Obama and the Gay Military...

[Bill Thompson]

When were you on the aircraft carrier?

I was on deployment to a combat zone on a surface combatant (a DDG, to be specific) in 2004. In those days, STG seemed to stand for "Sonarman, Torpedoman, Gunner's Mate", in that we essentially had to stand a lot of topside .50 cal and M-60 watches. For the most part, I was alone & unafraid on the stern of the ship with my M-60. At other times, though, I was on a .50 cal with at least one other person, usually two. There was no expectation that, should we run into situations that might actually involve people attacking the ship, that all of the women would somehow be transferred off (or even inside the skin of the ship) to keep them safe. We provided security for the oil terminals (KAAOT, usually), and in fact did have several dhows make runs on us (presumably to test our response; they usually did this to the Coasties more, tho -- I assume because their boats are much smaller and not quite so encrusted with heavy weaponry).

Also, given today's assymetrical battlefield, it is not uncommon for women to be very heavily involved in combat operations despite the fact that they aren't available for specifically front-line MOSs, etc. Women do, from time to time, get caught up in fire fights (that article is four years old).

Women are also now eligible to serve as combat aircraft pilots. Women fly all manner of combat aircraft, including F-16s and A-10s.

IMO, gays are people attracted to the same gender. And that's it. Other than that, they're people. In a combat situation -- or a potential combat situation -- I'd like to have lots of well-trained, motivated people around me. I don't care about their sexuality. I do care if people distract me with sexual behavior, but it's the behavior that is a problem, not its source.

Standard disclaimer: The views herein are mine and mine only; they do not represent those of the Navy or the Department of Defense.

I was working with a squadron as an IS. We were attached to the carrier when it was deployed. It was an A6 squadron. I was in active duty from 83-86.

Ever think of the bathroon situation? It is the custom in the US to have men and women to have seperate bathrooms. People are comfortable about this not because of gender but because of who you are exposing yourself too and that is not a condition of gender but who is sexually attracted to you and who you are sexually attracted to. You do not want someone checking you out when you have to expose yourself.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I was working with a squadron as an IS. We were attached to the carrier when it was deployed. It was an A6 squadron. I was in active duty from 83-86.

Ever think of the bathroon situation? It is the custom in the US to have men and women to have seperate bathrooms. People are comfortable about this not because of gender but because of who you are exposing yourself too and that is not a condition of gender but who is sexually attracted to you and who you are sexually attracted to. You do not want someone checking you out when you have to expose yourself.

And do homosexuals really do this? I suspect that by and large homosexuals follow standard bathroom etiquette. You are starting to sound paranoid.

 

[Cleon]

The UK is the size of America's tea cup.

Nonsense. We don't drink tea here.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I served in the UK military before the restriction was lifted, I was not aware of any homophobes in my unit, we were all far more worried about the enemy than we were with our friends. There was a member of my platoon who was overtly camp, everyone understood why and nobody cared.

I think the homophobic reaction is only at higher levels, where they think that gay = male rapist. This if you know much about the british upper classes is quite ironic along the lines of "methinks the ladies do protest too much".

We lived off base for a while and there was one of our roommates who was overly camp and, likewise, everyone understood why and nobody cared. But if he made a pass at someone, he would be booted out. Is that so wrong? The military has rules about who straight people can make advances to, why do the gays get special treatment?

 

[Bill Thompson]

I'm aware that the US can't match sweden's shear military brilliance (if they had had the economy to back it up they might still be a significant player) but you'd think by now the US would have picked up some military ability.

In any case last I checked most Swedes and Americans were homo sapiens. If US drill sergeants can't get troops to adopt whatever culture the drill sergeant wants you probably need a better training setup.



Seems to have worked across quite a range of cultures.

Are you saying that the interactions between males and females and attitudes towards gays transcend cultures? Have you been to Sweden? Have you been outside your country?

You are wrong.

 

[oldhat]

You do not want someone checking you out when you have to expose yourself.

So your not worried about a cruise missile sinking your ship but a homosexual who might look at your wee-wee in the bathroom makes you afraid?

Good to see you've got your priorities straight.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So your not worried about a cruise missile sinking your ship but a homosexual who might look at your wee-wee in the bathroom makes you afraid?

Good to see you've got your priorities straight.

A slightly more accurate depiction of what Bill seems to have been trying to get at:

Do you want your daughter to share the showers with men/boys, with no other option given, when she's in school?

That's a bit different of a topic than mere meat gazing.

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

We lived off base for a while and there was one of our roommates who was overly camp and, likewise, everyone understood why and nobody cared. But if he made a pass at someone, he would be booted out. Is that so wrong? The military has rules about who straight people can make advances to, why do the gays get special treatment?

WHy is asking for no special treatment special treatment? No one is asking for changes in who in your command structure it is acceptable to have sexual relations with or not. They are asking for the same rules to apply instead of DODT. In that you might have even more chance for inapropraite relations as they are all going to be closeted relations and so not nessacarily open about who they are.

Why do only the homosexuals not get to date or have sexual relations?

 

[ponderingturtle]

A slightly more accurate depiction of what Bill seems to have been trying to get at:

Do you want your daughter to share the showers with men/boys, with no other option given, when she's in school?

That's a bit different of a topic than mere meat gazing.

DR

I don't see the problem, but then I went to summer camp with mixed showers.

 

[oldhat]

A slightly more accurate depiction of what Bill seems to have been trying to get at:

Do you want your daughter to share the showers with men/boys, with no other option given, when she's in school?

What a horrible analogy. I think it sounds like he's afraid of catching the Gay Stare and getting magically turned Teh Gay.

 

[geni]

Are you saying that the interactions between males and females and attitudes towards gays transcend cultures?

No I'm saying that the millitry will have whatever culture they are issued with.

 

[geni]

I saw a photograph of two Sikhs guarding Buckingham Palace on BBC News with their blue turbans and beards instead of bearskin hats.

And the problem is? Sikhs have an interesting historical relationship with the British military. We allowed them to keep their turbans and beards and they killed off whoever we asked them to (mostly various annoyances around the indian sub continent). It appears to have been a sucessful relationship and there is no reason to pretend it didn't happen now.

 

[GreyICE]

Something you just googled? Come on, give me a break.

Besides, what are you saying. The military conducted a different test than the one I am saying they conducted. They used a different study then the one I am saying?

The fact remains that they had to be shown that it would work before changed.

I admit the link to specific information is something I googled. The information is not new to me. Since you have provided evidence notable only in its conspicuous absence, I assume you wish to criticize the entire procedure of providing evidence to support a position.

I doubt you will find many supporters.

I think you will find if you review the evidence provided that the military did not have conclusive evidence that integration would work before they proceeded - in fact, they determined such evidence would be difficult or impossible to obtain in a segregated military (see, poor performance of black units, well documented). They instead proceeded from a considered ideological position backed by observation - one very similar to the one you are faced with today.

A hominem argument again. People called me gay when I supported gay marrage. Can you raise above the childish name-calling or is that asking too much?

Instead of cherry picking the indivicual parts of my list that you feel you can attack better, lets move on.

I call this curious. I cannot address your list on the specifics. And yet when I am general, you claim that I am generalizing and committing ad hominems. Perhaps you merely wish to state that your position is unassailable, like you are a divine prophet ordained by God to deliver a message to us unworthy heathens? Or maybe you should clarify? If your list is indefensible on the specifics, why bother creating it? If I generalize your list and it remains wrong, on what points is it right?

Is this a version of 'two wrongs make a right' where gathering sufficient quantity of inaccuracies somehow creates an accurate statement? Inquiring minds wish to know.

You did not address other reasons that have more weight like

#18 It Would Be A Gift to Our Enemies. The final reason (for now – I will add more as I think of them) is that allowing open gays in the military would be a gift and a great recruitment tool for our radical Islamic enemies. In war, we are supposed to all be willing to make sacrifices. Banning Gays from serving in the military can be one of these sacrifices. It is not unreasonable. The military does its best to make sure that porn is not taken to or delivered to service men and women in muslim countries. The military also does its best to make sure that alcohol is not shipped to or delivered to muslim countries we are stationed in as well. We do our best to adjust. If we are willing to sacrifce by taking something away, we can more easily adjust by refusing to add something to the equasion.

I in fact did address this. The point is laughable, as I stated. To go into detail, allowing your enemies to dictate how and in what way you fight a battle is a hilarious concept, that hasn't flown since the American Revolution. I suppose you would be with the British, crying 'Unfair!' as the American soldiers refused to line up in nice rows to be shot.

Do we allow the radicals of Islam to dictate our military? If so, why not ban Jews? They have huge problems with Jews. One Jewish general, imagine the recruiting power they can get out of that. No Jewish generals!

An atheist? Ha! Atheists are evil god haters. Clearly we should ban them.

How about soldiers who eat pork? Clearly unclean and disallowed by God. Drinking alcohol? Perhaps you have not read the holy Koran? Believing Christ to be the true prophet and the son of God? Perhaps you do not understand that according to holy Islam God would not have sons, and such a concept is blasphemy.

No? Why do we not ask our soldiers to make all of those sacrifices in the name of placating these insane psychopaths? Oh I see. It is a pathetic excuse, a transparent reason to keep something YOU personally find distasteful out of the military.

You're right. I did a disservice by not addressing point number 18. I did a disservice to my own argument by ignoring such a rich vein of laughable logic and poor thought. I consider this disservice remedied.

Have you considered its not cherry picking when ALL of your arguments are really bad?

 

[Phrost]

Bill do you actually have any military service under your belt, or do you just consider yourself an expert?

...

 

[Jackalgirl]

I was working with a squadron as an IS. We were attached to the carrier when it was deployed. It was an A6 squadron. I was in active duty from 83-86.

That was over twenty years ago. Times have, in fact, changed since you were in.

Ever think of the bathroon situation? It is the custom in the US to have men and women to have seperate bathrooms. People are comfortable about this not because of gender but because of who you are exposing yourself too and that is not a condition of gender but who is sexually attracted to you and who you are sexually attracted to. You do not want someone checking you out when you have to expose yourself.

I don't care, as long as I don't know about it. The minute they let me know, it's tripping over into sexual harassment territory. In that case, it's the behavior (the harassment) that is the issue for me, not its source. I simply cannot be worried with what might be going on in someone's head when they see me. Only actions are, well, actionable.

Also, you may not be aware that even in female berthing, the doors have stalls on them and the showers have curtains, and the showers have a very small "ante-shower" that has a curtain on it for disrobing -- at least, this was the case in the DDG, so I can't speak for other platforms, so take this info with a grain of salt. On the DDG, there is no reason to be naked in berthing if you don't want to be naked in berthing and, in fact, the berthing regs specifically dictate that you have to at least have your underwear on when you're outside of the closed-off areas (showers, stalls).

Males have it a little bit different; the urinals are in the open, common area. But, again, the solution is to put them in stalls and put doors on them if you (the hypothetical military people in charge "you", that is) are so worried about gay men admiring your junk.

This is, in fact, how the Australians did it in the Chiefs' head in the HMAS Anzac (a Frigate). All of the urinals, stalls, and showers had doors on them. And the head was used by both men and women. It shocked me for all of thirty seconds when a male Chief stepped up next to me at the sink (covered up by a towel), said "morning!" and started brushing his teeth. And then I was over it, that quick.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Lets actually stop dead for a second here. Because it's hilarious how far we've diverged from reality already. The army did indeed engage in science. It wasn't IQ tests. In the face of social pressure, they decided to review the performance of their 'black divisions.' It was unarguably pitiful. Terrible. I hate to break it to you, Bill Thompson, but if you had been alive back then, you'd have been ranting about how the black troops couldn't hold a candle to the white ones, and you should boot them all out of the army. It's actual scientific evidence that black people can't do as well in combat as white people, something that you don't have for gays (A more enlightened view, of course, might focus on the black units lack of training, poor supplies, and the hesitation of commanders to use them in combat as reasons that they lacked combat performance of other units, but you're not even going that deeply, so I'm not letting you off the hook).

In fact the army's decision to racially desegregate was caused mostly by prevailing social pressures, and was an ideological decision. The armed forces were mostly of the opinion that the black units were held back by their white counterparts, which was the reason for their underperformance - but that's not scientific at all. That's just trusting our soldiers. Bill Thompson has heard many opinions from soldiers in this thread, he has disregarded all of them. I don't see how the eivdence passes Bill Thompson's standards for desegregation.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/integration/IAF-05.htm

And, here. we. go.

Eighteen of the most emotion-laden, illogical reasons I have ever seen for anything. It's clear you put lots of time into this. It's less clear that the origins are logical, so much as justified illogic.

You say that tradition is a good reason. Bull. Tradition isn't even why we clean our ships so thoroughly. It's because bored marines with lots of time on their hands in close quarters is the sort of situation where bad things happen. Useless make-work is much better than bored people with military training and time on their hands. So clean the ship. Again and again and again. The military has looked at every one of their traditions, and if they're counterproductive, they're gone. This will just be one more counterproductive tradition that no longer happens.

You suggest that gay men might be joining because they want to look at hot soldiers. Right. This seems as likely as a straight guy joining because he thought guys in uniform get lots of pussy. And as relevant.

You say that you can't be comfortable in a shower with 80 guys if one is gay. In a shower with 80 guys, there's a 99.91% chance that at least one is gay. You've showered with a gay man. You're still here.

You say that the military needs savages and ignorant rednecks. I say you do not give credit to our troops. The military is full of brighter than average people for their background - those who want a way out of the 'typical way of life' that they're used to. Those are exactly the most likely to reject stereotypes. Give our military the credit they are due.

You state that emotions and valor, that love and devotion might get in the way of the military. I state that that is a consequence of having soldiers in the military. Soldiers may have friends, and enemies. They might have people they hate and people they like. They might be valorous, or even flinch in the face of enemy fire. They might or might not bond well with eachother. This is a consequence of having a military full of humans. These are not things unique to homosexuals.

Let me be blunt. You don't know what you are talking about. Police are not called to domestic disturbance calls where two straight men or two straight women live.

We fall back on fear mongering. AIDS, the idea that our enemy will hate us more, the idea that gays in the military will infect others. That gay men can't be dedicated. That the military is just too prejudiced, it would collapse under the strain. That our military would be crippled, our soldiers disease-ridden, our enemy empowered. To this, I say 'yeah, right.' It's the worst sort of hysterical fear-mongering, and anyone who agrees with it should be ashamed of themselves.

Eighteen points? I count maybe 8 if you remove the duplication. I count 0 if you remove the ones that don't make sense.

You missed the boat. I did not say they were rational. I did not say that they were even logical. You see, they are not rational because we are not talking about a corporation. We are not talking about a company that produces a product or service.

In fact, let me say this, if you have not been in the military, I do not think you can possibly understand any of this. It is like a man arguing about women's reproductive rights. You don't get it.

They SEEM to be emotionally charged babble because you are taking the view of having homosexuals in a common work-place. You don't get it.

I also never said that they were "good" reasons. But they are reasons. And at least for now, they are reasons why it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Bill Thompson]

That was over twenty years ago. Times have, in fact, changed since you were in.

Elaborate, please.

I don't care, as long as I don't know about it. The minute they let me know, it's tripping over into sexual harassment territory. In that case, it's the behavior (the harassment) that is the issue for me, not its source. I simply cannot be worried with what might be going on in someone's head when they see me. Only actions are, well, actionable.

That is why it is "Don't ask. Don't tell".

 

[Jackalgirl]

We lived off base for a while and there was one of our roommates who was overly camp and, likewise, everyone understood why and nobody cared. But if he made a pass at someone, he would be booted out. Is that so wrong? The military has rules about who straight people can make advances to, why do the gays get special treatment?

I don't get this either. The only way I can make sense of it is if you assume that the phrase "being openly gay" somehow equals engaging in explicit sexual behavior (meatgazing, making passes, etc).

Is that honestly what you think? That if a person can't be gay without being inappropriately sexual?

By "inappropriately sexual", I mean going beyond the restrictions in place for straight people, to include (for example) dating someone within the same Chain of Command*, sexual harassment, sexual assault, etc.

*When I was in McFAUL (DDG-74) from 2001-2006, the policy was that you could date someone on the ship, but they couldn't be in the same department. That's what they meant by "Chain of Command" in this instance -- reporting to the same department head.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Elaborate, please.

I did. I explained that I (I'm a woman, in case this is not clear) had served in a combat zone and had been placed in situations that could result in me being involved in combat (to whit, defending the ship with an M-60 or a .50 cal). I explained that there were no procedures in place, and no expectation, for me or any other woman to somehow be sheltered should the ship come under attack. I also explained that it's not unusual, nowadays, for women to be involved in combat action.

This is a summary. You may wish to review my previous posts. If you desire any other clarification, you have only to ask.

That is why it is "Don't ask. Don't tell".

No. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is not a policy on sexual harassment or sexual assault. The DoD and DoN have separate policies for those. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" specifically states that you may not disclose your sexual orientation, if you are gay.

Example: I, a Sonar Tech, may date Ted, in the Damage Control division, aboard the same vessel. We are in separate departments, so our relationship falls within the ship's requirements. There's only an issue if our relationship starts to affect our work. As long as we are professional, there's no problem.

I, a Sonar Tech, may not date Jill, in the Damage Control division, aboard the same vessel. If I do, both I and Jill may be subject to action under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It doesn't matter if we are scrupulously professional at work. It doesn't even matter if our relationship even enhances the mission (if, for example, my interest in Jill causes me to have greater interest in her area of specialty, which is Damage Control, and I learn about that area of specialty, and thus become cross-trained and pass this on to the rest of my Division, so that we become more knowledgeable than we might be with standard DC training). None of that matters. Because "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is about sexual orientation. It is not about sex.

Edited to add: let me clarify. If a person tells me "Oh, by the way, I am gay", I do not see this as a threat (even if the person is female). I don't care. If the person says "Oh, by the way, I am gay and would like to date you", that's a different story. However, I don't believe that someone telling me that he or she is gay is the same thing as saying that he or she is gay and sexually attracted to me. This second situation seems to me to be what you believe gays do by admitting that they are gay. Is that correct?

 

[Sledge]

Bill, what is it about gay men that scares you so much? ETA: Is it anything to do with this? NSFW - Youtube link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3icDB3kRKPg