Don't Ask Don't Tell going away

[OUSOONER]

1) Don't be gay 2) If you're gay...don't be gay at work 3) If you're straight, and want to talk about hookers and blow, know your audience and be prepared for any repercussions 4) If you're gay and you want to talk about hookers and blow, know your audience and be prepared for any repercussions

Pretty simple to me.

 

[CalamityJean]

The schematics alone are harder than integrating women into subs. How many guys are comfortable showering with a guy they know is attracted to men (even if not them specifically)? I know I wouldn't be comfortable showering with a female that was out and I knew it. I'm not comfortable showering with females to begin with. What about the rack situation? You can argue that gays serve now so nothing would change. I beg to differ. Morale would certainly be affected and berthing and the head would be a mess. The current policy is clutch. If you want to say something, say it at your own peril, otherwise STFU and do your job. I'd apply that standard to anybody, even the guys who love hookers (and blow).

 

[S.O.B.]

Will gay folks that are married get family housing or BAH with dependents?

 

[jtmedli]

The schematics alone are harder than integrating women into subs. How many guys are comfortable showering with a guy they know is attracted to men (even if not them specifically)? I know I wouldn't be comfortable showering with a female that was out and I knew it. I'm not comfortable showering with females to begin with. What about the rack situation? You can argue that gays serve now so nothing would change. I beg to differ. Morale would certainly be affected and berthing and the head would be a mess. The current policy is clutch. If you want to say something, say it at your own peril, otherwise STFU and do your job. I'd apply that standard to anybody, even the guys who love hookers (and blow).

THANK YOU!!!...for the hookers and blow reference that is...

 

[bubblehead]

Gay or straight, flaunting your sexuality in a work environment is un-professional.

Could not have been better said...

 

[m26]

Agreed. I'm so sick of the PC/"let's be friends mentality and not hurt anyone's feelings". Something tells me that had we had our current leaders in 1775 then this Nation of ours never would have gotten off the chopping block or even had a chance to begin with. So yeah, I think the problem here goes a little deeper than just this topic.

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? You may not agree with their goals, but the leaders advocating for gay rights such as these are campaigning for a tiny minority against the sentiments of the majority of the population, because they think these people are entitled to certain rights whether it makes the majority uncomfortable or not. The parallels to our previous civil rights movements are obvious, whether you agree with the movement or not. Maybe these people are wrong, but to call them spineless PC drones isn't right.

 

[Brett327]

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? You may not agree with their goals, but the leaders advocating for gay rights such as these are campaigning for a tiny minority against the sentiments of the majority of the population, because they think these people are entitled to certain rights whether it makes the majority uncomfortable or not. The parallels to our previous civil rights movements are obvious, whether you agree with the movement or not. Maybe these people are wrong, but to call them spineless PC drones isn't right.

+1

Brett

 

[CalamityJean]

You may not agree with their goals, but the leaders advocating for gay rights such as these are campaigning for a tiny minority against the sentiments of the majority of the population, because they think these people are entitled to certain rights...

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.

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. Otherwise we'd save a lot of money throwing everyone together. Insert out & proud gays and tell me where to put them? In their own separate sleeping areas? That wouldn't work. Pair gay & lesbian individuals together? Seriously, what do you do? I don't think its fair to end someone's career over their sexuality preference anymore than ending it over their musical tastes. However, I won't be bringing my favorite Abba CD to play on the loudspeaker, so maybe don't broadcast your love for hole #2 either.

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.

 

[Flash]

I still don't see how countries like UK, Australia and Israel can let gays serve and we can't. Someone explain to me how they are so drastically different from us, especially the Brits and the Aussies, that allows them to make the change while we cannot.

 

[Beans]

I still don't see how countries like UK, Australia and Israel can't let gays serve and we can't. Someone explain to me how they are so drastically different from us, especially the Brits and the Aussies, that allows them to make the change while we cannot.

I believe that they, as a people, don't hate gay people like we do. They're PC, brainwashed-by-the-gay-agenda, spineless fools, who are heading down the road to change their national colors to rainbow.

 

[CalamityJean]

Considering you listed 3 of the most socially liberal countries, it's not surprising the integration portion was fairly easy. (I mean that as fact, not with disdain).

But once again! Back to logistics, just do the math:

Austrailia: 100,000 in their total military and 51 ships (and only 2 Naval bases)
Israel: 175,000 in the IDF and 85 ships
UK: Only have 500,000 in their entire military and a total of 115 vessels.

The US has 3,000,000 AD & Reserve personal, with almost 500,000 alone in our Navy. And nearly 300 ships. Thats a huge difference logistically in doing ANYTHING NEW or different. That's why it was easy for them. Legally and physically. Its not impossible for us to do, just stupid.

 

[HeyJoe]

I still don't see how countries like UK, Australia and Israel can't let gays serve and we can't. Someone explain to me how they are so drastically different from us, especially the Brits and the Aussies, that allows them to make the change while we cannot.

They can or can't?

 

[Flash]

Considering you listed 3 of the most socially liberal countries, it's not surprising the integration portion was fairly easy. (I mean that as fact, not with disdain).

Socially liberal? You sure about that? A large part of the reason I listed them instead of many of the other countries is that two have societies and miltiaries that are very similar to ours while mainting the highest professionalism and engaging in combat ops alongside us for a very long time. The third is involved in constant combat ops and has a large conservative element in the country as well.

But once again! Back to logistics, just do the math.......The US has 3,000,000 AD & Reserve personal, with almost 500,000 alone in our Navy. And nearly 300 ships. Thats a huge difference logistically in doing ANYTHING NEW or different. That's why it was easy for them. Legally and physically. Its not impossible for us to do, just stupid.

Stupid? Simple logistics is the only reason? What logistics? There were little to no special accomodations made for gays in any of the militaries that I listed that I am aware of, like no 'gay only' berthing or baths. I would imagine that we will not make such accomodations either, that was tried before with little sucess. We will simply salute and continue on like we always have.

Again, the policy will almost certainly change and we will have to deal with it, simple as that. Anything else, as Brett would say, is just mental masturbation.

They can or can't?

I meant can, good catch!

 

[Scoob]

I still don't see how countries like UK, Australia and Israel can let gays serve and we can't. Someone explain to me how they are so drastically different from us, especially the Brits and the Aussies, that allows them to make the change while we cannot.

None of them have a Mason-Dixon line.

 

[scoolbubba]

No big deal. We all knew it was coming down the pike sooner or later. They serve with us now. They'll keep on serving. I doubt Kareoke night on the mess decks will turn into drag shows. I doubt many who serve will be doing queer eye for the LPO guy makeovers. The only difference now is if they are outed, or choose to live openly outside working hours, they won't have to worry about losing their job.