Another " don't ask, don't tell" thread

[leatherneck]

I know we've discussed this issue in the past, but with the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff now being OK with Pres Obama's desire to get rid of the existing policy, it might be ripe for new discussion.

 

I'm pretty much a libertarian and don't think the govt has any business intruding into the personal lifes of people and I've worked with some "gays", who were actually nice folks. I have a "to each their own" philosophy on homosexuality.

 

But the military is a completely different situation. With all due respect to Adm. Mullen, I think he's wrong. From the military people that I've talked to and know, they are uniformly opposed to it. These aren't uneducated, close minded people by the way. They are all highly educated officers that worry a lot, make that a whole lot, about the adverse affect it will have on unit integrity, cohesiveness and unity. For those that have never served in the military, I don't expect that you'd understand their concerns. The military is a different environment, like nothing you would have experienced. I hope that Congress doesn't permit a change in policy.

[rockmom]

I know we've discussed this issue in the past, but with the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff now being OK with Pres Obama's desire to get rid of the existing policy, it might be ripe for new discussion.

 

I'm pretty much a libertarian and don't think the govt has any business intruding into the personal lifes of people and I've worked with some "gays", who were actually nice folks. I have a "to each their own" philosophy on homosexuality.

 

But the military is a completely different situation. With all due respect to Adm. Mullen, I think he's wrong. From the military people that I've talked to and know, they are uniformly opposed to it. These aren't uneducated, close minded people by the way. They are all highly educated officers that worry a lot, make that a whole lot, about the adverse affect it will have on unit integrity, cohesiveness and unity. For those that have never served in the military, I don't expect that you'd understand their concerns. The military is a different environment, like nothing you would have experienced. I hope that Congress doesn't permit a change in policy.

 

 

As you mention, it's another discussion we've had. I know you're aware I disagree with you, but I'll be happy to re-hash the argument again.

 

Personally, I'm glad that the military wants to end this policy.

 

If McCain is persuasive enough, you will get your way.

 

From my own perspective, I think the policy is extraordinarly unAmerican, in an institution that should be a beacon of Americanism.

[Fastbreak]

I personally feel it is un-American to use our military as a laboratory for social experimentation.

 

These men and women have their hands full as is and sacrifice enough already.

[rockmom]

I personally feel it is un-American to use our military as a laboratory for social experimentation.

 

These men and women have their hands full as is and sacrifice enough already.

 

 

I don't understand why you think it's social experimentation?

 

Homosexuals are already in the military, just not allowed to "tell".

 

Homosexuals are successful in all industries and do so without having hide their sexual orientation.

 

Please explain "social experimentation" for me. I'm not understanding your thoughts here.

[Fastbreak]

I don't understand why you think it's social experimentation?

 

Homosexuals are already in the military, just not allowed to "tell".

 

Homosexuals are successful in all industries and do so without having hide their sexual orientation.

 

Please explain "social experimentation" for me. I'm not understanding your thoughts here.

You've already said it... heterosexual males and females, homosexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, whateversexuals are all currently allowed to serve in the armed forces of our nation. People of all skin tones, religious beliefs, socioeconomic backgrounds, educational levels, and other personal traits are allowed to serve equally in the military.

 

To the best of my knowledge however, males and females do not cohabit barracks and shower together. To do so would clearly introduce all kinds of problems.

 

What they may do off duty, off base is their own business. Certain things on base... on duty are simply inappropriate and unnecessary.

 

Why is it necessary to push sexuality of any type to the forefront?

 

Why is it necessary to highlight any individual's sexual orientation, in an environment where sexuality is a distraction at best?

 

How does this enhance the readiness or our military?

 

If making things better for all our troops is not the motive, what then is the motive?

[rockmom]

You've already said it... heterosexual males and females, homosexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, whateversexuals are all currently allowed to serve in the armed forces of our nation. People of all skin tones, religious beliefs, socioeconomic backgrounds, educational levels, and other personal traits are allowed to serve equally in the military.

To the best of my knowledge however, males and females do not cohabit barracks and shower together. To do so would clearly introduce all kinds of problems.

 

What they may do off duty, off base is their own business. Certain things on base... on duty are simply inappropriate and unnecessary.

 

Why is it necessary to push sexuality of any type to the forefront?

 

How does this enhance the readiness or our military?

 

If making things better for all our troops is not the motive, what then is the motive?

 

I'm not sure how anything introduces any problems. I also think that forcing people to hide their sexuality is unnecessary. To the best of my knowledge, even heterosexual relationships are discouraged in the military, at least on base.

 

How does lifting "don't ask, don't tell" make anything worse for any troops?

 

By enacting "don't ask, don't tell" I think the military made sexuality an issue. Lifting that puts sexuality into perspective-irrelevant.

[repnky23]

The policy is fine just the way it is.

[Fastbreak]

I'm not sure how anything introduces any problems. I also think that forcing people to hide their sexuality is unnecessary. To the best of my knowledge, even heterosexual relationships are discouraged in the military, at least on base.

Your last sentence above is accurate as far as I know. This summarizes the core of the issue. No one is saying, "You cannot be male, you cannot be female, you cannot be homosexual and serve in the military." Everyone is free to be whatever they are sexually... they simply cannot promote or practice it openly, which could disrupt order, discipline, and unit cohesion. This has been true for centuries of military service. Male, female, hetero, homosexual, bi, all sexuality is restricted from the service lives (and reserved to private lives) of personnel.

 

"Superiors are not permitted to initiate investigation of a service member's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though credible and articulable evidence of homosexual behavior may cause an investigation." from Wikipedia... I was lazy.

 

This is essentially the same policy for heterosexual violators as well.

 

If the argument is that one's sexual orientation should not limit or prevent their service and advancement in the military... fine... I accept that. My question is this, "Why then is it necessary to promote it openly?" It's either an issue or it isn't.

 

The labeling of anyone as being "homophobic" simply because they do not accept without condition, homosexuality as a wonderful lifestyle has done more harm than good to the gay and lesbian agenda.

 

Attempting to "force" men and women in uniform to "accept" it as a viable lifestyle is a violation of the "separation of church and state" IMO. Many religions frown upon sexual immorality... whether male/female fornication, adultery or homosexuality. This is true at least of traditional Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

 

How does lifting "don't ask, don't tell" make anything worse for any troops?

I could be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that you would want your daughter bunking and showering with 100 male Marines (or a barracks full or males in any other branch of service.) If she wants to serve, dandy... but why place her in inappropriate situations where sexuality would surely be the focal point? There are times and places for her to be whoever she is and wants to be. Forced cohabitation in such a situation shouldn't be a consideration.

 

Again, by introducing "sexuality" of any type into our military is inappropriate and unnecessary IMO. If it would be wrong to subject anyone's daughter to such circumstances, how is it not equally wrong to do this in any combination across the board?

 

By enacting "don't ask, don't tell" I think the military made sexuality an issue. Lifting that puts sexuality into perspective-irrelevant.

If sexuality were not an issue, we wouldn't be discussing this. Sexuality is an issue... especially among 18 to 20-something males that would be most impacted by this. Limiting sexuality to what is and is not appropriate across the board for all persuasions is the only equitable way to handle this. :thumb:

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

One of my good friends is an Airborne Ranger, and he has an interesting take on this: In the military, particularly during boot camp and deployment, there are numerous situations when men are naked in the presence of other men, and women are naked in the presence of other women - while showering and during medical examinations/procedures in particular. As uncomfortable as many (most) people can get in these situations in general, just imagine yourself having the added fact that someone could potentially be looking at you naked in a sexual manner, rather than just a required business manner.

 

They have already "let the boys in the girls' locker room", and now they're talking about taking away the one remaining - albeit barely remaining - bit of personal security: the don't ask/don't tell policy.

[MBWC41]

One of my good friends is an Airborne Ranger, and he has an interesting take on this: In the military, particularly during boot camp and deployment, there are numerous situations when men are naked in the presence of other men, and women are naked in the presence of other women - while showering and during medical examinations/procedures in particular. As uncomfortable as many (most) people can get in these situations in general, just imagine yourself having the added fact that someone could potentially be looking at you naked in a sexual manner, rather than just a required business manner.

 

They have already "let the boys in the girls' locker room", and now they're talking about taking away the one remaining - albeit barely remaining - bit of personal security: the don't ask/don't tell policy.

 

I was going to post something similar CWB.

 

I had a conversation with a buddy a few days ago about a similar situation. My argument was that if an athlete announced that he was gay then he should have to use a different locker room than the straight men. The situation of a gay man showering or being around other nude men is no different than a straight man showering with a room full of women.

 

If the don't ask/don't tell policy is done away with, all homosexuals should have their own facilities to use.

[Clyde]

IMO the whole "gay guy seeing a naked guy in the shower" is overblown. I could see a naked woman in the shower but that doesn't mean I'm attracted to her or, if I am, it doesn't man I'm making a move. A gay guy can check me out all he wants. Won't bother me as long as he doesn't act upon it. Even then, I simply tell him I'm not into that. No different than a woman telling a man "thanks, but no thanks."

 

I heard a former military member on the radio just yesterday who said that there is a bigger problem with heterosexual harassment than with gays harassing straights. If you're truly worried from the sexual angle your only vote is that we limit the military to men.

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

IMO the whole "gay guy seeing a naked guy in the shower" is overblown. I could see a naked woman in the shower but that doesn't mean I'm attracted to her or, if I am, it doesn't man I'm making a move. A gay guy can check me out all he wants. Won't bother me as long as he doesn't act upon it. Even then, I simply tell him I'm not into that. No different than a woman telling a man "thanks, but no thanks."

 

I heard a former military member on the radio just yesterday who said that there is a bigger problem with heterosexual harassment than with gays harassing straights. If you're truly worried from the sexual angle your only vote is that we limit the military to men.

 

But do you invite the situation?

 

Why do they have men's and women's locker rooms at the gym? Why do we have separate bathrooms? It's a general matter of privacy and decency. I know that by the nature of your job, you lose a lot of these general "rights" when you go into the military, but just because you think it's overblown and that it's cool if a guy checks you out, it doesn't mean everybody else should feel that way (or HAVE to feel that way) as well.

[UKMustangFan]

IMO the whole "gay guy seeing a naked guy in the shower" is overblown. I could see a naked woman in the shower but that doesn't mean I'm attracted to her or, if I am, it doesn't man I'm making a move. A gay guy can check me out all he wants. Won't bother me as long as he doesn't act upon it. Even then, I simply tell him I'm not into that. No different than a woman telling a man "thanks, but no thanks."

 

I heard a former military member on the radio just yesterday who said that there is a bigger problem with heterosexual harassment than with gays harassing straights. If you're truly worried from the sexual angle your only vote is that we limit the military to men.

 

So you have no problem with coed showers and locker rooms not only in the military, but at the local gyms, colleges, etc...?

[Clyde]

So you have no problem with coed showers and locker rooms not only in the military, but at the local gyms, colleges, etc...?

 

I didn't say I'm OK with coed showers anywhere. My point about seeing a naked female was that just because I have a chance to SEE a naked woman doesn't mean that I'm automatically sexually aroused or that I will make an advance.

[Fastbreak]

I didn't say I'm OK with coed showers anywhere. My point about seeing a naked female was that just because I have a chance to SEE a naked woman doesn't mean that I'm automatically sexually aroused or that I will make an advance.

I think the point of the issue is... "How do you think SHE would feel having to share a shower with you and other men?"

 

Our men and women in uniform are obligated to follow orders... they cannot come and go as they please... they cannot refuse to participate as you and I are free to do.

 

I go back to my original premise. The military is not the place for liberal social experimentation.