I did not know all these legal issues. Yeah, I agree. Now, what do you think of my other comments in that post?
Let me address them, since you added them into the post after I'd already replied:
Bill Thompson said:
You know, the mind set of many people who enlist are that of teens -- for the most part, mentally, they are kids. In your opinion, do you think that today's American serviceman and woman would be tolerant of homosexuals.
I think that some would, and some wouldn't. I imagine there would be quite a bit of backlash, just as there was integrating blacks and women. People who absolutely couldn't handle it would have to be weeded out. If a person's sexual (or racial, or gender-based) hangups were so severe that it impacted their ability to carry out the mission, then that person would be unsuitable for military service and would be separated. Win-win, really, since the military is really trying to downsize.
Bill Thompson said:
There is more to the opposite gender than what is physical. That point is made clear by people who feel -- and even appear -- that they were born with the wrong gender. I don't know if your sleeping arrangement was anything like the cramped side-by-side way it was that I experienced. But how would you feel sleeping around dudes.
It seems as if you're changing the argument. Now the problem is not that straight people will have problems with gays in their midst; now the problem is that the gays will be outnumbered and isolated. But they already
are, insofar that they are already serving, and are already living in cramped living quarters with straight people.
(Yes, the living quarters are still pretty cramped. At least, on the DDG, my berthing was tiny. My roommate was serving on a cruiser and actually had enough space in her berthing for a separate common area with a
couch*. Our berthing had 18 people in it and had enough space for a half-table with two chairs.)
Again, though, I reiterate: on the DDG, one's rack has a curtain, and the showers has not one but two curtains (one for the actual shower, one for the "anteshower/disrobing area"), and doors for the stalls. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to see anyone naked, even given those cramped quarters. (Once again, I note that this applies exclusively to the living quarters in a DDG. I also reiterate that in male berthing, the urinals are in the common area, so if DADT were repealed, I think it would make sense to put partitions and curtains / doors up. I can only speak about the conditions aboard a DDG, since that's the only platform I've served in, and about the Chiefs' head in HMAS ANZAC, when I overnighted there.)
And if anyone were ever to act on their impulses, that would be sexual harassment / assault. Which is prohibited by DoD/DoN policies governing the same.
Bill Thompson said:
What if you were the only female surrounded by 80 men? That must be what a gay guy would feel like.
Can't speak to how gay guys would feel, as I'm not a gay guy. I'd find one of the gay guys I've served with aboard ship and ask but in doing so, I would violate the DADT policy and if he answered, he would violate it.
As for me, well, it depends on the situation. If I were in an environment in which strict professionalism was expected by the entire chain of command, and if it was clearly understood that misconduct - either on my part or by those around me - would be swiftly and harshly addressed, I don't think I'd have a problem. I'd expect that there would be policy, which everyone understands, that would make it an actionable infraction if, say, some guy were to go wandering by butt naked (i.e., at least underwear/towel on in berthing). And if, of course, the heads were arranged with doors on the stalls. It's completely doable. I'm speaking of the hypothetical desired end-state in which the culture accepts that there are gay people and that it's okay, and that what's
not okay is sexual harassment, etc.
Were I integrating a ship, however, I would absolutely not
start the whole process by putting one woman in with 80 guys (or one openly gay guy with a bunch of straights). I spoke earlier about backlash: part of changing the culture is getting over the initial cultural inertia that you will invariably encounter (people are resistant to change). If the legislature were to rescind DADT, I hope that the Powers-That-Be in the military would think pretty hard about the integration process, and utilized the lessons learned from, say, integrating blacks and women.
Bill Thompson said:
And how would they guys feel? Gay bashing is something that a lot of adolescent men do. And isn't this the mind set of many service men when they first get into the service?
Before women regularly served with men, it was common to have pornography prominently displayed, and to be extremely disparaging about women. Should that have been used as an excuse to exclude women? Instead, the military pulled the damn band aid off. Yes, there was pushback during the integration (and still is). But you absolutely cannot change a mindset without confronting it. Nowadays, a man who absolutely cannot serve with women because he thinks they are inferior (or otherwise objects to their presence) has severely limited career options.
Wouldn't the country, and the military, be better if gay bashing were completely unacceptable? Why would anyone ever consider gay bashing as normal, acceptable behavior?
I will totally admit that now that blacks and women can't be mocked in mixed quarters, that the target for patronizing or insulting speech in the places in which I've served now seems to be gay people. "That's gay," you'll hear, or men will insult other men as being homosexuals (rather than comparing them to women, calling them "ladies", or making other gender-based disparaging remarks). So that would simply have to change (and it really skirts, if not crosses, the sexualization of the workplace anyway, and invites response from DoD/DoN policies regarding sexual harassment). I think it would be a positive change.
*A
couch, fer cryin' out loud!
