Obama and Gays In the Military

[FLYTPAY]

Is that the mantra you tell yourself every morning in front of the mirror?

"I'm a Naval Aviator. I come from a superior gene. Everyone wants me... [whimper]... I'm so wonely."

My wife tells me that In front of the mirror I actually tell myself to get the hell out of Mississippi ASAP.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

My wife tells me that .

Is that before or after she tells you to take out the trash?

 

[HAL Pilot]

:icon_smil

 

[FLYTPAY]

:icon_smil

That is an act of heresy. Chuck is going to make your a$$ hurt for that one (get it?)

Is that before or after she tells you to take out the trash?

........blah blah blah....now go take out the trash.....and walk the dog.

 

[BlackBearHockey]

My biggest problem with homosexuals in the military is the distraction it would cause. I personally wouldn't have a problem with them in the next room, but all it takes is one militant one who goes on a gay crusade every chance he or she gets, which NOBODY needs. You're gay? Wow. I don't care. Stop talking about it.

 

[eddie]

My biggest problem with homosexuals in the military is the distraction it would cause. I personally wouldn't have a problem with them in the next room, but all it takes is one militant one who goes on a gay crusade every chance he or she gets, which NOBODY needs. You're gay? Wow. I don't care. Stop talking about it.

So they should ban liberals and evangelicals as well?

 

[loadtoad]

So they should ban liberals and evangelicals as well?

YES! Thank you!

 

[VAmookie]

The Brits have had co-ed showers in Iraq, and seemed pretty surprised how uptight Americans were about it.

Well she wouldn't have to worry about me staring at her body because I'd be to distracted by her teeth!


I seem to remember thinking that coed showers in 'Starship Troopers' didn't seem to be that bad of a deal

 

[VAmookie]

co-ed showers do seem to be inevitable...

Meh. Gays are gonna be in the military regardless of what the policy is, imo. As long as they're not creepy / abusive I don't really care.

Dammit you beat me to it

 

[Harrier Dude]

So you justify excluding gays from service for want of a head.

Yes. The difference being that it's not just the head facilities, but the showers and berthing as well. I'm not trying to sound condescending, but I don't think that you truly fathom the additional burden that this addition will put on the system. On a ship, every space is used to it's maximum potential as best we can. Space is at an utmost premium, submarines being the most extreme example. If we're going to dedicate space to additional showers, heads, and berthing, then the reward needs to be worth the cost. I.E. it would have to render either a dramatic boost to recruiting/retention (adding to our numbers) or a significant improvement to our efficiency. The same space issue holds true for austere environments as well. Those facilities have to come from somewhere. Either we have to bring them with us (space and money) or build them on site (time/effort and money). An increase in infrastructure is going to cost us. Is that cost worth it? Based on the information available (admittedly anecdotal), I would say not.

My entire argument is logistical vice moral or emotional. If you want to argue for the universal head/shower/berthing arrangement, then fine. That would solve the logistical peice. My answer to that is that our social mores have not evolved to to include those practices. Should they? I don't know. That's a value based judgement that's not entirely mine to make. The fact is, though, that our society does not currently tolerate that practice (universal heads/showers/berthing.....NOT homosexuality).

You could make that argument for females as well, why double the number of berthing and head facilities required? And that probably justifies keeping females out of submarines. But we've managed to find room for them pretty much elsewhere, so why not gays as well?

Yes, I could make that argument for females as well. I might even arrive at the same conclusion( that it is more effective/efficient to exclude them). That's obviously the answer we've come to with regard to submarines, on which you seem to concur. The difference being that females make up roughly 50% of the population of our recruiting population (as noted before) while homosexuals make up somewhere around 5-15%, depending on who you want to believe. That greater percentage renders greater benefits with respect to the additional burden.

Additionally, in support of excluding women from military service, I could argue that we're not getting the same effectiveness from a female in a purely physical sense, making them even less of an attractive option for optimizing our force, but that is an entirely different debate covered ad nauseum in mulitple other threads. I don't want to start that one all over again.

Maybe we just have to grow up. Do gays have to use private heads so they don't check each other out?

Grow up? That's an emotional response. You're assuming that this is a purely mental/social issue. Like I said, it's primarily a logistical one. Logistiaclly, the only way this makes sense is to have the universal heads/showers/berthing solution. That's not going to happen until our society evolves ("grows up" to use your term) to allow such practices. Maybe that will happen. I don't know. Whether it should or not is a value judgement, and frankly I don't care if it does or not. All I know is that it hasn't happenned yet. That's a fact.

The next theory that always comes up is that the military should lead the way in fomenting this societal change in mores. That's an unwise choice because you are using the military as a vehicle of social change instead of it's intended purpose of protecting and defending the country. The military should reflect society in terms of social mores, not instigate new ones. If you want to argue that the previous statement is as argument for allowing gays to openly serve in the military as a reflection of the somewhat widespread acceptance of gays in society, I would ask you to consider the deeper social contsruct of personal privacy as it relates to heads/showers/berthing and realize that we already do. When that changes in society first, then we can reengage this debate on a more rational basis.

 

[A4sForever]

Uhhh ... point of order, here?

They're not "gay" ... they're homosexuals.

Not too much "gay" about the people nor the lifestyle ... I know/have known several. Get used to the term. It works.

 

[Flash]

You're assuming that this is a purely mental/social issue. Like I said, it's primarily a logistical one. Logistiaclly, the only way this makes sense is to have the universal heads/showers/berthing solution. That's not going to happen until our society evolves ("grows up" to use your term) to allow such practices. Maybe that will happen. I don't know. Whether it should or not is a value judgement, and frankly I don't care if it does or not. All I know is that it hasn't happenned yet. That's a fact.

I don't see how the issue is a logistical one at all, who said anything about creating separate facilities for gays/homosexuals? I would be wiling to state with some certainty that they would not create separate facilities, there is no practical reason to do so, other than to accommodate some people's modesty.

I think the rule will be changed, whether people like or not, it is too much of a hot button issue for some. And I doubt any facilities are going to be changed, you will just have to grin and bare it.....so to speak. And I doubt it will hurt retention and recruiting in any significant way. It might even help in some quarters. I would think no one here would quit serving their country because the policy has been changed. And thankfully, I think that we will all be able assume our 'out' holes will be safe, even an ogre like Masterbates.

All in all, I think it is 'much ado about nothing', since we will have no say in the matter and it will likely have no bearing on whether or not any of us serve.

And just to point it out, Obama said he will not require any nominees to the Joint Staff to be behind the policy, no 'litmus test' per se. That might be more than some are willing to do.

 

[Harrier Dude]

I don't see how the issue is a logistical one at all, who said anything about creating separate facilities for gays/homosexuals? I would be wiling to state with some certainty that they would not create separate facilities, there is no practical reason to do so, other than to accommodate some people's modesty.

I did, based on the assumption that it would be necessary under current social norms. Maybe "they" will just force us to deal with it. If so, stand by for an avalanche of sexual harassment complaints, baseless as they may be.

I think the rule will be changed, whether people like or not, it is too much of a hot button issue for some. And I doubt any facilities are going to be changed, you will just have to grin and bare it.....so to speak. And I doubt it will hurt retention and recruiting in any significant way. It might even help in some quarters. I would think no one here would quit serving their country because the policy has been changed. And thankfully, I think that we will all be able assume our 'out' holes will be safe, even an ogre like Masterbates.

Perhaps. I'll bet that it will hurt retention and will not bolster recruiting enough to make up for the delta.

The whole "protecting your cornhole" scenario is perposterous. Rapes are exceedingly rare, though not rare enough. Even under the most optimistic estimations, homosexuals would still be a very small minority group in the armed forces, and it would be an extremely stupid thing to do to rape a straight man while being so surrounded by more of them. It just isn't a credible threat.

All in all, I think it is 'much ado about nothing', since we will have no say in the matter and it will likely have no bearing on whether or not any of us serve.

We can vote.

Aside from that, you're right. We'll deal with it no matter what happens.

The bottom line here is that if you think that people won't fight this, legally or illegally, right or wrong, and fair or unfair from within (EAS, desertions, fights, harassment, etc), then I think that you're underestimating the situation. If you think that a horde of homosexulas will be rushing to join up and replace those we lost, then even more so.

Readiness will suffer. Will it recover in time as we are reprogrammed to accept this situation? Maybe. Is it worth the risk, time of war or not? No.

 

[Scoob]

I don't see how the issue is a logistical one at all, who said anything about creating separate facilities for gays/homosexuals? I would be wiling to state with some certainty that they would not create separate facilities, there is no practical reason to do so, other than to accommodate some people's modesty.

+1 The "logistics argument" is just the "sanctity of the cornhole argument" dressed up with a more dignified air. Both are weak attempts to justify a fear of something different. Just how weak? How bout this: Heterosexual - shower during odd hours, Homosexual - even hours.

Problem solved.

 

[loadtoad]

+1 The "logistics argument" is just the "sanctity of the cornhole argument" dressed up with a more dignified air. Both are weak attempts to justify a fear of something different. Just how weak? How bout this: Heterosexual - shower during odd hours, Homosexual - even hours.

Problem solved.

But where do you stop? Could Sailors refuse to bunk with homosexuals? Could homosexuals refuse to bunk with heterosexuals or even refuse bunking with other homos? Do you put a homo female and male in a two man stateroom or two females/two males? Would retention go down because heteros don't want to do a float sharing rooms with homos?

What about the numbers game we see. Will they now need to promote three white people, three black people, three Hispanics and three homos? "No, we cannot have another hetero CNO when need a homo this time around!" Will politics come into play? Will we actively recruit homosexuals into the military so it reflects the population percentage of the United States? The military needs X% White, X% Black, X% Hispanic, X% Hetero, X% Homo, X% Male, X% Female... It never ends!

This is just a REALLY dynamic situation and I personally think the rule that is in place is the best compromise for the way the world is now. Like it was said before this is not our decision and way above any of our paygrades.