Don't Ask Don't Tell going away

[helolumpy]

Which brings the question: what exactly are their goals? What rights are they missing? This isn't about freedom of speech. This is the military. We all give up something in the name of service & professionalism. For the gays who want to serve, they already can.

What I think they want is 'normalization' of their sexuality. You are correct that this is not a freedom of speech issue; it is of civil rights. It boils down how do you define a 'minority'. The federal government has said you can not discriminate due to race, religion, ethnicity and now have brought sexual orientation into that group. The feds have said that gays are a legal minority, therefore they want the same rights that you and I enjoy.

To say that a homosexual can serve today is the same as saying that a member of the KKK can serve. As long as no one finds out, you're fine. Once you're out'd, then you're gone.

Once again I go back to the topic of functionality. Why don't men & women share berthing? We can all think of plenty of reasons, but I'm sure one of the biggest besides privacy is not creating an environment that fosters fucks-a-plenty and a break down in bearing. .

Agree that berthing issues will be difficult, so I would expect that the Army and Air Force will adapt quicker than the Navy and Marine Corps. There will need to be some determination of how best to arrange berthing but it will happen.

Until 50% of those being recruited are turned away for being gay, this is not an issue for the

US military. We turn away guys with the lamest medical conditions not to burn down their dreams or because they wouldn't be great soldiers/sailors/marines. We do it because it is an issue of liability. That is the reason why this whole conversation is asinine, because this is a political agenda to win votes, not to make us a better military. End of story.

You are making those exact same points I heard back in the early 90's when women were allowed into combat. Can you honestly tell me that every heterosexual man is better than every homosexual man in matters of naval warfare? Your argument is that because you're gay you will be a lesser pilot or a worse ship handler. Your citing of turning down "lamest medical conditions" is due to combat effectiveness of our military, therefore your tying to gays is invalid.

To say that a political agenda is only to win votes is a valid argument but it is the same argument back post-Tailhook when Pat Schroeder was on her campaign to punish the Navy and promote her own agenda. Today we have women flying every aircraft we have and some are the best sticks I've flown with over 18 years in the Navy.

I'll agree that in the initial rush to get women into the fleet some were allowed to get through the process with less than acceptable performance, but that's the price we pay for living in a democracy.

I don't always agree with the civilian leadership of both the country and the military, but one reason our country has been successful is that our military is under civilian leadership and we as military officers remain apolitical. If the government wants to include gays in the military that is their right to do so. I remember a LAMPS OIC who refused to have women on his Det and he was quickly relieved of his OIC position. I can't remember what happened to him afterwards, but I would guess he didn't make O-5... We'll all be in a similair boat very soon. If you don't want to serve with open gay members of the military, then you'll have to leave. It's what the civillian leadership wants, therefore we'll say Aye-Aye and carry on.

 

[jtmedli]

Or maybe they would have stepped up to the plate, with the added bonus of allowing women to vote, and not letting American citizens own other people. Who knows?

Do you really think repealing DADT is a "let's be friends and not hurt feelings" mentality?

Comparing women's rights and slavery to DADT is pretty absurd. Maybe it's just that I'm a little too far right wing but I'm not nearly as right wing as most. DADT is neither a "let's be friends" or "not hurt feelings" mentality. In my opinion, we have DADT for the same reasons we have sexual harassment laws/policies in the workplace. I know a few gay guys/gals and their sexuality doesn't bother me, but what does bother me is the logistical complications of allowing them serve with no attempt to keep their private lives private.

As Otto said, anyone who flaunts their sexuality in the workplace shouldn't be there in the first place so why is this minority fighting for the ability to do just that? Most people's reaction to that question is "well that's descrimination" and that's BS. Gays and Lesbians can serve with the current system as long as they keep their private lives private. No-one seems to really think about how we're going to take care of the 4th gender problems in relation to straight males + straight females + gay females + gay males. It's going to cause innumerable logistical problems with no real solutions.

 

[phrogdriver]

As Otto said, anyone who flaunts their sexuality in the workplace shouldn't be there in the first place so why is this minority fighting for the ability to do just that? Most people's reaction to that question is "well that's descrimination" and that's BS. Gays and Lesbians can serve with the current system as long as they keep their private lives private. No-one seems to really think about how we're going to take care of the 4th gender problems in relation to straight males + straight females + gay females + gay males. It's going to cause innumerable logistical problems with no real solutions.

Fine, then if nobody should "flaunt" their sexuality in the workplace, then it should also be illegal for you to bring your wife or girlfriend to an official function and not let you talk about her at work, either, right?

 

[jtmedli]

Fine, then if nobody should "flaunt" their sexuality in the workplace, then it should also be illegal for you to bring your wife or girlfriend to an official function and not let you talk about her at work, either, right?

Like I said, too many logistical problems with no real solutions. The 'opposing' point of view has equally as confusing and non-existent answers which is my point.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Luckily for us, putting women on warships has been a great success, as every single thread involving putting women on warships here on airwarriors can attest too...so of course there won't be any problems putting out'd gays on the same right?

It would be a logistical nightmare to work out the berthing, because berthing in the military is nonvoluntary. PFC Jones doesn't get to pick his room, so putting him in with another gay male would be the equivalent of putting him in the same room as a female. Sure, they might not be attracted to each other, but it is still socially awkward - at least for us unenlightened Americans.

Oh yeah, and generalizing Southerners (or any ther group) as being bigots who generalize other people is the height of irony.

PS - I am sure gays can work just as hard as anyone else, and I don't really care what people do at home, I just think that the logistics of the matter would be quite difficult given our current societal norms. And yes, I am certain that if the government makes a fundamental ruling against the current stance (stating that the US Military is there to fight and win wars, not to curry favor as some sort of social experiment), that everything will work out ok.

 

[Beans]

jtmedli, your definition of "keeping private lives private" is extreme and doesn't make sense. If we were to apply the basic principle of DADT to all servicemembers, then I wouldn't be able to discuss anything that would confirm or deny the existence of my wife. Similarly, one could not ask another "are you going to call that girl you met at the bar?" To do so would be to flaunt one's sexuality by making one's sexual orientation clear. If we only apply DADT to homosexuals, then we're not treating all servicemembers equally. Our civilian leaders are starting to think that that doesn't jive with the constitution.

The "too many logistical problems w/ no real solutions" explanation is a cop-out. I'll venture to say you've found yourself in a tight spot before and you've figured it out. We'll be ok. Those that really can't handle it can go the way of that ill-fated LAMPS OIC. You won't be forced to serve alongside gays. There's always the private sector.

 

[m26]

Comparing women's rights and slavery to DADT is pretty absurd.

It is not absurd, but at any rate it is a comparison that I did not make.

Maybe it's just that I'm a little too far right wing but I'm not nearly as right wing as most. DADT is neither a "let's be friends" or "not hurt feelings" mentality. In my opinion, we have DADT for the same reasons we have sexual harassment laws/policies in the workplace.

This is where I get confused. I don't see that narrow space where a gay sailor can flaunt his sexuality without it being sexual harassment or conduct unbecoming or some such.

It would be a logistical nightmare to work out the berthing, because berthing in the military is nonvoluntary. PFC Jones doesn't get to pick his room, so putting him in with another gay male would be the equivalent of putting him in the same room as a female. Sure, they might not be attracted to each other, but it is still socially awkward - at least for us unenlightened Americans.

Oh yeah, and generalizing Southerners (or any ther group) as being bigots who generalize other people is the height of irony.

Agreed.

 

[PSU3333]

I could care less if someone is gay, my issue with repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell is with promotion boards. Inevitably it become an equal opportunity case where board members are now going to have to worry about backlash for not promoting someone who is gay. It has happened with minorities and with women, what's to stop someone from saying they weren't promoted because they were gay? Personally, I don't care what color, sex, etc... you are, if you have a strong record then you deserve to be promoted.

 

[jtmedli]

Luckily for us, putting women on warships has been a great success, as every single thread involving putting women on warships here on airwarriors can attest too...so of course there won't be any problems putting out'd gays on the same right?

It would be a logistical nightmare to work out the berthing, because berthing in the military is nonvoluntary. PFC Jones doesn't get to pick his room, so putting him in with another gay male would be the equivalent of putting him in the same room as a female. Sure, they might not be attracted to each other, but it is still socially awkward - at least for us unenlightened Americans.

Oh yeah, and generalizing Southerners (or any ther group) as being bigots who generalize other people is the height of irony.

PS - I am sure gays can work just as hard as anyone else, and I don't really care what people do at home, I just think that the logistics of the matter would be quite difficult given our current societal norms. And yes, I am certain that if the government makes a fundamental ruling against the current stance (stating that the US Military is there to fight and win wars, not to curry favor as some sort of social experiment), that everything will work out ok.

Thank you and I agree.

jtmedli, your definition of "keeping private lives private" is extreme and doesn't make sense. If we were to apply the basic principle of DADT to all servicemembers, then I wouldn't be able to discuss anything that would confirm or deny the existence of my wife. Similarly, one could not ask another "are you going to call that girl you met at the bar?" To do so would be to flaunt one's sexuality by making one's sexual orientation clear. If we only apply DADT to homosexuals, then we're not treating all servicemembers equally. Our civilian leaders are starting to think that that doesn't jive with the constitution.

I didn't mean for it to be construed as some extremist view as I really don't care one way or the other who talks about what. My concern really lies with "what do you with them once they're openly gay".

The "too many logistical problems w/ no real solutions" explanation is a cop-out. I'll venture to say you've found yourself in a tight spot before and you've figured it out. We'll be ok. Those that really can't handle it can go the way of that ill-fated LAMPS OIC. You won't be forced to serve alongside gays. There's always the private sector.

I don't see how it is a cop-out at all. I think it's a much bigger cop-out to ignore the inherent problems that are going to occur and to take the 'damn the torpedoes' mentality and say "well we'll figure it out later". All I'm asking is how about actually considering the consequences and fallout which is something the current administration doesn't seem to be too good at doing.

 

[CalamityJean]

And Jim Crow laws didn't even allow blacks to drink at the same water fountains as whites in 1948 in much of the country. Those laws actually existed for 20 years longer. Want to bet that Johnny Reb didn't appreciate bunking with black guys, either? Yes, homosexuality is a behavior, but it's also a characteristic, and the prejudicial attitudes are the same.

The argument I was making wasn't whether our populace was right or wrong in comparison to the other countries concerning our views on gays, only that these countries with the stellar integration rates were decades ahead in their acceptance of them socially.

What far-reaching consequences?

Maybe poor wording choice on my part. Long term is better. Harassment cases. Sex changes. Family care plans. Promotions (because & not because of now known orientation). Separate areas for racks when integration doesn't just go off without a hitch. I'm thinking monetary impacts, and opening the door for even more policy changes.

Societal norms, simple as that. The norm for US and most western societies is to have separate facilities for men and women, and it stands up to legal scrutiny. With only rare exceptions there are not separate facilities for gays, which I doubt would stand up to legal scrutiny. I haven't heard any people who want to overturn 'don't ask don't tell' advocate for separate facilities anyways, reasonable ones anyways.

Societal norms also dictate that homosexuality is not an acceptable behavior. I'm not saying it is or isn't but that our society says its not. Every time it goes to a vote concerning gay marriage in a state, the people vote it down. Even in California. Societal norms can't be an arguing point & a defense. I as a woman want equal treatment. I want to serve in a combat role and bunk with my buddies. Please accommodate me.

You are making those exact same points I heard back in the early 90's when women were allowed into combat. Can you honestly tell me that every heterosexual man is better than every homosexual man in matters of naval warfare? Your argument is that because you're gay you will be a lesser pilot or a worse ship handler. Your citing of turning down "lamest medical conditions" is due to combat effectiveness of our military, therefore your tying to gays is invalid..............If you don't want to serve with open gay members of the military, then you'll have to leave. It's what the civilian leadership wants, therefore we'll say Aye-Aye and carry on.

God, you all think we girls read too much into what someone says. The sensitivity in this thread brings tears to my eyes. I didn't say because someone is gay they are a lesser pilot, or anything of the sort. I likened that it is not a NEED of the military at this time to overturn DADT, because the current policy works for meeting and maintaining mission goals and readiness. Cut and dry. They don't recruit kids to fulfill dreams and foster happy homes (hello divorce rate), they recruit individuals they need to fill jobs to win wars.

Women still cannot serve in combat by and large. There might be a few roles open, but the majority of jobs where direct line of fire is anticipated are not. Why is this? Not as strong, smart, motivated? Or is because its not acceptable yet in society?

I know this is an un-winnable, un-persuadable arguement that just leaves everyone chasing their tail. It still chaps my ass though that in one breath, "societal norms" are used as a defense of repeal and then in the next used to argue against a valid concern in how to do it. And not one person here has proposed how to implement the repeal without making some big time waves in a military that is currently at war.

 

[eddie]

I think it's a much bigger cop-out to ignore the inherent problems that are going to occur and to take the 'damn the torpedoes' mentality and say "well we'll figure it out later". All I'm asking is how about actually considering the consequences and fallout which is something the current administration doesn't seem to be too good at doing.

And not one person here has proposed how to implement the repeal without making some big time waves in a military that is currently at war.

Forgive me if I'm being obtuse here, but, didn't this thread start because Gates and Mullen said "sometime next week, we're going to show everyone how we would do this, if this were to happen." Obviously, some kind of thought-process / plan is coming down the pipe. So is the problem that the braintrust on AirWarriors arguing for a better tomorrow hasn't line-itemed the details, or that leadership (civilian or military) hasn't looked at the problem thoroughly enough (not sure you can make that argument until we know what they have to say about it)?

As far as war time: my impression (and they are often wrong) was shit only got better when units were actually forced to integrate during Korea. Not saying that openly-gay service and desegregation are the same, just that there have to be some similar logistical issues / social disfunctionality / tension.

 

[H60Gunner]

This isn't a new question, but no one seems to have a sane answer.

I have asked that exact same question for years and NO ONE has ever given me a sane answer. Berthing for men. Berthing for women. Berthing for men who act like women. Berthing for women who act like men. Berthing for those who do not know what they are. Where does it end? Seriously?

 

[scoolbubba]

I'd be willing to bet that we have "male berthing" and "female berthing."


Those of you who got their feathers in a ruffle over the logistics of it can smartly unruffle yourselves. If necessity and warrior Ethos were all that shaped our military, we could probably get by with some "300 spartans at the pass" type motherfuckers. But since those aren't the things our nation wants in the military, those of us in uniform will just have to continue to do the best we can to mirror what our civilian leaders think they want.

 

[HeyJoe]

I could care less if someone is gay, my issue with repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell is with promotion boards. Inevitably it become an equal opportunity case where board members are now going to have to worry about backlash for not promoting someone who is gay.

Can't see how the board would know (particularly if DADT(PH) is followed) and even with repealing it, how would board know? Promotion and Selection Boards don't get that long on each record and the picture you update in your record makes it pretty tough to hide your gender from a board and sometimes minority status, but how is board going to know sexual preference? You don't get to wear a rainbow pin or hold sign for your picture and your FITREPs don't say anything. The briefer isn't going to have option to say anything even if he knew the person and boards have strict guidelines of what can be said with recorders there to monitor even breaks.

It has happened with minorities and with women, what's to stop someone from saying they weren't promoted because they were gay?

I've seen letters to the board pointing out minority status to make sure board knew (playing the Equal Opportunity card), but who would write a letter proclaiming they are gay unless they knew a quota system was in play and would help? If and when DADT(PH) is dropped and outright ban repealed, then it would be far more likely that someone would go after the reporting senior for not breaking them out because of sexual preference. I've seen gender card played in the post Tailhook morass, but not via trying to second guess the board. The BUPERS vehicle for correction of Naval Records and getting a lawyer or going national on TV when they are looking for sensational news can force the service to react. IMO, it's going to be a transition fraught with hazard for reporting seniors more than the boards (unless instructions to the board internally or externally are out of whack)

 

[HeyJoe]

I have asked that exact same question for years and NO ONE has ever given me a sane answer. Berthing for men. Berthing for women. Berthing for men who act like women. Berthing for women who act like men. Berthing for those who do not know what they are. Where does it end? Seriously?

Just not practical to go beyond male and female. Of course they could use an airline software program and make some cash potentially for MWR by showing berthing options like airline seats and use loaction like aisle, middle, window diagrams and add colors for gender. You then use rank/lineal number to pick and could upgrade with donation to MWR or use your frequent deployment credits to boost your pick. It all gets so silly and would make for a great SNL skit.