Don't Ask Don't Tell going away

[Jim123]

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.

Of course the people coming off back-to-back shore duty would get bumped by frequent deployers, but they would find out they were bumped only as they were walking up the brow with their seabags.

That and naturally the whole thing would have to be a CAC-enabled website, which would have a second order effect of discriminating against people who forget easily forget their six to eight digit PIN or simply prefer not to use Internet Explorer...

Where does it end?

 

[Flash]

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.

There will definitely be issues but sex changes? Really? Since when was that a gay issue anyways? The monetary impact will likely be minimal simply because the facilities will probably not change, at all.

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.

Gay marriage may not be accepted by society as a whole but homosexuality is accepted by many. When was the last time a gay man or woman was thrown in jail for being gay?

I as a woman want equal treatment. I want to serve in a combat role and bunk with my buddies. Please accommodate me......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?

The vast majority of jobs in the US military are now open to women, with the possible introduction of women into subs I believe only the SEALs will be closed to women in the Navy. Women serve in EOD, MP, Aviation and as SWOs. And physical differences remain between men and women, one only need to look at the different PRT minimums to see that. There are no physical differences between a gay and straight person.

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.

Not so much. We need all the linguists we can get yet we keep kicking out gay ones. And maybe allowing gays to serve openly would have helped with the recruiting issues a few years ago. The point is that you don't know that not allowing gays to serve openly doesn't impact readiness.

And my arguing with you has nothing to do with the fact you are a woman or a girl, I have no idea where you got that.

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.

Our leadership orders it so and it will be done, simple as that.

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.

Excellent point, the military is what our civilian leaders want it to be and do what they want it to do.

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

Just not practical to go beyond male and female.

Probably one of the biggest points to hammer home. I have no idea where people have gotten the idea that we need to create separate berthing for gays. No other country that allows gays to serve openly has done it, people advocating to allow homosexuals to serve openly don't advocate for it and we don't do it in the larger society here in the US, so what makes you think we will do it in the military? And why? To accommodate a handful of people who fear gays? Gimme a break, it is nothing but a specious argument to try and impede the policy from happening.

 

[CalamityJean]

There will definitely be issues but sex changes? Really? Since when was that a gay issue anyways? The monetary impact will likely be minimal simply because the facilities will probably not change, at all.

Since when was it a gay issue? Are you for real?

The vast majority of jobs in the US military are now open to women, with the possible introduction of women into subs I believe only the SEALs will be closed to women in the Navy. Women serve in EOD, MP, Aviation and as SWOs. And physical differences remain between men and women, one only need to look at the different PRT minimums to see that. There are no physical differences between a gay and straight person.

Staff positions and flight may be open to women but not infantry. Thats a huge chunk of billets. We're not just talking Navy. I'm not saying I am for or against women in combat, only if you want to argue equal treatment and equal oppertunity, jobs should be open to anyone who can qualify.

The point is that you don't know that not allowing gays to serve openly doesn't impact readiness.

And neither do you. And thats not what I said.

And my arguing with you has nothing to do with the fact you are a woman or a girl, I have no idea where you got that.

I have no idea where you got that either because I didn't say that. I have spent the majority of my debate time with you rewording sentences so you would understand what I'm trying to say. Your comprehensive reading skills suck.

 

[scoolbubba]

I have spent the majority of my debate time with you rewording sentences so you would understand what I'm trying to say. Your comprehensive reading skills suck.

As far as women in infantry roles, yes, you are right. There are no women with an infantry MOS in the USMC. However, there are plenty of women who are MPs, MAs, Air Defence Artillery, Motor-T, EOD, Seabees, etc etc. If you have an idea of what goes on in low intensity warfare, you'll realize that everyone is a frontline combatant.

As for the rest of your post...Here's a clue bomb: don't insult the people on this website with the little gold wingy things under their usernames. This isn't a political site with aviation threads; it's an aviation site that regularly violates its own policy against talking about women, religion, or politics. Trying to end an argument with "nanana you suck" won't get you far here.

Oh, and I'd be willing to bet dollars to pesos that Flash's reading comprehension skills are up to par. I'm pretty sure his job depends on it.

 

[m26]

God, you all think we girls read too much into what someone says.

My arguing with you has nothing to do with the fact you are a woman or a girl, I have no idea where you got that.

I have no idea where you got that either because I didn't say that.

I can see how the mistake could be made.

 

[CalamityJean]

M26- I tried to drag that paragraph to the bottom of my post because it was open ended and not directed at Flash. I probably should have put that in parentheses.

Schoolbubba- I didn't mean to insult the integrity of this site or it's members. It's a gem on the web and has been super helpful. But having a set of gold wings doesn't give him the right to put words in my mouth then "school" me on the things I didn't say. In all my responses I tried carefully to respond on topic and read his answers before I formed a response. I didn't say a thing about his character, only vented my frustration with having to keep order in the argument by clarifying every sentence twice.

 

[mmx1]

So for those of you who are insistent on separate facilities for homosexuals, do you avoid public locker rooms because there might be homosexuals gazing at you while you change (and don't pretend you're immune on-base since retirees, dependents, and civilian contractors are allowed in) Where's the outcry for segregated locker rooms or saunas for homosexuals in the civilian world? I guess this squeamishness is manufactured.

Excluding gays because you're afraid of them initiating sexual harassment or assault - by that logic our response to male on female sexual assault and harassment would be to exclude men from the military, since we're apparently too lazy to resort to anything but a blanket punishment.

 

[Harrier Dude]

As a practical matter, though, I do wonder what they'll do with the sodomy regulations. While they're at it, they should probably join the new millenium and ditch the adultery one as well. If it's enough of a problem to discipline, then it will rise to conduct unbecoming standards. Both are generally not used as crimes in themselves, just used by JAGs to pile on charges and force deals in otherwise weak cases.

Not so fast.....

Adultery is an actual problem that affects good order and discipline. People who commit this offense have no honor. They are, by definition, liars and untrustworthy. If your own spouse can't trust you, then why should anybody else? I know that in normal society that adultery is considered "no big deal", but that's where it's parallels to homsexual conduct stop in terms of military service. Adulterers conduct can greatly affect the effectiveness of a unit, particularly on the small unit level. I don't believe that homosexuals lack honor simply for being homosexual.

I have seen quite a bit of adultery get punished under the UCMJ. Some of it as a single offense (not piled on with other charges). There are varying degrees of this offense, and it probably gets brushed under the rug more than it should, but that's probably more because of the burden of proof than simple tolerance. If you flagrantly commit adultery, you should (and probably will) get hammered for it. It shows that you have no regard for your oath to your spouse (and God, if you see it that way), your obligation to obey regulations, or your own integrity. You made a choice to dishonor yourself. This is not about the military being stuck in the past. There are real consequences to the command for your conduct.

If you want to elimninate a meaningless and outdated part of 134, it should be cohabitation. I've never seen that affect good order and disciplne, nor have I ever seen it enforced.

As for adultery rising to the level of conduct unbecoming, article 133 only applies to officers.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

So for those of you who are insistent on separate facilities for homosexuals, do you avoid public locker rooms because there might be homosexuals gazing at you while you change (and don't pretend you're immune on-base since retirees, dependents, and civilian contractors are allowed in) Where's the outcry for segregated locker rooms or saunas for homosexuals in the civilian world? I guess this squeamishness is manufactured.

Forcing PFC Jones and LCpl Freddy Mercury to bunk together is not exactly the same as a few minutes changing in the locker room.

This is basically the equivalent of forcing a straight male and a straight female to share a room together - and then calling the straight female a bigot when she complains about being uncomfortable in this situation.

 

[mmx1]

Umhmm, so show me where colleges are segregating their housing by sexuality- these are the same 18 and 19 year old's, right? There's a movement in some schools to allow co-ed co-habiting by request, but for the most part we're throwing straight and gay students in the same double and expecting them not to rape each other.

 

[m26]

A movement? I was under the impression that several schools already had co-ed housing and I'm fairly certain co-ed common bathrooms have been around for years.

 

[Flash]

Since when was it a gay issue? Are you for real?

Umm, yeah, that is a deeper issue than just being gay. Moot point with respect to this debate anyways, the military won't start doing those anytime soon.

I have spent the majority of my debate time with you rewording sentences so you would understand what I'm trying to say. Your comprehensive reading skills suck.

I don't know, maybe you need to work on your writing skills.

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.

I believe in 'American Exceptionalism' but two of the countries I pointed out have cultures about as similar as you would get to our own country's. They are a lot more alike us than different and give us a good guide to how things will likely play out. In reality I think the ending of DADT and it's associated laws will pass by with a whimper in the military as it did in Australia, Britain and Canada. There was controversy there as well but the rules changed and servicemembers went on with their jobs with very little to no impact.

But having a set of gold wings doesn't give him the right to put words in my mouth then "school" me on the things I didn't say.

Gold wings don't give anyone a free pass but I didn't put words in your mouth, just used quotes.

Forcing PFC Jones and LCpl Freddy Mercury to bunk together is not exactly the same as a few minutes changing in the locker room.

This is basically the equivalent of forcing a straight male and a straight female to share a room together - and then calling the straight female a bigot when she complains about being uncomfortable in this situation.

That happens all the time already, people just aren't aware of it. I have a feeling that PFC Jones will just have to suck it up and drive on.

 

[mmx1]

Hey, I've been out of school for a few years. I meant specifically letting a male and a female share rooms (which is new to my alma mater); but yea, co-ed bathrooms have been pretty common in colleges too. Movement was a poor choice of words - there's been a trend.

 

[The Chief]

Back in the day, when Adm Zumwalt announced an expanded role for females I retired from my beloved Navy with just over 18 years, constructive time giving me credit for 20 years. My decision driven to retire was the announcement that females would serve on ships and be stationed in places like Guam, Japan, Diego Garcia and etc. I had no doubt females had the mental capacity, physical capacity (90% of jobs), courage and desire to serve. I was wrong in my fears about expanding roles of females. I was sure that testosterone would block synapses with increased friggin in the riggin, that females would become pregnant reducing performance levels, fraternization would reduce good order and discipline, females would get pregnant to avoid harsh duty and etc. I was wrong; the Navy has survived and apparently none the worse, none of these problems have occurred. Apparently.

I could be wrong about this issue as well, and that it will all work out. I do think there are some issues that may not have been fully vetted, so acting as devils? advocate ...

In our discourse, we are prevented by law and the constitution from using my generations? Q-word, which was replaced some years ago by the H-word and now replaced by the G-word. I cannot spell the G-word hence will use ? G-word ?. I think the DADT policy will become Do ask, Do tell. A train that cannot be stopped. Right or wrong it will happen.

My thought is if G-word are permitted to serve openly in the military, should not those that strongly oppose this significant change be allowed to opt out of any remaining obligated service and leave the military services? Sort of what I did, voting with my feet?

My second thought (at my age maximum allowed) how will the G-word marriage issue be handled. It would seem that if a Torpedo-man is married to a Yeoman stationed in a state that permits G-word marriages, that marriage would have to be accepted by the military. What happens upon a transfer out of state? Yikes.

My third thought (I forgot I only was allowed two). The TV pundits/activists all seem to use the same argument for changing DADT, that is; we are losing so many Arabic linguists because of the policy. What is the real connection between G-word and Arabic speaking folks? Just wondered.

 

[CalamityJean]

I don't know, maybe you need to work on your writing skills.

Shall we call it a draw then? You could argue the fuzz off a peach and as an OC to be I should probably be memorizing gouge and not debating! Hope your optimism pans out, I really do.