however, and I'm sure it won't be the last. I will just add it to an ever growing list of "Cons" on my Stay In/Get Out list.

 

[Deleted member 24525]

DADT has been repealed! Sweet. I will shout it from the rooftops:
I AM A DEMOCRAT!!!

I say this in jest, but there is truth...how many of your peers were afraid to talk about their political or religious beliefs because they thought it would affect them within their commands....career etc. point being, I think people will use the same discretion for the most part.

again: WGAFF.

 

[m26]

If the prevailing argument continues to be that it is unfair to discriminate against a group for a behavior which they may have no control over, then who knows how far this "progressive" thinking will go. What are the "immoral" behaviors of today that might be acceptable in the future?

That's not the prevailing argument, though. It sounds like a straw man.

There's a lot to be said about forsaking a fundamental notion of right/wrong that has existed in human civilization and in most major religions for thousands of years.

You want to start the list of long-held beliefs that everyone now knows were batsh*t insane?

 

[bluemarlin04]

I once sub leased a room to a gay guy. He was no different than anybody else. He went about his business and I went about mine. I don't see anything major coming of DADT going away and am glad that people don't have to hide who they are. Maybe I am more tolerant than most because of where I grew up (Hawaii), but I could never understand why people feel uncomfortable around gays. They try to hit on you, tell them you're not interested. Just like hot women who tell the 1000's of guys who they work with they aren't interested. I've been hit on and approached by gay guys probably more than anyone on here. I just say "sorry, not like that" and that's it. Big Deal. No morals compromised. And besides, if you get hit on by a gay guy you should consider yourself lucky. Gay guys usually only hit on good looking handsome guys. You won in the genetics lottery they call life. Ok, so maybe the last part was partly me trolling. But like others said WGAFF. If someone doesn't want to bunk with a gay dude, I'll go bunk with them because I DGAF. Stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours.

I actually had this discussion with someone coming home from detachment. He was from the South and claimed being "homo" was immoral and not right. This was at breakfast in Thailand. Later that night he went and did many "immoral" things with the opposite sex, but hey "F those F A G S". Ridiculous.

 

[jarhead]

...Angry dudes in pink tutu's storming ridges in Afghanistan would scare the hell out of the Taliban! (tastelessly kidding)

Na, I doubt it...they're gonna get along just fine over here on "man-love Thursday's". (tastelessly kidding as well)

Somebody mentioned co-ed Dutch showering & head facilities over here… we (Americans) are banned from certain coalition showering & head facilities due to them being co-ed. We Americans are so backward thinking…

S/F

 

[phrogpilot73]

Um, if noone asked them their persuasion, they were forced to lie about absolutelly nothing. IMO, saying nothing isn't the same as being disengenuous in this case (integrity intact! and following the rules!).

At the Naval Academy, you can be guilty of an honor offense for "failing to ensure the full truth is known". Are you suggesting that "Freddie's Finishing School" (as you referred to it in the past) has a higher integrity standard than your precious fleet?

Beyond that - I don't talk about whatever deviant/non-deviant things I may or may not do with my wife. Yet, I can say: "My wife and I went to dinner last night, and you should try this place." My wife and I have been married for coming up on five years. There are probably people you are currently serving with that have been with their "partner" for longer than that. Yet under DADT, they couldn't say something as simple as that.

All of the arguments about a free-for-all fuck fest are bull shit.

Gay fucking already happens on ships, submarines, in squadrons, in infantry battalions, etc... If you think otherwise - you're fucking ignorant. Do you REALLY think it's only single, young, heterosexual sailors going to town in fan rooms?

YOU may be opposed to it - but my personal opinion is that as long as someone does their job (i.e. kills whoever is our current target), we uphold our standards with regards to behavior (i.e. - if you feel that some dude is leering at you while showering, fucking turn his ass in), then fuck it. Let him say that he went to the Big Easy for dinner with his boyfriend, and that I might enjoy dinner there...

 

[gparks1989]

...Again, if this was the same as race, then men and women should all shower, sleep and work together. If it is the same as color, then there should be no reason for me not to be able to shower with all of the females on the boat. You wouldn't go for that would you? Why? There is a reason men and women are kept separately...

While there aren't co-ed group showers that I know of, it is not at all that uncommon for there to be co-ed bathrooms. All you need are shower curtains and stalls.

 

[MAKE VAPES]

At the Naval Academy, you can be guilty of an honor offense for "failing to ensure the full truth is known". Are you suggesting that "Freddie's Finishing School" (as you referred to it in the past) has a higher integrity standard than your precious fleet?

Although I applaud the attempt to shore up the image of the integrity hungry soul-less institution... I'll direct my christmasy ill will to current policies, and continue to allow the Academy to execute its cyclic full frontal assault on its own integrity! Yer a good dude phrog, I just like pot stirring as one might imagine.

Your other points are heard... I just don't want to HEAR, don't want to KNOW, because I do CARE. Queers (or fruit flies from the previous articles if you prefer) gimme the hebee-jeebies, just like bumble-bees do (I donno why)... and I don't want to be a bumble bee or queer (before someone tries to say Im repressed...), and don't care to share their company if I do know about it. Thats just me, apparently I am wrong and should feel shameful for being the "unenlightened" mean person I am. Not feeling it yet... nope, not yet..... now? nope........

Carrying on with christmas half way around the world from the family.... Merry Christmas AWers, even to you fuzzy little mammals and fruit flies.

 

[Brunes]

Not wanting to live or shower with a gay guy is not imposing one's morals on another, no one said the gay guy couldn't be gay.

I think you may be misunderstanding the argument I'm making. I'm not for DADT, I could give a rats ass who you fuck, I'm looking down the road when I have Seaman Timmy, who grew up a Southern Baptist and believes homosexuality is morally and religiously wrong, and Seaman Jimmy who grew up and is openly gay, and they are in berthing together. You say if someone is against being gay, don't hang out with gay dudes or don't condone it. How do you solve the conflict of the people LIVING together though? That's a big difference than just working a 9-5 with a person and saying adios at the end of the day.

In that example, do I tell Seaman Timmy to suck it up and deal with it while I let the Seaman Jimmy go about his day? To me, that means I just told Seaman Timmy to go fuck himself and I consider the Seaman Jimmy more important. That just made Seaman Timmy violate what he believes in and has rights to (the whole religious freedom thing right?). Or do I maybe tell Seaman Jimmy to tone it back a bit, maybe move him to a different berthing, which could open a whole 'nother can of worms.

That's what I'm getting at. How would you deal with that?

No one said he couldn't be gay- Just that if anyone at work finds out he is, he will most likely lose his job.

Seaman Jimmy might well be gay- That doesn't make him some alien with flashing signs about how great it is to be gay, or make him walk around in drag and try to hump every male on the boat. He'll have to put on a uniform and complete his tasking for the day. At the end of the day, when it goes back to living together, vice working together-They don't have to be best friends. I lived in a 35 man berthing area and a 20 man berthing area for various patrols...and I knew like 5 guys in the 35 man and about 1/2 of the 20 man cause of work and duty. I'll admit I was only there for a couple months but I also know that the non-rates in most deck berthing areas don't ALL hang out together all the time. So Timmy can be against homosexuality....and leave his moral and religious objections "at the door", get the mission done, and then go back to his rack and be as anti-homosexuality as he'd like. Just like everyone can leave sexual preference "at the door", get the mission done, and then go on libo and live their lives.

Im curious on your source of 360 million dollar information being in 'the big easy' and all (wiki???). Regardless, that's 20 million a year, a drop in manpower's budgetary bucket. Day before cruise pregnant chicks likely cost more. The hate and discontent potential, affect on recruiting, readiness blah blah blah that I keep refering to will cost way more.

Besides we could change federal law around so as to reduce prosecution of lots of other violations too, MAYBE CONSENTUAL INCEST! It is after all between concenting adults right??? It's the way they were "born" right??? It could be a "gene"... ok, im just pot stirring now, I'll stop. Im trying to make a case to a generation with generally deaf ears... getting nowhere.

This dinosaur will go into his retirement cave soon enough to scoff at the cute, intellectual, earth loving, egalitarian little mammals scurrying about humping one another's asses. God forbid one of you little fuzzy mammals works for me before then, I will eat you immediatelly. BWAH!

Sorry-My sources aren't nearly as good a wiki...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-14-dont-ask-report_x.htm
That's one report about the money costs- It does agree with what wiki has to say.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-08/what-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-really-costs.html
That's one about the hate and discontent on the other side of the fence.

After that you are stirring the pot....and lucky for both of us I can pretty much guarantee I will never work for you. So you won't need to be a dude...eating another dude. Far as not hanging out with them...Don't.

And Merry Christmas!!

 

[insanebikerboy]

They BOTH need to deal with it. Now YOU need to figure out a solution, LEADER and OFFICER of sailors or Marines. The only difference is that now you know there's a problem and before you didn't.

Since you were inclined to respond to my post, instead of just completely ignoring my valid question and telling me to deal with it, how would you? Or do you just tell your guys who come to you with any problem to just "deal with it". Be a leader yourself because you have more experience as an officer than I do.

These haven't been rhetorical questions. I grew up in a predominately Southern Baptist area so I know how adamant they can be against homosexuality. I've also lived just south of San Francisco so I've lived near and worked with gay people, and I know how strongly they feel about homosexuality too. I'm worried about the genuine, and possibly severe, conflicts that are potentially coming.

Again, telling Timmy to deal with it means that I've just ignored his very valid concerns. The same applies to Jimmy.

So Timmy can be against homosexuality....and leave his moral and religious objections "at the door", get the mission done, and then go back to his rack and be as anti-homosexuality as he'd like. Just like everyone can leave sexual preference "at the door", get the mission done, and then go on libo and live their lives.

So what's your take on this? Let's ignore showers/heads, I'll readily agree the only time I've ever showered in open bay showers was in boot camp. A shower curtain does wonderful things.

Why do we forbid men and women from living in the same berthings? Is it simply "just because" or is it because there may be inclination towards sexual attraction towards one another? How is that different than a gay man living with a straight man? I've never said there are going to be orgies or that gay men are going to just fling themselves at the other men, the same way that I don't think that would be the case with men and women living together.

There's a term in the security business "thefts of opportunity", which means basically something is laying right in front of them so they take it. The same would seem to apply in the berthing cases, simply because two people who may not have been inclined to do anything simply working together may in fact do something since they live in racks right next to each other. The majority would go about their business and work and live together fine, but we don't let men and women live together for this reason so why and how is that different than gay and straight men (or women)?

However, we do have certain norms that are in place, i.e., if a woman goes into a single man stateroom the door is supposed to be open while the man and woman are both in there. Do we start doing that if a gay and straight man are in the room together, or what if it's a single man stateroom and it's two gay men? Or is that a bad norm, do we just start closing the doors and say go with it, let them be people and if something does happen just fucking hammer them both?

Or is it as simple as just telling people to deal with it and that's it, regardless of their religion/beliefs/values/morals? I don't buy that answer because I feel that if someone comes to me with a concern that is very valid to them, I need to address it.

Am I chicken little? Am I overthinking this? Perhaps, perhaps not, but you can't sit there and tell me for sure that there won't be problems the same way that I can sit here and say that there will be problems. Not figuring out how to deal with it now sets us up for failure later.

 

[Brunes]

Since you were inclined to respond to my post, instead of just completely ignoring my valid question and telling me to deal with it, how would you? Or do you just tell your guys who come to you with any problem to just "deal with it". Be a leader yourself because you have more experience as an officer than I do.

These haven't been rhetorical questions. I grew up in a predominately Southern Baptist area so I know how adamant they can be against homosexuality. I've also lived just south of San Francisco so I've lived near and worked with gay people, and I know how strongly they feel about homosexuality too. I'm worried about the genuine, and possibly severe, conflicts that are potentially coming.

Again, telling Timmy to deal with it means that I've just ignored his very valid concerns. The same applies to Jimmy.




So what's your take on this? Let's ignore showers/heads, I'll readily agree the only time I've ever showered in open bay showers was in boot camp. A shower curtain does wonderful things.

Why do we forbid men and women from living in the same berthings? Is it simply "just because" or is it because there may be inclination towards sexual attraction towards one another? How is that different than a gay man living with a straight man? I've never said there are going to be orgies or that gay men are going to just fling themselves at the other men, the same way that I don't think that would be the case with men and women living together.

There's a term in the security business "thefts of opportunity", which means basically something is laying right in front of them so they take it. The same would seem to apply in the berthing cases, simply because two people who may not have been inclined to do anything simply working together may in fact do something since they live in racks right next to each other. The majority would go about their business and work and live together fine, but we don't let men and women live together for this reason so why and how is that different than gay and straight men (or women)?

However, we do have certain norms that are in place, i.e., if a woman goes into a single man stateroom the door is supposed to be open while the man and woman are both in there. Do we start doing that if a gay and straight man are in the room together, or what if it's a single man stateroom and it's two gay men? Or is that a bad norm, do we just start closing the doors and say go with it, let them be people and if something does happen just fucking hammer them both?

Or is it as simple as just telling people to deal with it and that's it, regardless of their religion/beliefs/values/morals? I don't buy that answer because I feel that if someone comes to me with a concern that is very valid to them, I need to address it.

Am I chicken little? Am I overthinking this? Perhaps, perhaps not, but you can't sit there and tell me for sure that there won't be problems the same way that I can sit here and say that there will be problems. Not figuring out how to deal with it now sets us up for failure later.

The male-female argument doesn't hold up-It is a "just because" someone a long time ago decided that males and females were to get separate berthing. Maybe it's because of the statistical bias from numbers of sexual assault on females by males. Maybe it's cause society hasn't gotten there yet. I don't really know.

As far as the "thefts of opportunity part"- I'm not sure I follow where you are going. Consensual sex happens already. It's prohibited but it happens. Being allowed to be gay doesn't change that. So arguing that people are going to have sex out in the open just isn't logical. Sexual attractions-It is a far greater chance that a couple might pop up in mixed gender berthing. I don't find every girl attractive...Pretty sure gay guys work the same way with dudes. Add to that that most people make their feelings on homosexuality pretty clear...and a gay guy who is looking to serve his country will know who to steer clear of.
If you are talking about rape- That isn't any more likely to happen either. The repeal says you can be gay. Being gay doesn't make you a sexual predator or make the rape article from the UCMJ go away.

I agree with you- You can't just ignore someone who comes to you with a problem. But you have to evaluate the problem- If your morally objecting sailor comes to you and says "Seaman so and so is gay and I think that is wrong and evil"- They get told to not hang out with Seaman so and so and go live their life in the way they see fit. It's not your morally objecting sailors place to tell Seaman so and so how to live his life. They don't need to be friends to get mission complete. And again- Forcing one person to hide their lifestyle for someone else's peace of mind doesn't make sense when the alternative is everyone being adults and leaving sex outside the workplace.
If your morally objecting sailor has issues with the way Seaman so and so is acting- May need some evaluation. Gay pride parades thru the berthing aren't appropriate. Talking with a lisp happens to all sorts of folks- gay and not gay. If Seaman so and so is hitting on everyone in the berthing area incessantly...Then Seaman so and so needs a talk about what is appropriate work activities and discussion topics.

I'm not going to say there won't be problems-That would be ignoring the obvious. It's been demonstrated during this discussion that there are people who are only going to do what they are ordered to do...which will show if they actually have to work with a homosexual sailor/airman/marine. I do agree that not being ready for it would be poor planning- but all the frame work already exists. It's the military- So sometimes things come down to "We know you don't like it....but you have to do it anyways" (much like DADT was....)

 

[Pugs]

"Gobble cock" is no longer acceptable in this new regime, it is offensive to gays. Please remember that in the future.
;-)

So munching the clam is right out? :icon_tong

 

[bunk22]

It's completely obvious that after 12 pages of discussion, whining, bitching, arguing, complaining and joking that there isn't an issue at all with the removal of DADT

 

[insanebikerboy]

The male-female argument doesn't hold up-It is a "just because" someone a long time ago decided that males and females were to get separate berthing. Maybe it's because of the statistical bias from numbers of sexual assault on females by males. Maybe it's cause society hasn't gotten there yet. I don't really know.

Well, I suppose that's what I was getting at, why should there be a distinction now between co-ed berthing/heads/etc?

As far as the "thefts of opportunity part"- I'm not sure I follow where you are going. Consensual sex happens already. It's prohibited but it happens. Being allowed to be gay doesn't change that. So arguing that people are going to have sex out in the open just isn't logical. Sexual attractions-It is a far greater chance that a couple might pop up in mixed gender berthing. I don't find every girl attractive...Pretty sure gay guys work the same way with dudes. Add to that that most people make their feelings on homosexuality pretty clear...and a gay guy who is looking to serve his country will know who to steer clear of.
If you are talking about rape- That isn't any more likely to happen either. The repeal says you can be gay. Being gay doesn't make you a sexual predator or make the rape article from the UCMJ go away.

What I was getting at was if they live in racks right next to each other, it would just be easier for something to happen than if they weren't in the same berthing, the "opportunity" part. Otherwise they have to find those fan rooms, etc. The same applies to men and women as it would to gay/gay, etc. Again, I'm not saying sexual deviancy will be prolific through berthing, but we separate men and women so do we separate gay men from other gay men?

It's the military- So sometimes things come down to "We know you don't like it....but you have to do it anyways" (much like DADT was....)

I think that's what is going to be the ultimate outcome. I didn't agree with the way DADT told people to ignore things and I think the answer that will be passed down is that everyone else has to ignore it, whether that is the right or wrong choice.

 

[Brunes]

Well, I suppose that's what I was getting at, why should there be a distinction now between co-ed berthing/heads/etc?

Because there isn't a large movement of folks who want co-ed facilities...there is a large movement of folks who want equal treatment for gays and lesbians.

What I was getting at was if they live in racks right next to each other, it would just be easier for something to happen than if they weren't in the same berthing, the "opportunity" part. Otherwise they have to find those fan rooms, etc. The same applies to men and women as it would to gay/gay, etc. Again, I'm not saying sexual deviancy will be prolific through berthing, but we separate men and women so do we separate gay men from other gay men?

How many berthing areas have you lived in?? Cause all the ones I've seen....You aren't going to be able to lay pipe with anyone and not have anyone else know. Racks not near big enuf, no "hidden" corners, constant traffic. Just ain't gunna happen.

I think that's what is going to be the ultimate outcome. I didn't agree with the way DADT told people to ignore things and I think the answer that will be passed down is that everyone else has to ignore it, whether that is the right or wrong choice.

Agreed.

I gotta go stand the watch. ~peace and Merry Christmas!!!