quote:

Originally posted by Caliann:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chancellor:
The only issue I have is a matter of propriety. Why should homosexuals be allowed to share sleeping and showering facilities with the sex to which they're attracted if (rightly) we don't allow heterosexuals to do so. The only way to fairly accommodate homosexuals is to also stop having separate sleeping and showering facilities for women.

quote:

Considering that sleeping and showering facilities are only shared in Basic Training and schools, I am all for it. Let's do 1-1 rooms! PLEASE allow me not to have to bunk with 60+ hormonal, teenage women during training and school! I beg of you!

There are still the numerous ships and submarines where enlisted folks do have to share sleeping and showering facilities. Are you saying that out in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan every soldier has his or her own tent and shower?

quote:

Do you REALLY think that those that have to deal with having their Battle Buddies in their back pockets won't think this a wonderful idea?

Whether they think it's a good idea or not is irrelevant. Is it really practical?

quote:

Being a heterosexual, married female who has been married for so long she isn't even attracted to other guys anymore (well, she might be, if they'd quit opening their mouths and ruining everything), I'd MUCH rather bunk with a bunch of males than a bunch of females ANY day of the week!

But I'm sure there are other women who would not agree with you.

quote:

Males, after lights out, spend their time doing fun things...like mattress surfing and playing tug-of-war with sheets tied together. Females spend their time after lights out yelling at one another. The ones that are trying to sleep are yelling at the ones that are still awake and chatting...and the ones that are chatting are yelling back at the ones trying to sleep. It ends up with everyone pissed off and no-one getting sleep.

Who would YOU rather bunk with? Give me the tug-of-war!

So sure, I'll bunk with the heterosexual males. No problem. I know how to say "no" where it doesn't seem like any other word.

My point being that if you're going to let homosexuals share sleeping and showering facilities with the sex to which they're attracted then fairness dictates that heterosexuals be allowed the same privilege.

quote:

Of course, if there are other heterosexual females there, especially the 17-18 years olds, the males may wish they were pretty little birds flying far, far away....as during that tug-of-war, they'll get yelled at by the females trying to sleep, and yelled at by the females trying to chat.

And, of course, any 3 of us are on our periods during every day of the week, so you can just imagine the showers.

Again, my point being that if you're going to let homosexuals share sleeping and showering facilities with the sex to which they're attracted then fairness dictates that heterosexuals be allowed the same privilege. I just don't think it will go over too well in most of American society.

quote:

Originally posted by xnavycg:
We just had Non Judicial punishment yesterday at my command. Eight people for inappropriate
Sexual relations. Two discharges, six people got 45 days restriction, and possibly some divorces down the line. All straight. I guess that means the gays and lesbians aren’t the only ones out there telling lies.

There's a lot of truth in what you're saying.

quote:

Originally posted by mab_neo:
Our nation needs only the best. That includes those who can work with anyone, no matter what their race, creed, color, religion, gender or sexual orientation. If you can't focus squarely on the fact that this person is your American brother in arms, ignoring all dividing lines, you don't belong in the uniform in the first place.

Gay or str8 -- sex while deployed or underway, PDA in uniform -- both are strictly forbidden under the UCMJ.

Being gay shouldn't be a crime. Get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and let the UCMJ do its job. There's no need to single out one group of Americans.

Considering unbecoming behavior -- commanders should really crack down on the grotesque tales of wild sexual exploits the str8's constantly feel the need to boast about, seemingly out of insecurity in their sexuality. This rubbish is distracting, unbecoming and it defiles the uniform. NOBODY should be talking like that in uniform.

Having a portrait tucked inside one's helmet of their same-sex partner? There's nothing unbecoming as long as the portrait is clothed.

Do you really want to serve in a military where str8's could lie and say they are gay just to get out of their contract or a Draft?

If an individual is not fit to serve, that is one thing, but there should be no laws exempting any class of Americans from military service.

That's what DADT does -- it states that Freedom only wants your back and blood if you are willing to lie about your identity. If you tell the truth, such as to your buddy who wants to know if you are dating anybody or if you have any plans for the weekend, Freedom doesn't want you any more.

Honesty is vital to honor and integrity.

As Republican Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul said, "we don't get our rights because we are 'gay or women or minorities,' we get our rights as individuals."

quote:

There are still the numerous ships and submarines where enlisted folks do have to share sleeping and showering facilities.

This is a little disingenuous considering the sleeping and showering facilities on board a submarine.

In 7 years of Submarine service I have never seen anyone naked underway. Berthing is dark 24/7 and the shower stall barely fits one of ME, much less anyone else I would bring along.

quote:

As Republican Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul said, "we don't get our rights because we are 'gay or women or minorities,' we get our rights as individuals."

What the congressman seemed to overlook (or perhaps he was just being coy with a base that already doesn't care much for him) is that he was making an argument for doing away with DADT and replacing that special treatment with equality.

Ok I was in the Coast Guard, served almost 4 years on a cutter with 13 crew members. Saw ever one of them in the underwear, and 10 of them in nothing. We where a close crew, almost like family, within a week I had my shower opened up and a bucket of cold water tossed on me. (as far as I know everyone had that happen when new). No one knew I was gay, never "got off" thinking or looking at/about my crew. To be quite frank none of them are all that.

It's about the same likelyhood for a gay man to hit on a straight man that doesn't want it, as it is for a straight man to hit on a woman that doesn't want it. I personally wouldn't hit on a man if I didn't know he was gay. A lot of men are pigs, as are a lot of gay men; there are also a lot of decent men, straight and gay.

I'd have to say I've seen more a$$grabbing by straight men then gay men. However it is more likely to be in jest. For a gay man it can be taken two different ways, jest or advancement.

The only reason I came out near the very end of my enlistment was because one of the guys came over to MY house off base, and looked through MY window, and saw me with laying clothed with my b/f. Akward? yes very much. But we remained friends, and nothing major changed on the boat.

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:

quote:

As Republican Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul said, "we don't get our rights because we are 'gay or women or minorities,' we get our rights as individuals."

What the congressman seemed to overlook (or perhaps he was just being coy with a base that already doesn't care much for him) is that he was making an argument for doing away with DADT and replacing that special treatment with equality.

Yes, that is what he was arguing - and it's a valid argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Chancellor:

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:

quote:

As Republican Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul said, "we don't get our rights because we are 'gay or women or minorities,' we get our rights as individuals."

What the congressman seemed to overlook (or perhaps he was just being coy with a base that already doesn't care much for him) is that he was making an argument for doing away with DADT and replacing that special treatment with equality.

Yes, that is what he was arguing - and it's a valid argument.

Why didn't he raise his hand when asked then? He's already proven he has no lack of political courage.

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:

quote:

Originally posted by Chancellor:

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:

quote:

As Republican Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul said, "we don't get our rights because we are 'gay or women or minorities,' we get our rights as individuals."

What the congressman seemed to overlook (or perhaps he was just being coy with a base that already doesn't care much for him) is that he was making an argument for doing away with DADT and replacing that special treatment with equality.

Yes, that is what he was arguing - and it's a valid argument.

Why didn't he raise his hand when asked then? He's already proven he has no lack of political courage.

I don't remember the camera being focused on Ron Paul enough to tell whether he raised his hand or not. Depending on how the question was asked, he might not have raised his hand if the question indicated rights based on homosexual orientation, which he is opposed to because he opposes rights based on group identity (other than being American) and agrees with the founding fathers that rights are for individuals as Americans.

In my opinion, it comes down to a simple question: Is it better to face reality, or to deny it?

The reality is, there always HAVE been, ARE now, and always WILL be gays in the military, no matter what the law says.

I suggest we do away with prohibitions that only affect consenting adults. If you're not hurting anyone (against their will), what do we care WHAT you do? If there are people who can't handle working with gays, tough toenails for them; it's their issue to work out. Or should we also make special allowances for people who don't like working with blacks, Jews, women, etc.?

As far as the "spousal" benefits are concerned, here's a radical solution: Pay everyone the same amount, based upon rank and years of service, but regardless of their marital status or number of dependents. Do you think Wal-Mart or Halliburton will pay you more as a married person than as a single person? Why must the military be any different? Pay people what they're worth, and let THEM decide what to do with the money.

quote:

Originally posted by SteveDeHaven:
In my opinion, it comes down to a simple question: Is it better to face reality, or to deny it?

The reality is, there always HAVE been, ARE now, and always WILL be gays in the military, no matter what the law says.

I suggest we do away with prohibitions that only affect consenting adults. If you're not hurting anyone (against their will), what do we care WHAT you do? If there are people who can't handle working with gays, tough toenails for them; it's their issue to work out. Or should we also make special allowances for people who don't like working with blacks, Jews, women, etc.?

As far as the "spousal" benefits are concerned, here's a radical solution: Pay everyone the same amount, based upon rank and years of service, but regardless of their marital status or number of dependents. Do you think Wal-Mart or Halliburton will pay you more as a married person than as a single person? Why must the military be any different? Pay people what they're worth, and let THEM decide what to do with the money.

Well stated and good idea.

quote:

Originally posted by SteveDeHaven:
In my opinion, it comes down to a simple question: Is it better to face reality, or to deny it?

The reality is, there always HAVE been, ARE now, and always WILL be gays in the military, no matter what the law says.

This is not relevant to the discussion. There have probably always been adulterers in the military too.

quote:

I suggest we do away with prohibitions that only affect consenting adults. If you're not hurting anyone (against their will), what do we care WHAT you do? If there are people who can't handle working with gays, tough toenails for them; it's their issue to work out. Or should we also make special allowances for people who don't like working with blacks, Jews, women, etc.?

I think the UCMJ should be enforced equally and if a person's behavior becomes disruptive the person should be removed. Of course, there is the issue of allowing homosexuals to share sleeping and showering facilities with the sex to which they're attracted while prohibiting heterosexuals from doing so. If you want fairness then you cannot give privileges to homosexuals while denying them to heterosexuals.

quote:

As far as the "spousal" benefits are concerned, here's a radical solution: Pay everyone the same amount, based upon rank and years of service, but regardless of their marital status or number of dependents. Do you think Wal-Mart or Halliburton will pay you more as a married person than as a single person? Why must the military be any different? Pay people what they're worth, and let THEM decide what to do with the money.

ABSOLUTELY! Stop all this nonsense of giving extra pay to someone just because he or she has dependents.

Chancellor:

Regarding adultery, a case can be made that adultery hurts the spouse who's being cheated on. Therefore, the adulterer is hurting someone against their will. Adultery is also disruptive to any children in the family, so they're being harmed as well. Of course, all of this assumes that the adultery is discovered, which is the only case we can really discuss.

Regarding the old red herring about showering or bunking together, it's really quite simple: The same rules apply in the showers or in the barracks (or on board a ship) as apply in the office, on the flight deck, in a foxhole, etc. That rule is, don't harrass. Keep your behavior professional.

As for gays being "attracted" to others, making them uncomfortable: Nobody is guaranteed the right to always feel comfortable. If you think someone is attracted to you, and you don't return that attraction, does it really matter what their gender is? Ignore it. If they behave unprofessionally, then you have a basis for action (legal, please). Sexual harrassment is wrong regardless of the genders involved, and that should be your basis for action, not the orientation of the persons involved.

If you're in a community shower and some guy pops a boner, are you going to ask if he is gay? Or will you just ignore it? Maybe he's a straight guy who just thought of his wife or girlfriend at an awkward moment. Maybe he's just a person who pops boners when he's naked in front of others, having nothing to do with sexual attraction. Maybe he's just so darned virile, he can't stop popping. You know what they say: It's hard to keep a good man down. Of course, if he's standing there stroking it, then you have an instance of inappropriate behavior.

But in reality, let me offer my experience. I have been using community showers for all 25 years of my military career. In all that time, I'd be naive to think that nobody I happened to be in the same locker room with was gay. But in all those 25 years, I've never seen a guy pop a boner, I've never seen one guy "come on" to another, I've never even seen any guy pay "too much attention" to another guy. You're worried about nothing.

You seem to think that "attraction" implies a lack of self-control. Have you never been attracted to anyone? Were you never attracted to someone else when you couldn't (or weren't supposed to) act on it? What did you do? Did you sexually harrass the object of your attraction? Did you rape them? I'm guessing the answer is "no." Why do you assume the answer would be different for gay people?

Let me echo someone else, here.

If gay people are allowed to bunk and shower with people to whom they are sexually attracted, then the same privelege has to be given to heterosexuals.

Now, repeat that, and add: especially seeing how <i>most</i> people actually are straight, and it doesn't make sense to throw out equality in order to appease a minority (that claims to want equality!).

Also, didn't anyone else read the whole thing about how there is no right to serve in the military?

Also, about the showers...

Yes, it's true that most gay people aren't going to rape or even hit on straight people in the service.

But yes, it's also true that a whole lot of people wouldn't feel comfortable showering and sleeping with someone of the same sex who was gay. (I know military service isn't about comfort; but gay people are prettymuch GOING to join up, so should they as the smaller number of people, be the ones who are uncomfortable, as opposed to the majority of people?)

And honestly, where I don't feel wanted, or I don't feel comfortable or in this case, able, to be who I am... that's where I don't want to be. If it's so bad for gay people in the military, why don't they go to school and work somewhere else?

Also, I'm pretty sure the DOD policy on homosexuality is a little more than just the infamous DADT. Aren't there also rules about your private life?

If so, heck, why shouldn't there be?

There are things heterosexual people aren't allowed to do, in the military or out of it.

Uhhh, I don't know.

Why is this such a huge issue?

Maybe 10% of the population is gay, and I would assume fewer than 10% of the military population. Out of those people, maybe half of those are even upset about the policies on homosexuality.

So what, maybe 1% of military members have a problem with the military's policy?

So the rest of America has to change to make them feel better?

Rhetorical:

Who thinks that change wouldn't cost a lot of money that we could spend on-- I don't know, armor?

(Not to seem like a cold-hearted Capitalist or anything, but really, what's the bottom line?)

quote:

Originally posted by Kate315:
(Not to seem like a cold-hearted Capitalist or anything, but really, what's the bottom line?)

I don't know.. about $350,000 saved from one tiny Coast Guard base that was going to outsource a job to contractors. But the gay guy who had to put aside his personal life spent his time to find a cheeper solution using military personel. AND $500,000 saved by a bisexual reservist when implementing a new program.
Now not all gay guys are great at solving problems or even any better than straight people, I was just the best at the unit. So now if almost 1 million isn't a big enough number in 6 years by a small unit in the smallest service, I don't know what would be. Not saying straight people could not have done it, but you wanted to know what the costs would be.

quote:

Also, I'm pretty sure the DOD policy on homosexuality is a little more than just the infamous DADT. Aren't there also rules about your private life?

If so, heck, why shouldn't there be?

Yes there are rules about private life, but how many women would stay married to men that could ONLY have sex in the missionary possition? Yes by the UCMJ you only have one sex possition. Now why should that law generally be ignored with straight people and used to discharge gay people? As for why shouldn't there be, does a man getting a 'quicky' from his wife in the morning negitivaly effect his job? should he be less than honorably discharged for it?

It's already a double standard, so we should either enforce it all the time, or just get rid of it.

How about this?

quote:

The Department of Defense hereby rescinds all rules, policies, regulations and codes prohibiting homosexual or bisexual persons from serving in the Armed Forces, and/or declaring such orientations to be incompatible with military service; furthermore, all such rules, policies, regulations and codes concerning sexual conduct between consenting adults (e.g. the UCMJ prohibition against sodomy) are similarly rescinded. Rules, policies, regulations and codes prohibiting rape, sexual assault, sexual harrassment, unwanted sexual conduct or advances, sexual conduct between adults and minor children, or between humans and animals, remain in effect. Additionally, the DoD will not tolerate any discrimination against any person based upon actual or perceived sexual orientation.

Total cost to implement: about 20 seconds of POTUS's or SECDEF's time to cut-and-paste the above into an e-mail sent to all DoD employees, military and civilian.

Total savings: Millions, by not wasting any more money pursuing a pointless policy. Not to mention the savings in time by not requiring all military people to attend annual "Homosexual Policy Awareness Training."

Of course, I realize that a saving of a mere few million dollars isn't enough to grab the attention of anyone in Washington, D.C. I also realize that pointless, time-wasting "policy training" will continue in the military, in one form or another, until the end of time.

But at least we'd be facing reality. No, wait, that doesn't appeal to anyone in Washington, either. Gosh, isn't there ANYthing that could motivate a change to this policy...?

quote:

HEADLINE: ARMY RECRUITMENT FAILS TO MEET GOALS AGAIN AS WAR IN IRAQ GRINDS ON

Every one is going to read the first sentance of this and tthen flame me lol. So read the whole thing please.

I dont think Homosexuals should be allowed to serve. This is because it would indicate our military has indeed achieved a level of common sense equal to the rest of the 3rd world. It would cause mass numbers of suicide as officers and enlisted with homophobia *A listed Mental Disorder* realize that they might be serving with gays. It would also indicate that we are infact a country that doesnt just sprout crap when it benifates us. We just cant have the US becoming what is was in 1776. That is not what our forfathers intended.

We were meant to become stupid dull morons. If we Allow gays to serve it would mean we have become smarter. Think of all the civil unrest this would cause. When the people realize that OMG the Government has done something right for once. We cant have the disruption of having our perfectly oppressed population celebrating something. No this cant happen.

and this is your Local Smart Ars Airmen Alexodia.

Do any of you really think that you are not already sleeping in berthing areas or showering with people who are homosexual?

Homophobia is today's fear and intolerance, just as racial/sexual discrimination was yesterdays. I KNOW that there are people here who were in the military long before me who have to remember how minorities in the military were viewed.

I'm not gay, never have been, don't plan to be. When I start judging and discriminating someone who is, I figure, I'll have much bigger problems.

quote:

Originally posted by Meyers10:

quote:

Originally posted by mab_neo:
That's what DADT does -- it states that Freedom only wants your back and blood if you are willing to lie about your identity.

You're not lieing, you're just not saying anything. Who wants to hear whether you're gay or not? No one. No one cares. So just keep your mouth shut and do your job. You don't have straight people running around tapping people on the sholder saying "Just so you know, I'M STRAIGHT!!!" No one cares. Let it be. Don't ask, don't tell. When you're in the military, your personal life is put to the side. When you leave work, do whatever you want, but while at work, keep it to yourself, nothing wrong with that.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I was wondering when somebody was going to say this. Who care about your sex life while on duty? You have a job to do and a time frame to get it done in. GET TO WORK! Finish the job and move on to the next assignment. Your sex life and style is YOUR BUSINESS. Keep your mouth shut and watch the way you act and display yourself in public. This is something all of us need to do, straight or gay. Hoorah!

While that's true, how many of you carry photos of your significant other, or have one or more on your desk or hanging in your locker, etc.? How many of you in just everyday conversation talk about a nice dinner you had with your SO or what you got each other for Christmas, etc.?

I know of an individual who was put out for being gay and it all stated when the person's shipmates saw photos in the person's locker.

Unfortunately it's not this simple.