Dont Ask, Dont Tell

[BanginJimmy]

You all know what it is. How do you feel about a judge ending it and not Congress? How do you believe it will work logisticly? I know gays can technically serve now, just so long as they are never found out, but now that it will be in the open, the services will have to make added considerations for them.

In boot camp, should a lesbian be in the same platoon as straight women? If so, what kind of additional considerations should be made to protect everyone's privacy? In the barracks, do you still room by rank and sex, or does sexual orientation become an added concern?



Let me be clear, I am only against gays in the military because of the logistical concerns. I dont believe someone should receive additional benefits because of the sexual orientation, nor do I believe they should be punished for them.

[bu villain]

I think you shouldn't change anything. Many gays currently serving are known to be gay by the members of their platoons, squads, etc. even though they aren't allowed to admit it. It doesn't seem to be a major problem. The military already has a strict code of conduct that should deal with innapropriate behavior by any soldier.

[BanginJimmy]

I think you shouldn't change anything. Many gays currently serving are known to be gay by the members of their platoons, squads, etc. even though they aren't allowed to admit it. It doesn't seem to be a major problem. The military already has a strict code of conduct that should deal with inappropriate behavior by any soldier.

I agree, but when it becomes a part of policy, additional considerations MUST be made to satisfy privacy and separation requirements. You could not room 2 gays together for the same reason you cannot room men and women together. So what do you do with them without giving them additional benefits that are not open to other service members of the same rank?

[StreetHazard]

Anyone dumb enough to join the military should be allowed in. Your willingness to shoot and be shot at, and unquestionably take orders should be the only requirement.

[oneSLOWex]

Anyone dumb enough to join the military should be allowed in. Your willingness to shoot and be shot at, and unquestionably take orders should be the only requirement.

So everyone that joins the military is dumb?

[Browning151]

Anyone dumb enough to join the military should be allowed in. Your willingness to shoot and be shot at, and unquestionably take orders should be the only requirement.

If it weren't for those "dumb" people doing the shooting and getting shot at, you wouldn't be able to sit there and post such a stupid statement.

I'd have to say I agree with BanginJimmy and bu villian, why fix something that isn't broken. Logistically this is going to cause problems.

[Total_Blender]

We have gays in the military now mixed in with regular troops. They are sharing barracks and facilities. I don't think it will change much if gays are allowed to serve openly. I see it as being no different from any other workplace. Theres no other workplace or public building that separates gay people from straight people, I don't see why the military should be any different.

Also, DADT is broken. There have been many people discharged by the military for being gay. And its a violation of their civil rights by not letting them serve openly and denying them benefits for their partners etc.

[bu villain]

I agree, but when it becomes a part of policy, additional considerations MUST be made to satisfy privacy and separation requirements. You could not room 2 gays together for the same reason you cannot room men and women together. So what do you do with them without giving them additional benefits that are not open to other service members of the same rank?

I don't agree it's a "MUST". We all know that at this moment right now, gays are serving in the military without any major problems. They eat, work, and sleep along side straight soldiers and other gay soldiers. Many times, the other soldiers already know their sexual orientation. I give our soldiers enough credit to act respectfully and professionally towards each other regardless of sexual orientation. I don't think that's too much to ask.

By the way, does anyone know how it is handled in other countries that allow gays to openly serve (ie. Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Israel, Russia, Spain, etc)? I'm having a hard time finding this out.

[StreetHazard]

So everyone that joins the military is dumb?

Well that depends on the reasons they have chosen to serve. Most ex and current military I have encountered were successful in that type of environment only for that simple reason.

[bafbrian]

I agree, but when it becomes a part of policy, additional considerations MUST be made to satisfy privacy and separation requirements. You could not room 2 gays together for the same reason you cannot room men and women together. So what do you do with them without giving them additional benefits that are not open to other service members of the same rank?

You must have never served in the military or are homophobic or both. To believe that rooming gay people together would lead to the same outcome of a man and woman is idiotic. Men and women don't room together to prevent EO complaints. I guess you believe that at basic training having 65 males in a bay might lead to something happening.I am gonna say you are homophobic, furthermore, don't make assunptions about what gay people will do. Let me guess, you have friends who are gay right? Either way, it doesn't your poor opinion of gay people. Honestly, at least someone who is gay has chosen to serve, more than I can say about most people.

[nreggie454]

I don't think it will be an issue. Many straight people assume that gay dudes only think about having sex with every single man around them and have zero self control. That isn't the case at all. When you see a hot girl, do you rape her on the spot? No, because you aren't a deviant, and neither are most gays and lesbians. They respect others' preferences, as others should respect theirs.

If an issue arises, deal with the specific issue. I feel that there is no reason for a major policy overhaul for something that I don't think will be a problem.

[BanginJimmy]

I don't agree it's a "MUST". We all know that at this moment right now, gays are serving in the military without any major problems. They eat, work, and sleep along side straight soldiers and other gay soldiers. Many times, the other soldiers already know their sexual orientation. I give our soldiers enough credit to act respectfully and professionally towards each other regardless of sexual orientation. I don't think that's too much to ask.

I agree that they are currently serving, but like I said, once the policy is changed and gays can serve openly, things that are ignored now cannot be ignored.

By the way, does anyone know how it is handled in other countries that allow gays to openly serve (ie. Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Israel, Russia, Spain, etc)? I'm having a hard time finding this out.

I looked also and couldnt find any real info on it.

[BanginJimmy]

You must have never served in the military or are homophobic or both.

And you are wrong in both cases.

To believe that rooming gay people together would lead to the same outcome of a man and woman is idiotic. Men and women don't room together to prevent EO complaints.

And you think this wont happen with a gay and straight man rooming together? That is idiotic.

I guess you believe that at basic training having 65 males in a bay might lead to something happening.

Not at all. I know gays are currently serving and you never hear about it, but as I have said, once gays are serving openly additional considerations will HAVE to be made.

I am gonna say you are homophobic,

thats nice.

furthermore, don't make assunptions about what gay people will do.

Show me where I have made a single assumption.

Let me guess, you have friends who are gay right?

Not friends, but 1 current co-worker is lesbian.

Honestly, at least someone who is gay has chosen to serve, more than I can say about most people.

We agree here, I just dont agree with serving openly, especially not when a judge orders it without giving the military time to work out all of the logistical details.

[Total_Blender]

And you think this wont happen with a gay and straight man rooming together? That is idiotic.
.

Gay and straight men are rooming together now and its not happening. I don't see how it would be any different when gays are allowed to serve openly.

All the gay people I know are really only attracted to other gays. They can tell that a person is straight and they leave them alone. Its like straight guys and lesbians... theres no attraction on either side.

[ISAtlanta300]

[QUOTE=nreggie454;39137536]I don't think it will be an issue. Many straight people assume that gay dudes only think about having sex with every single man around them and have zero self control. That isn't the case at all. When you see a hot girl, do you rape her on the spot? No, because you aren't a deviant, and neither are most gays and lesbians. They respect others' preferences, as others should respect theirs. [QUOTE]

Best freaking post in this thread. People always make a big issue out of nothing, like suddenly there's going to be huge gay orgies in the barracks.

[bafbrian]

I agree, but when it becomes a part of policy, additional considerations MUST be made to satisfy privacy and separation requirements. You could not room 2 gays together for the same reason you cannot room men and women together. So what do you do with them without giving them additional benefits that are not open to other service members of the same rank?

Here is were your statement makes an assumption of what would happen if you put two gay people in a room together. You compare two gay people in a room with a man and a woman in room, your own statement make the assumption that something will happen, merely because they are gay.

And what additional considerations will have to be made? If something such as this is an issue for you, then maybe you should distance yourself from gay people altogether. Your logic appears no different than those individuals who say that gay marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. Does having gays openly serve in the military change the purpose of the military? Has the military given up anything in allowing gays to openly serve? Having gays openly serve doesn't change the mission of the military. Furthermore, a belief that serving one's country in the military in not a matter of sexual orientation, its a matter of patriotism.

I will ask anyone here this question, if you were serving in a line (combat) unit or any unit in Afghanistan right now, would it matter to you whether the person next to you was gay? Would that person be less likely to due their duty?

[ash7]

...wouldn't want an openly gay military doctor performing my flight physical, or a gay dude for a bunkmate...

call me close minded if you will - but as we can all tell from this last presidential election cycle; change is not always a good thing.
-jonathan

[BanginJimmy]

Here is were your statement makes an assumption of what would happen if you put two gay people in a room together. You compare two gay people in a room with a man and a woman in room, your own statement make the assumption that something will happen, merely because they are gay.

You are the one assuming, not me. It has nothing to do with attraction or sex. Privacy and EO issues, as someone already stated, make this unacceptable.

And what additional considerations will have to be made? If something such as this is an issue for you,

Different housing arrangements. Community showers would be unacceptable, this especially applies to boot comp and for Navy personnel serving on ships.

Your logic appears no different than those individuals who say that gay marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

I have never said anything like this in my life. As far as I'm concerned you should be able to marry any legal aged human you want. Who you marry has absolutely zero affect on me.

Does having gays openly serve in the military change the purpose of the military? Has the military given up anything in allowing gays to openly serve? Having gays openly serve doesn't change the mission of the military.

And this is why I say its a purely logistical problem that I dont see a simple resolution for.

Furthermore, a belief that serving one's country in the military in not a matter of sexual orientation, its a matter of patriotism.

I agree completely.

I will ask anyone here this question, if you were serving in a line (combat) unit or any unit in Afghanistan right now, would it matter to you whether the person next to you was gay? Would that person be less likely to due their duty?

Been there, done that and doing their duty has nothing to do with logistical issues. Hell, a guy I knew was in the initial surge into Iraq in '03 and according to him, on the rare occasion they got a hot shower, men and women showered together. In a combat situation that is perfectly acceptable, but in the garrison, that obviously is not.

[Total_Blender]

Gays are already bunking and showering with straight troops. Allowing them to serve openly is not all that bigger of a step. Also, not every gay soldier will choose serve openly. But if it becomes known that soldiers are serving while they are "in the closet" this will allow them to continue to serve and not have to lie about it to stay in the service.

Pretty much all of our allies in AFGN and Iraq allow gays to serve openly. And none of those armies are having problems with it.

[Browning151]

Pretty much all of our allies in AFGN and Iraq allow gays to serve openly. And none of those armies are having problems with it.

It's been asked in this thread how foreign military have handled this situation and no one has been able to find reliable information, since you seem to have insight on that please post some links to info so that we can all be informed on the subject.

[Bacon]

Who the fuck cares if a Gay/Lesbian person goes into the military or not? Does their sexual preference stop them from doing the job? Is their sexual preference against the law? People worried that they may be hit on over seas? Either fuck them and get it over with or say no and turn around. The government has worse shit to worry about.

[BanginJimmy]

Gays are already bunking and showering with straight troops.

I dont know how many times I have to go over this for people to understand it. Maybe because its just too simple for them to understand.


While gays/lesbians have been serving the military could simply ignore them because of DADT. With DADT gone, the military will no longer be able to simply ignore the logistical problems, mainly lodging, that they present. The EO and privacy issues create very unique problems and they even get worse if someone is allowed to classify themselves as bisexual.

[bdydrpdmazda]

i think it is a terrible decision to do away with the rule, luckily the rule has been put back in place though...

[Total_Blender]

While gays/lesbians have been serving the military could simply ignore them because of DADT. With DADT gone, the military will no longer be able to simply ignore the logistical problems, mainly lodging, that they present. .

Again... there are no problems in that regard. Gays and lesbians are serving now under DADT and there are no problems with fraternization, unless the military is covering them up. I would think that there are policies against men and women in the same unit hooking up, I don't see how this would be any different for women/women or men/men.

The rest of American society and the rest of the militaries of the free world operate just fine with gays and straight people in close quarters. No need for separate lodging, bathrooms, locker rooms, etc etc.

[bafbrian]

I dont know how many times I have to go over this for people to understand it. Maybe because its just too simple for them to understand.


While gays/lesbians have been serving the military could simply ignore them because of DADT. With DADT gone, the military will no longer be able to simply ignore the logistical problems, mainly lodging, that they present. The EO and privacy issues create very unique problems and they even get worse if someone is allowed to classify themselves as bisexual.

They have been ignoring them so much that the military just happened to discharge nearly 300 service members under the DADT policy during FY10. The military does not change because of this. The purpose and intent remain the same. What changes are individuals perceptions. There are not logistical problems, if you don't want to room with someone, it is easy to change rooms (I have facilitated this for soldiers, its not hard). The only issue created is the fear of gays/lesbians and this perception that they want to do something to you. All this boils down to is homophobia. Furthermore, unless there is a new DD Form which asks, "What is your sexual orientation?", the notion of sexual orientation is meaningless.

Again... there are no problems in that regard. Gays and lesbians are serving now under DADT and there are no problems with fraternization, unless the military is covering them up. I would think that there are policies against men and women in the same unit hooking up, I don't see how this would be any different for women/women or men/men.

The rest of American society and the rest of the militaries of the free world operate just fine with gays and straight people in close quarters. No need for separate lodging, bathrooms, locker rooms, etc etc.

There are policies which prohibit relationships between soldiers within the same unit: if two soldiers are engaged in a relationship, neither is allowed to be a command position within the same unit. In other words, an Officer and/or NCO are prohibited from dating soldiers within their unit. If they are in different units, then the relationship is permitted. The policy is much more detailed and varies slightly amongst the different branches. If you want the full explanation, search it on Google and it will give the full blown explanation from the regulations.

[BanginJimmy]

Again... there are no problems in that regard. Gays and lesbians are serving now under DADT and there are no problems with fraternization, unless the military is covering them up. I would think that there are policies against men and women in the same unit hooking up, I don't see how this would be any different for women/women or men/men.

You either want to ignore me, or you are too dense to figure it out. With DADT in place, the military could simply ignore the logistical problems. If DADT is gone, those problems come to the surface.

The rest of American society and the rest of the militaries of the free world operate just fine with gays and straight people in close quarters. No need for separate lodging, bathrooms, locker rooms, etc etc.

This isnt how the govt works. It is far too politically correct. I will guarantee that if DADT is repealed it will become a logistical nightmare. I am also glad I'm no longer in the military because they will be subjected to hours and hours of new sensitivity training. You can barely breathe without someone claiming they have been offended already.

[BanginJimmy]

They have been ignoring them so much that the military just happened to discharge nearly 300 service members under the DADT policy during FY10.

These are all people that outed themselves or did something stupid to get themselves caught. The military doesnt actively investigate these cases without the case being pretty much decided already.

What changes are individuals perceptions.

People's perceptions are not going to change. If you are a homophobe now, you will be later. Allowing a gay to serve openly isnt going to change that. The endless new sensitivity classes will probably cause a bunch of animosity though.

There are not logistical problems, if you don't want to room with someone, it is easy to change rooms (I have facilitated this for soldiers, its not hard).

Maybe its simple in the Army, but I wasnt asked for my preference when I was assigned a room in the barracks.

The only issue created is the fear of gays/lesbians and this perception that they want to do something to you. All this boils down to is homophobia.

No, its really not fear of anything. More times than not its the bible thumpers claiming they are the devil or some shit. All this really boils down to is liberals claiming that anyone that doesnt agree with their point of view is a racist/bigot/whatever.

If you know as much about the military as you claim to know, you know the military will add a thousand new regulations on housing for gay troops. Most likely it will end up giving them privileges that other members that are otherwise similiar would not get. Such as off base housing.

Furthermore, unless there is a new DD Form which asks, "What is your sexual orientation?", the notion of sexual orientation is meaningless.

Again, this is something that is pretty much a foregone conclusion. This will be a question asked



There are policies which prohibit relationships between soldiers within the same unit: if two soldiers are engaged in a relationship, neither is allowed to be a command position within the same unit. In other words, an Officer and/or NCO are prohibited from dating soldiers within their unit. If they are in different units, then the relationship is permitted. The policy is much more detailed and varies slightly amongst the different branches. If you want the full explanation, search it on Google and it will give the full blown explanation from the regulations.[/QUOTE]

[Total_Blender]

You either want to ignore me, or you are too dense to figure it out. With DADT in place, the military could simply ignore the logistical problems. If DADT is gone, those problems come to the surface.
.

So you are in favor of a military that simply ignores problems? Again... the only difference between a DADT repeal and the present situation is that gays will be allowed to serve openly (if they choose), and that they can't be discharged for being gay. There are already gays in the millitary. If the simple presence of gays in the military were (as you put it) a "logistical nightmare," then those problems would have manifested already. But they haven't.

[BanginJimmy]

So you are in favor of a military that simply ignores problems? Again... the only difference between a DADT repeal and the present situation is that gays will be allowed to serve openly (if they choose), and that they can't be discharged for being gay. There are already gays in the millitary. If the simple presence of gays in the military were (as you put it) a "logistical nightmare," then those problems would have manifested already. But they haven't.

They do occasionally manifest themselves, but it isnt much of a problem because the member is simply discharged.

[Total_Blender]

They do occasionally manifest themselves, but it isnt much of a problem because the member is simply discharged.

How would that be any different if DADT were repealed? I am sure straight people are being discharged for unwanted advances and inappropriate conduct too. If a guy makes a pass at another guy it'd be handled by the same protocols as if a guy made a pass at a woman. Thats just basic professionalism and the presence of gays serving openly would not change that.

[BanginJimmy]

How would that be any different if DADT were repealed? I am sure straight people are being discharged for unwanted advances and inappropriate conduct too. If a guy makes a pass at another guy it'd be handled by the same protocols as if a guy made a pass at a woman. Thats just basic professionalism and the presence of gays serving openly would not change that.

I have not disagreed with any of this. I am only pointing out the logistical problems. People can get over their personal problems or they can get out.

[bafbrian]

I have not disagreed with any of this. I am only pointing out the logistical problems. People can get over their personal problems or they can get out.

The only logistical issue which you have said would arise is mainly lodging. I hope you have something more than the issue as lodging for your reasoning regarding DADT.

[Total_Blender]

People can get over their personal problems or they can get out.

Bingo. If the homophobes don't like serving alongside gays they can choose not to enlist or not to re-up.

[tony]

I think this is where a lot of you are misunderstanding Jimmy, and although I do not care for DADT I have to say I agree with him on this one. Due to the number of people who will manage to fuck up even the most simple of situations in the military, guidelines and rules must be WELL defined. There isn't a simple solution to the idea of "he's gay, he's sleeping next to you, deal with it." And to be honest I do not know if I could explain it well enough if you haven't been in the military. I will just provide two examples.

1. I'm down range right now, lower ranks stay in dorms and ranks above that stay in chu's which is a 4 bedroom trailer. It is not enough to trust that airmen around here wont do stupid shit like say, get someone pregnant or touch someone else inappropriately, no.. there has to be well defined, broad (see dumbass for a true definition) rules like the one we have that says someone of the opposite sex cannot stand in the doorway of another's dorm or chu. They just totally skipped "dont have sex" or fraternizing and went straight to a blanket rule, and believe it or not people still get caught doing it and/or getting in trouble for sexual assault.

2. We had one guy in my basic training flight claim to be gay, supposedly the T.I knew about it. Did he care? No, T.I actually told us one of the leaders in his previous flight was gay, but one of the best trainees he ever had so he doesn't tolerate the bullshit. That situation could have gone in many different directions, but because we were all too tired to care and worried more about seeing our families at the end than what this guy does in his personal time, nothing happened. But there will come a time, when DADT is repealed, that situations like that wont be as acceptable. Its a distraction, and an unnecessary one. Someone is going to test the line just like the dumb asses who sexually assault women down range and blanket rules will be made that either effects morale or effects the mission in one way or another.

Do I want this to happen? No, would I like DADT repealed? Yes, am I homophobic? Not in the least, but I have seen so much stupidity in one deployment that it honestly makes me question if the military, not the public is ready for that much of a change right now.

[BanginJimmy]

I think this is where a lot of you are misunderstanding Jimmy, and although I do not care for DADT I have to say I agree with him on this one. Due to the number of people who will manage to fuck up even the most simple of situations in the military, guidelines and rules must be WELL defined. There isn't a simple solution to the idea of "he's gay, he's sleeping next to you, deal with it." And to be honest I do not know if I could explain it well enough if you haven't been in the military. I will just provide two examples.

1. I'm down range right now, lower ranks stay in dorms and ranks above that stay in chu's which is a 4 bedroom trailer. It is not enough to trust that airmen around here wont do stupid shit like say, get someone pregnant or touch someone else inappropriately, no.. there has to be well defined, broad (see dumbass for a true definition) rules like the one we have that says someone of the opposite sex cannot stand in the doorway of another's dorm or chu. They just totally skipped "dont have sex" or fraternizing and went straight to a blanket rule, and believe it or not people still get caught doing it and/or getting in trouble for sexual assault.

2. We had one guy in my basic training flight claim to be gay, supposedly the T.I knew about it. Did he care? No, T.I actually told us one of the leaders in his previous flight was gay, but one of the best trainees he ever had so he doesn't tolerate the bullshit. That situation could have gone in many different directions, but because we were all too tired to care and worried more about seeing our families at the end than what this guy does in his personal time, nothing happened. But there will come a time, when DADT is repealed, that situations like that wont be as acceptable. Its a distraction, and an unnecessary one. Someone is going to test the line just like the dumb asses who sexually assault women down range and blanket rules will be made that either effects morale or effects the mission in one way or another.

Do I want this to happen? No, would I like DADT repealed? Yes, am I homophobic? Not in the least, but I have seen so much stupidity in one deployment that it honestly makes me question if the military, not the public is ready for that much of a change right now.

Thank you for explaining that a hell of a lot better than I could manage.

I'm sorry to tell you though, you will now be seen as a homophobe for all posterity because of it.

[Aeroscout977]

Here's my 2¢.

I'm former military. Served in the Army from 2003-2009 with 2 deployments(04-06 & 08-09). Each deployment we had openly gay members with us. We had absolutely no problems with morale, billeting, logistics, or mission readiness. In the entire time I was in we only had one person separated from service using the DADT policy. This individual was sluggish, had a smart mouth, poor performance in basic soldiering tasks, and had poor work performance reviews. He also decided to sleep with a married man. But anyways there were close to a dozen and all the rest did well in the unit. The consensus among us was pretty much one that we didn't care as long as they pulled their weight. All but one did and in my opinion no problems came from having openly gay members with us. The military is an EO organization. Gays should be included.

Anyone dumb enough to join the military should be allowed in. Your willingness to shoot and be shot at, and unquestionably take orders should be the only requirement.

You have no idea what's like to be in the military and should not make stupid comments. That 1% that do serve are a direct reflection of the other 99% in America that may be "dumb or smart". If anything you should join based off your comment. You would fit in well with the rest of the "dumb" people as you say.