DADT repealed

[mmx1]

From the support plan for implementation:

Services retain the discretion—as budgetary constraints and mission
needs permit—to modify facilities to provide one or more private showering/
changing areas consistent with current DoD design guidance. Small
modifications to improve privacy, such as installing privacy curtains where
feasible, can be accomplished at the unit level with little impact on the force.
As in civilian society, there will be locations, either at the fitness facility or in
the field, where privacy will be minimal. Members of the Military Services
must understand that the mission frequently demands operations in austere
conditions where privacy is not a concern to operational planning.

As with shower and bathroom facilities, the Working Group does not
recommend any new construction or modifications to facilities beyond low-cost,
unit-funded adaptations where appropriate. Existing design criteria are
adequate to support most billeting and berthing concerns in the the Department
of Defense. DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) require that all new permanent
party unaccompanied housing be designed to afford members private bedrooms
and bathrooms shared by not more than one person (the “1+1” standard). DoD
UFC will remain in effect regardless of repeal of 10 U.S.C § 654, as will existing
Service waivers or exceptions and Services’ ability to apply for such waivers and
exceptions. The continued construction of unaccompanied housing facilities in
accordance with the 1+1 standard, subject to Service waivers and exceptions,
will, over time, provide greater personal privacy to Service members as
budgetary constraints and mission needs permit. Regardless of the availability
of individual bedrooms for Service members, such construction would not affect
berthing or billeting in deployed or shipboard environments.

The truth is, from a numbers perspective, gay/straight interaction in bathroom facilities aren't treated by society like the distinction between male and female. There aren't separate gay/straight showers in public (or even on-base) gym facilities with no stalls or privacy curtains, but, amazingly, people manage to deal with it.

 

[Flying Toaster]

I certainly can't speculate seeing as how I haven't had the opportunity to serve yet (so feel free to disregard the remainder of what I say), but I have spent the last four years in an environment where homosexuality is not only condoned, but in some warped way glamorized and encouraged. I also have the misfortune of living in the first state to legalize gay "marriage." I keep hearing examples of homosexuals honorably serving our country now cited as to why this will go over so smoothly. In turn I will say there is a stark contrast between people who hide their sexuality either out of necessity or personal reasons and those who wear it openly. I don't think it is that outlandish to suggest the type of person who was willing to sacrifice any expression of their sexuality, to serve their country, is different than the type who wouldn't join before, but now will openly.

I don't think anyone is/was saying the world was going to end, clearly most people have the professionalism to deal with the situations which are and will be presented. It certainly won't stop me in my desire to serve. The question was simply how necessary was it to do RIGHT now, at a time of war, or at all. The people passing this really didn't care about the answer, it had more to do with their political agenda and the fact they would be out of office in a month. Last time I checked the entire point of the armed forces was to get the job done and defend this country, not to be used as a means in which to make political statements (although it certainly has happened). Perhaps someone more versed in the Constitution can let me know if their is a clause/amendment that states anyone has a right to serve in the military. Last time I checked if you have a condition, whether developed at birth or later in life, like asthma that will impede the mission, you can't serve. Does having openly gay people serve adversely affect the mission in any way? I certainly don't know, but the majority of people on the pointy end of the spear seemed to think so.

[/overly political, uneducated rant]

 

[insanebikerboy]

Easily? How? Just due to sheer numbers? You have to find somebody willing to switch with you. Good luck, but the the XO shall speak and talking time is over.

Yeah, I was just thinking a pure numbers thing, easier to move a few people around vice a whole berthing compartment.

The truth is, from a numbers perspective, gay/straight interaction in bathroom facilities aren't treated by society like the distinction between male and female. There aren't separate gay/straight showers in public (or even on-base) gym facilities with no stalls or privacy curtains, but, amazingly, people manage to deal with it.

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's a bit different to compare living and berthing on a ship/tent/etc, to a public bathroom.

I hope the issues can be worked out effectively but I think there may be some serious speedbumps on the way.

 

[mountainman]

If it were simply about someone being able to admit that they're gay and then continue serving that would be one thing. HOWEVER, how many thousands of pages of paper will it take the DOD to codify this and implement it? It should be simple but it won't be.

DO YOU THINK THAT THIS WILL SATISFY ALL OF THE GAY PRESSURE/ POLITICAL ACTION GROUPS? I'll answer that for you, "FUCK NO IT WON'T!" This is just the beginning of an endless run around. Now gays can serve openly, so how long will it take for them to start bitching about how they feel that their sexuality has caused them to be oppressed and discriminated against in terms of career progression. No problem, we'll convene another massive study to uncover the ground truth on that one.

 

[MAKE VAPES]

Just like the recent from the top to push for diversity in the officer ranks.... the Navy will now have a secret code to promote the first openly "REAR" Admiral.

Filling fighter cockpits and front offices should be about warfare skills and leadership, not social experiments. If shit isn't broke (we have a semi-functioning force now), don't try to fix it.

I'll execute whatever the hell they tell me to for the next 3.5 years well. After that I am a dot on the horizon, this is not the fighting force I joined to kick ass in.
We should be passing laws to win and repealing ones that will prevent us from winning the next war. This is another bullshit PC slippery slope slide.

 

[ryan1234]

Insane, you raise some excellent points, and they're ones that are going to have to be addressed by senior leaders. I foresee a number of homosexuality awareness classes in the near future. There really is no GOOD solution to alleviate the problems felt by those who are berthing with others of a different sexual orientation. The best solution to tell people is to grow up. If a gay guy is hitting on you, that can be considered fraternization, or sexual harassment, and ought to be dealt with as such.

Like it, or not, the ability to live with other people's differences is part of being an adult. You don't have to LIKE other people's lifestyle choices, but we all ought to respect them as individuals.

Now, in an ideal world, it would work like that. Sadly, the best thing that can be done is take these changes in stride, and meet the challenges as they arise. It may be a bumpy few years, but the Navy (and the rest of the military) ought to be able to do the incorporation smoothly. The military has (with varying degrees of success) been able to integrate genders and races, this was the next logical step.

For those with wives in the military, I'm intrigued to hear their perspective.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the US Military functioned just fine prior to this. Why can't things just be like they used to?

 

[Seafort]

I guess it's an ignorance is bliss sort of thing. I have no problems with homos serving in the military, I actually have gay friends, but what would make it different to me is if one of the guys in my stateroom suddenly outs himself. Now, how am I gonna feel about playing PS3 in only my boxers and sandals with the knowledge that my roommate likes sausage?

...You say you have gay friends, and yet you have no issue saying "homos" so flippantly? Part of the change is going to be watching that sort of language. Just as we have to watch what we say in regards to race and sex. As for the second question, if you've known this guy, flown with this guy, put your life in his hands, why should it matter? Just because he tells you he likes some men (no one likes every person, so there are plenty of men that gay men don't find attractive, just as you don't find every one woman attractive...), suddenly that calls into question everything you've ever been with him? I call BS. He's gonna be the same guy who you relied on, and who relied on you. If you let it change your perception, that's on you.

Flying Toaster,

Can we trade states? You can have Texas. I'll take your anti-discriminatory state, please. No legal marriages for anyone, that's a socio religious institution, and the state should stay out of it. Civil unions for everyone, because the government needs to know who I combine legal and financial rights with. I don't need a government to bless my marriage with my wife, that's between me, my Church, and my God. Likewise, I don't need a religious institution telling me who I can and cannot share my finances with, or who gets custody of my children, or who gets to pull the plug if I am on life support. Apples and oranges, and we're long past the time where we should stop confusing them...

Last time I checked the entire point of the armed forces was to get the job done and defend this country, not to be used as a means in which to make political statements (although it certainly has happened).

....So was integration a "political statement?" Was allowing women to serve a "political statement?" I don't understand the whole social experiment argument or the argument that this is a political statement. This is discrimination based on something that doesn't matter. There is no experiment. The experiment happened after Stonewall. We're in the tested over and over and over period and we came to the same conclusion that our society is not going to collapse due to homosexuality, and that homosexuals are valuable members who contribute greatly, because Americans are awesome, and they're Americans first.

Perhaps someone more versed in the Constitution can let me know if their is a clause/amendment that states anyone has a right to serve in the military. Last time I checked if you have a condition, whether developed at birth or later in life, like asthma that will impede the mission, you can't serve. Does having openly gay people serve adversely affect the mission in any way? I certainly don't know, but the majority of people on the pointy end of the spear seemed to think so.

No one has a "right" to serve, but the standards by which we accept someone to serve must be based on merit. I'm against a lot of the so called diversity initiatives for this very reason. However, in the case of gays and lesbians, their sexual orientation has nothing to do with their merits. Might as well say anyone who doesn't have sex in the missionary position can't serve, or anyone who has sex out of marriage can't serve. Heck, I would go further, since I don't believe homosexuality to be a choice, and say it's as silly as saying someone can't serve because they have blue eyes. Frankly ridiculous. It's not considered a psychiatric condition, it's not considered a deformity. Gays and lesbians don't harm unit cohesiveness. People who dislike or are uncomfortable with gays and lesbians and openly show it through word or action, ie harassment, are those that harm unit cohesiveness. There is no good reason to keep them out, and so the whole "right to serve" argument is a red herring. It's not germane. If we deny people, that's fine, but there must be a good reason, or the people, eventually, will demand the civilians leaders do something. And that's what happened here. The people spoke, and the leaders listened, and Congress finally stopped this unfair practice.

I still don't need to know or care what you sexuality is, and if you bring it up inappropriately, I'll tell you to get back to work, but if we're at the Navy Marine Corps Birthday Ball, and you introduce me to your partner I'm going to make damn sure to treat that person with the respect they deserve for holding down the fort on the home front, and helping you to effectively do your job.

Don't Know, Don't Care, If Known, Still Don't Care.

 

[usmarinemike]

I applaud your conviction, and completely understand your viewpoint. There will be ridiculous growing pains though. Enough of a reason to keep it from happening? No. But it's a massive palm to the face moment for every leader who has to deal with this on top of already large mountain of work.

 

[Seafort]

usmarinemike, "we have been doing so much, with so little, for so long, we can now do anything with nothing."

 

[Pugs]

Honestly, I don't see this causing many problems on the officer side of the house, however, there will be incidents. .

All well and good until they become a protected class and you start seeing promotion quotas and checks after boards. Happens today for some groups and we see the results in some of the "leaders" we have today.

 

[MAKE VAPES]

That will absolutelly happen Pugs, I keep refering to the Admiral I heard upon OPNAV check in saying "...we need to reflect the society we protect"...

All this political headnodding to be recognized as a "Green" Force and Top 10 employer....

VOMIT.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the US Military functioned just fine prior to this. Why can't things just be like they used to?

Never said they couldn't. But, openly acknowledging that you are gay forces issues on berthing/living/etc that wasn't there before.

...You say you have gay friends, and yet you have no issue saying "homos" so flippantly?

Really? Dude, if you actually knew me then you'd realize how far off you are. Get a grip and lighten up Francis.

As for the second question, if you've known this guy, flown with this guy, put your life in his hands, why should it matter? Just because he tells you he likes some men (no one likes every person, so there are plenty of men that gay men don't find attractive, just as you don't find every one woman attractive...), suddenly that calls into question everything you've ever been with him? I call BS. He's gonna be the same guy who you relied on, and who relied on you. If you let it change your perception, that's on you.

Nice job on completely missing the point of my post. I never said that I wouldn't trust him, I never said he couldn't do his job just as well. What I said, and it's the exact same reason that we don't let men and women live in the same stateroom/berthing/tent, is that an openly gay man is by very definition sexually attracted to men. So, why should there be a double standard?

Working with someone that is gay or straight in a shop or an office isn't a problem. The problem is going to stem from when those same people have to go home at the end of the workday and home is a berthing and not completely separate houses/apartments/etc.



I guess the underlying thread of my post was just that obtuse for some. I never said DADT shouldn't be repealed. What I said, if certain situations, namely berthing and the like can be effectively taken care of, I think this can be implemented with minimal problems and easily.

Look at it another way, back when women were first allowed on ships, the higher ups said people will be professional, not let sex get in the way, etc, because women belong on ships and everyone will control their carnal instincts.

It's a fact, women can do just a good of a job as men can and have contributed greatly, the same way a homosexual (is that better?) can do just as good a job as a straight can.

What happened in reality though? Human nature gets the best of some and people started fucking in fanrooms, swab closets, whereever they possibly could get their rocks off, and chicks got pregnant, marriages got ruined, etc, etc. Not everyone, mind you, but it happened then and still does, and men and women weren't and aren't rooming or living together. It's not just enlisted, officers do it too.

There are going to be unintended and unexpected consequences if the living situations can't be ironed out. Until they are, hope for the best but you have to logically expect the worst.

I'm being a realist, if the world were all rainbows and unicorn farts we'd have no problems at all with this, but it's not.

 

[helolumpy]

This is all political BS. Homosexuals still won't receive any of the benefits that their married counterparts do because federal law doesn't recognize same sex marriages. So take out BAH, Tricare, and all the other benefits of being married in the military, and nothing has changed. BUT, the common American believes that this is a landmark day in civil rights and non-partisan politics.

Bottom line, the more things change...

While right now, this is true, this is leading towards federal recognition of homosexual marriage. If gays are allowed to serve and can get married in some states (for example Connecticut) and can then be stationed in RI (which recognizes gay marriages from other states) then how does BAH and hospital visitation rights work?

The DOMA specifically prohibits the federal gov't from recognizing gay marriage, but now that gays are allowed to openly serve, the issue then becomes, why can't gay military members get married?

IMO this is a means to get DOMA repealed. If prohibiting gays from serving is wrong, then why can't they get married?
DADT was a federal law that prohibited gays from openly serving, the repercussions will now be challenges to DOMA.

 

[The Chief]

Barriers are removed, one at a time. Progress is made one step at a time, always keeping a clear vision of the ultimate goal.

 

[Seafort]

Really? Dude, if you actually knew me then you'd realize how far off you are. Get a grip and lighten up Francis.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It's still not a term I would use.

Nice job on completely missing the point of my post. I never said that I wouldn't trust him, I never said he couldn't do his job just as well. What I said, and it's the exact same reason that we don't let men and women live in the same stateroom/berthing/tent, is that an openly gay man is by very definition sexually attracted to men. So, why should there be a double standard?

Well, there shouldn't be, but as said before, we're not ready for Starship Troopers yet. I'm "attracted" to women, but I tell you, the vast majority of the women I see I don't actually find sexually attractive. Since I am not gay, I can only guess, but I'm pretty sure that's true of people who are. I can, and have, shared accommodations and bathing facilities with females, and it is not a problem. In Japan, many public baths are segregated, but many aren't. Many public restrooms are not segregated either.

Working with someone that is gay or straight in a shop or an office isn't a problem. The problem is going to stem from when those same people have to go home at the end of the workday and home is a berthing and not completely separate houses/apartments/etc.

See above. I see your point. I just think we're, in general, more capable of restraint, and more capable of seeing people as people and not as possible sex objects, than perhaps you do.

I guess the underlying thread of my post was just that obtuse for some. I never said DADT shouldn't be repealed. What I said, if certain situations, namely berthing and the like can be effectively taken care of, I think this can be implemented with minimal problems and easily.

I did perceive it far more negatively than I perceive it now. If my perception was flawed, I owe you an apology. Yet, I do not think gay berthing and straight berthing is the way to go. And if I had my druthers, we would go to the Nordic/Starship Troopers model.

Look at it another way, back when women were first allowed on ships, the higher ups said people will be professional, not let sex get in the way, etc, because women belong on ships and everyone will control their carnal instincts.

It's a fact, women can do just a good of a job as men can and have contributed greatly, the same way a homosexual (is that better?) can do just as good a job as a straight can.

What happened in reality though? Human nature gets the best of some and people started fucking in fanrooms, swab closets, whereever they possibly could get their rocks off, and chicks got pregnant, marriages got ruined, etc, etc. Not everyone, mind you, but it happened then and still does, and men and women weren't and aren't rooming or living together. It's not just enlisted, officers do it too.

There are going to be unintended and unexpected consequences if the living situations can't be ironed out. Until they are, hope for the best but you have to logically expect the worst.

Frat happens. It has happened. It will happen. And we already have regs in place to deal with it. It cannot be eliminated. It cannot be totally prevented. It can be decreased and controlled. I would be surprised if we see some giant uptick in frat cases just because DADT has fallen. It'll likely remain the same, because there are just as many straight people as gay people who cannot keep it in their pants.

I'm being a realist, if the world were all rainbows and unicorn farts we'd have no problems at all with this, but it's not.

I know you are. But some of us have to be the idealists too. Some of us have to be able to imagine a future where progress is made and it works before we can ever hope to get there.

So then, what do you suggest we do about berthing?