Exactly, they aren’t telling you to act gay even though you are straight but they are asking that gays act as though they were straight.
There was something you were going on about…something about a double standard.
The double standard I’m talking about goes toward living conditions and privileges. The fact that the US military tells you how to act remains there. You join the military and they tell you how a lot of your personal business will be conducted, like it or not.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I’m not in the military (was raised by a Marine though) so I will not offer opinions about something I have no relative experience about - especially when so many here are and have.
I do have a question though . . What about the effect that allowing openly gay people to serve in the military will have on recruitment/rentention?
Already several active military members have mentioned how anti-gay some ar ein the military and we know for a certainty how divisive on issue it is in society at large.
Add to this the overall weakening of military standards (don’t believe me? - talk to an old marine!)
Are we simply sowing the seeds of destruction of our military overall and this just adds one more divisive component?
And I would prefer to hear from military personnel only (thanks to rest for your input, but we really don’t have a dog in this fight, so to speak)[/quote]
Recruitment and retention won’t be affected much, if at all. The economy probably plays the biggest role. When time are good, people go after civilian jobs. When times are bad, people join/stay in the military.
As far as the overall destruction of the military, this is a drop in the bucket. I’d be more worried about the general softening of the youth or the dumbing down of current and future generations (which may or may not be a myth). Most importantly, the military has its own problems because, at its heart, it’s just another bureaucratic government organization run by career politicians.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
As far as the overall destruction of the military, this is a drop in the bucket. I’d be more worried about the general softening of the youth or the dumbing down of current and future generations (which may or may not be a myth). Most importantly, the military has its own problems because, at its heart, it’s just another bureaucratic government organization run by career politicians. [/quote]
Bingo, DADT is like abortion in a presidential election. It looks a lot more important on TV than it really is. The average person that doesn’t understand the actual serious complicated problems out there can identify with it.
[quote]MilSpec105 wrote:
The double standard I’m talking about goes toward living conditions and privileges. The fact that the US military tells you how to act remains there. You join the military and they tell you how a lot of your personal business will be conducted, like it or not.[/quote]
With the whole different time showers thing, just to make it clear. I’m not saying to schedule times to shower. I’m saying that in the real world, actually happening now, when there’s a gay male in a deployed location other males do not shower at the same time as them. They would walk into the shower tent and turn right back around. I’ve seen it while on several deployments. The only real problems come out in this topic when it’s hypothetical, in real life people just cope and get on with life.
I agree they shouldn’t get special privileges. You don’t have to make separate housing for gays. You don’t need separate showers. As I’ve said, there are already gays in the military and they are fairly open about it. They don’t have separate housing or showers now and for the most part everything runs smoothly.
The whole “we have to make sure they aren’t harassed” mentality is PC bullshit that no one but Monday morning quarterbacks care about.
Yea you don’t have to make any housing or shower changes because of DADT. And when the 1SG says shower after pt and report to whatever time work call and everyone turns around to wait for the showers to be clear and are late it will work out real well.
And the harassment PC bullshit is for Monday morning quarterbacks… that is if by Monday morning quarterbacks you mean the unit commanders that will have to deal with the EO complaints and Congressionals that will come down from it.
Something else I’m wondering…for those of us in the military, you should all be aware that TECHNICALLY, only traditional sex is “allowed” in the military. BJs, anal, etc, are TECHNICALLY illegal. Granted, we all know that we ain’t all doing penis-vagina sex realistically, but the higher-ups just pretend that’s the case unless someone causes ripples/problems.
My point is, I wonder how this will be affected if DADT is discontinued. Because obviously, my current standards, there is no WAY for gays to have sex in the military. Just something that popped into my mind. Maybe they’d have to rewrite that whole chapter.
HAHA good point. That didn’t even cross my mind. Gotta love the UCMJ.
I think the army should conduct an experiment. Have everyone conduct themselves as though they were gay. It won’t be long before all the heterosexuals scream to be let back to their normal ways.
How does this affect the image of the army? I can understand reprimands for people who are not conducting themselves professionally and making a joke out of military standards, but how does that relate to one’s sexuality? The same way it relates to the colour of one’s skin or their gender. No way at all.
Yes we have communal showers, but it wouldn’t be impossible to have gays go first or last. Besides do you ever remember who you just took a shower beside? I don’t. I don’t have time to look around, I get in, rinse, soap, rinse, gtfo. Really? Really? Are you gonna make a huge deal about that? Realistically you don’t have time to oggle anyone while in the showers.
And you’re forgetting humanity’s greatest gift. To adapt and overcome, survive and thrive. If we stopped every time some adverse condition or issue arised we’d still be in the stone age. We’ve obviously overcome the MASSIVE, nay, GINOURMOUS problem of letting “coloured” people serve (and don’t kid yourself back in the day when this happened it was a hyooge issue). But seriously I don’t see how we’ll EVER overcome this problem of homosexuals serving openly in the army. /sarcasm
[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:
It appears that nobody is asking the question; how the fuck would allowing openly gay people in the military lead to allowing sex in the barracks?[/quote]
Apparently this needed quoting.
[quote]jak3_dude wrote:
I think the army should conduct an experiment. Have everyone conduct themselves as though they were gay. It won’t be long before all the heterosexuals scream to be let back to their normal ways.
[/quote]
I’m sorry, but… how do you ‘conduct [your]selves as though you were gay’?
[quote]jak3_dude wrote:
And you’re forgetting humanity’s greatest gift. To adapt and overcome, survive and thrive. If we stopped every time some adverse condition or issue arised we’d still be in the stone age. We’ve obviously overcome the MASSIVE, nay, GINOURMOUS problem of letting “coloured” people serve (and don’t kid yourself back in the day when this happened it was a hyooge issue). But seriously I don’t see how we’ll EVER overcome this problem of homosexuals serving openly in the army. /sarcasm[/quote]
By the way, am I just thinking about Heartbreak Ridge, or don’t the US Marines go on a lot about their ability to “adapt and overcome”, to boot?
People trying to equate this with race have no idea about the current state, and issues within, the us military. And yes, race is still an issue. That is why we have to have quarterly Equal Opportunity and Consideration of Others Training, but the sexual issues go well beyond DADT. That is why there are Unit Victim Advocates, sexual assault prevention programs, units are drilled on types of reporting procedures, and list goes on.
There are massive precautions set in place because straight Soldiers are attracted to the opposite sex. Now allow open homosexuality and you just added 2 more sets of precautions. Controls are in place to prevent sexual assault/harassment/discrimination between straight males and females. Now double that to add homosexual male/male and female/female.
The rule for most sexual offenses is perception so once the flood of PVT Gay SoAndSo was looking at me a certain way in the shower, or the barracks room we share, etc. start coming something will need to be done. Practical controls will have to be implemented. That takes time and money.
What seems obvious, like how about everyone not give a shit about their roommate coming out, would be great. BUT that is not how theses things go down. If that were the case it would be like starship troopers and commanders would have more time for shit like actual missions.
[quote]MilSpec105 wrote:
Yea you don’t have to make any housing or shower changes because of DADT. And when the 1SG says shower after pt and report to whatever time work call and everyone turns around to wait for the showers to be clear and are late it will work out real well.
And the harassment PC bullshit is for Monday morning quarterbacks… that is if by Monday morning quarterbacks you mean the unit commanders that will have to deal with the EO complaints and Congressionals that will come down from it.[/quote]
In the scenario of showering after PT… the troop wouldn’t have time to worry who else was in the shower. Kind of like in the field, where men and women share showers. They don’t care who else is there, they just need to get done and go.
I’m saying that some EO complaints are always going to happen. There will always be some idiot that doesn’t understand what no means regardless to sex. Expecting there to be no complaints when something is drastically changed is unrealistic and shouldn’t be the basis for not changing. With DADT gone there will be a lot of new ground that has to be covered as far as what is acceptable. The only way to solve those things is to wait and see what happens and then try not to shotgun blast a solution IMO.