2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

Navy Pride said:

No they don't share their racks but they sleep only a few inches from one another in fact I was a witness at a courtmartial where a guy made sexual advance against another guy by reaching up to the rack he was in and assaulting him..........


What else you said is pretty much true that is why if they ever do away with DADT they should go back to the way it was prior to DADT......

Click to expand...

Then the gay guy in this case was a bad person. I don't care what sexual attractions you have. None excuse sexual assault. Most homosexuals are not like this. I don't care how long they've had to be living in the same quarters as people they're attracted to. Most homosexuals, like most heterosexuals, can control themselves enough not to commit sexual assault.

And I highly doubt there's any reason that the military would repeal DADT just to go back to the old way. Most military personnel now days could care less if someone they work with is gay. Even the guys in combat units. My husband has told me he could care less as long as they don't hit on him. And I've talked to several other Marines who don't think it's a big deal and 1 or 2 who are gay. The reality is that gays are in the military. And eventually they will be able to serve openly.

Navy Pride said:

I would say you are the exception rather then the rule........Sailors go on the beach to get drunk and pick up girls for the most part.......I don't know what females do because when I was in the Navy there were no females aboard combatents and they did not have the problems they have today.....

Its a whole new ball game now but if your telling me that female navy personnel don't go to bars to pick up guys I am not buying it..........You may have been the exception to the rule...........

Click to expand...

There's a difference between single sailor behavior and married sailor behavior. Many single sailors I knew would go to the bar to get drunk and/or meet someone. Most married sailors I knew went to the bar to hang out and have fun. Not a whole lot of the married sailors, male or female, that I knew were going to the bars to hook up. Some were, but most, no.

Ethereal said:

Like I said, it should be left up to unit commanders; DADT does not allow this kind of discretion; it is effectively a zero tolerance policy; instead, we should leave it up to the experts, that is, the military.

Click to expand...

Good, so you think DADT needs to change at least.

winston53660 said:

The military is now expert in homosexuality?

Click to expand...

The military is an expert in unit cohesiveness and combat effectiveness. I know that kind of stuff is low on your list of priorities, but I think it should be given precedence over feelings and ideology.

Ethereal said:

The military is an expert in unit cohesiveness and combat effectiveness. I know that kind of stuff is low on your list of priorities, but I think it should be given precedence over feelings and ideology.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's it, every one who disagrees with you must not think those things are important...

roguenuke said:

The problem here is where does that discretion stop. Should the commanders be allowed to decide to discharge anyone they find could be a problem to good order and discipline? There would be a whole mess of problems with this. I could see guys in a unit going out of their way to make it look like someone everyone, or even a group within the unit couldn't stand was a problem to good order and discipline, and then instead of the real trouble makers being punished, the guy they don't like would get discharged. And what would be wrong with simply transferring that person? Could work, except you would still have the problem that you're not expecting the unit personnel to be tolerant of differences, even those they don't like and you're technically still punishing the victim of the intolerance instead of those who are being intolerant.

This policy wouldn't be acceptable if the issue was about racism causing a problem in good order and discipline. Here's an example that might make you see the point. What if you had a group of guys in a unit who didn't like the fact that this guy dated other guys? He is professional at work, but the unit knows that he likes guys because they have seen him around town holding hands with one. Now this group of guys who don't like guys dating other guys is constantly making disruptions or obviously doesn't like the gay guy. They purposely go out of their way to disobey or argue with the gay guy's orders. I'm sure you would call this a disruption to good order and discipline, and suggest that the guy get discharged or transferred. But what if you replace gay guy or guy who dates other guys, with guys who date girls of another race. Would it still be acceptable or would the intolerant ones be the ones punished or forced to change?

Click to expand...

That would be for the commander to decide. Why should either of us impose a rigid precondition upon him or her when they're in a better position to exercise discretion? Sure, things like that might happen, and it stinks, but nothing's perfect, and it's better than what we have now.

Personally, I could care less about "fairness" and hurt feelings. The military should have as much discretion over its troops as possible. The less involvement from civilians and politicians the better. Mothers of America are already starting to turn the Marine Corps into a bunch of wimps...

Redress said:

Yes, that's it, every one who disagrees with you must not think those things are important...

Click to expand...

Yup, basically.

Lightdemon said:

Good, so you think DADT needs to change at least.

Click to expand...

I think so, yes. I think we should let the military decide on a case-by-case basis instead of the rigid mandate we have now. The military commanders are smart enough to implement it equitably and sensibly, I believe.

Ethereal said:

Yup, basically.

Click to expand...

You do realize how unreasonable you sound now, right?

Redress said:

You do realize how unreasonable you sound now, right?

Click to expand...

Well, several people (including two top Generals) have made solid arguments as to why an immediate repeal of DADT could negatively effect combat readiness and your response has basically been, "Oh well."

You don't seem all that concerned with the effects this policy change could have on infantry units. That's just how it seems to me.

Ethereal said:

Well, several people (including two top Generals) have made solid arguments as to why an immediate repeal of DADT could negatively effect combat readiness and your response has basically been, "Oh well."

You don't seem all that concerned with the effects this policy change could have on infantry units. That's just how it seems to me.

Click to expand...

And several people, including some top generals, have said it can be done. I can look at the changing society(especially among the young), and the changing attitudes of those in the military, and the successes other countries have had, and draw conclusions based on that. Since it is predicting the future, no one knows for 100 % sure, but I am pretty confident that it can be done without sacrificing unit cohesion and military readiness.

Ethereal said:

The military is an expert in unit cohesiveness and combat effectiveness. I know that kind of stuff is low on your list of priorities, but I think it should be given precedence over feelings and ideology.

Click to expand...

The only expertise the military uses to effectively maintain unit cohesiveness and combat effectiveness is to ensure that its personnel are too worried about getting into trouble to do something that is against the rules or to make the unit personnel believe that what they are doing is good for the unit, the military, and/or the country. None of these things would truly be affected if the military allowed gays to serve openly. Not in a way that would detrimentally affect the ability of the military to do its job. Plenty of military servicemembers in the past have had to set aside their personal feelings toward some other servicemember, and even other servicemembers' personal actions outside the military, to do their job effectively without getting in trouble.

roguenuke said:

Then the gay guy in this case was a bad person. I don't care what sexual attractions you have. None excuse sexual assault. Most homosexuals are not like this. I don't care how long they've had to be living in the same quarters as people they're attracted to. Most homosexuals, like most heterosexuals, can control themselves enough not to commit sexual assault.

And I highly doubt there's any reason that the military would repeal DADT just to go back to the old way. Most military personnel now days could care less if someone they work with is gay. Even the guys in combat units. My husband has told me he could care less as long as they don't hit on him. And I've talked to several other Marines who don't think it's a big deal and 1 or 2 who are gay. The reality is that gays are in the military. And eventually they will be able to serve openly.

Click to expand...

I don't know if he is a bad guy or not........He was and E4 who was a giid worker......To be honest with you I don't really blame the guy.....We had been to sea for 88 days with out seeing one person of the opposite sex and here he is like a kid in a candy store......all these guys around him dressing and undressing, showering.......At his courtmarital he said he could not restrain himself anymore...Like I said I compare his situation to mine in that if I was aboard a ship with all women for 88 days, watching them dress and undress, shower and sleeping only inches from them I doubt I could restrain myself and I never cheated on my wife in the 11 years I was married while ib the Navy........

I talk to guys all the time too, in fact the Commanding Officer of the USS OHIO is a friend of mine (he is married to a Korean as I am) and I attended his change of command ceromony on Friday and the crew members I spoke to were none to happy about the possibility of DADT being repealed...Not a lot of happy campers and then they here they are considering putting females on sub......Using the military for social experimentation is flat wrong.......

roguenuke said:

There's a difference between single sailor behavior and married sailor behavior. Many single sailors I knew would go to the bar to get drunk and/or meet someone. Most married sailors I knew went to the bar to hang out and have fun. Not a whole lot of the married sailors, male or female, that I knew were going to the bars to hook up. Some were, but most, no.

Click to expand...

I have seen so many times where a guy with good intentions would go on liberty just to have fun and they would get drunk and end up taking a girl home amd then feel guilty and miserable the rest of the cruise...

If that is the case you were probably not around Destroyer sailors.......I still think if you don't want to fool around then you don't go where the fooling around goes on...That is just me though,,,,,,,

Ethereal said:

Well, several people (including two top Generals) have made solid arguments as to why an immediate repeal of DADT could negatively effect combat readiness and your response has basically been, "Oh well."

You don't seem all that concerned with the effects this policy change could have on infantry units. That's just how it seems to me.

Click to expand...

They haven't made solid arguments. They've made arguments, mainly based on surveys and opinions. None of us, you, me, or those Generals, truly know how much of a change would come from allowing gays to serve openly. History, and as Redress said, an overall changing attitude of a younger generation toward gays and reactions of servicemembers from other countries, suggest that it won't be nearly as bad as most pro-DADTers believe. History, especially, shows that most of any negative affects to unit cohesiveness will disappear within a short time.

As for the affect on infantry units, let me ask you something. What exactly is it that you see happening? And I mean specifically. Honestly I can't see very many Marines or Soldiers automatically refusing to fight or obey orders as soon as it is repealed. And most likely, the vast majority of gays won't come out to their unit, unless they already have, for at least a while. I think it would even be a while until a gay servicemember even got the guts to bring their significant other to a unit function. Now a couple may get brave and decide that since they can't get thrown out for it, they will flaunt their sexuality or their significant other to their unit. And this is where I could see any problems coming up. Now I'm not really sure what the proper way to handle this would be, but I also see how a milder version of this could be a problem if a servicemember or a few servicemembers disapproved of interracial dating. I kinda wonder if this problem came up after integration. There are people still now who greatly disapprove of interracial dating. I met several while I was on Active. Lessons could be taken on how commands dealt with any problems that may have arisen from incidents involving fellow Marines or Soldiers of a particular unit disapproving of fellow Marine/Soldier dating a girl of a different race.

Ethereal said:

:rofl

Your ignorance of the military is astounding. You think the two Generals cited in this article are paper-pushers, but Admiral Mullen, well, he's just a salty old dog...:roll:

I got news for you, chief. Admiral Mullen is a paper-pusher, too; at least, according to your stupid ass definition.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about Mullen. I'm talking about General Raymond T. Odierno.

Top Military Commander Reacts To 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Studydigtriad.com | Triad, NC | National and World News Article

Since when is Mullen the leading combat commander?

Navy Pride said:

I don't know if he is a bad guy or not........He was and E4 who was a giid worker......To be honest with you I don't really blame the guy.....We had been to sea for 88 days with out seeing one person of the opposite sex and here he is like a kid in a candy store......all these guys around him dressing and undressing, showering.......At his courtmarital he said he could not restrain himself anymore...Like I said I compare his situation to mine in that if I was aboard a ship with all women for 88 days, watching them dress and undress, shower and sleeping only inches from them I doubt I could restrain myself and I never cheated on my wife in the 11 years I was married while ib the Navy........

I talk to guys all the time too, in fact the Commanding Officer of the USS OHIO is a friend of mine (he is married to a Korean as I am) and I attended his change of command ceromony on Friday and the crew members I spoke to were none to happy about the possibility of DADT being repealed...Not a lot of happy campers and then they here they are considering putting females on sub......Using the military for social experimentation is flat wrong.......

Click to expand...

I certainly blame the guy. There is no excuse for sexual assault. Plenty of people spend a lot of time around others whom they are attracted to, and don't sexually assault them. I've known plenty of submariners who knew of gays onboard their sub, and they went that same amount of time and longer around guys that they were possibly attracted to and still managed to control themselves. And women are aboard Navy ships now, and very few are sexually assaulted by either the men or the women who may be sexually attracted to them while they are aboard the ship. It's not like we spend a lot of time out to sea walking around wearing barely anything or having to endure watching others walk around wearing barely anything. I know I spent a lot of time working, fully clothed or sleeping. Sure we had down time, but I don't think most people spend it in their skivvies or nude.

And I'm telling you that my experience is most don't care really. On my ship, we had gays who were open, and no one really cared. Most heterosexuals won't even be able to tell the policy has changed when it happens, in my opinion.

Ethereal said:

I assume it would be because their propensity not to follow orders they disagree with is still present.

Click to expand...

And if this is taken away, I fail to see why it would be an issue. This policy change would not only affect memebers of the military who have already come out of the closet.

Ethereal said:

Because combat units are full of homophobic warrior alpha males who spend months is extremely high-stress, high-danger environments.

Click to expand...

I'm going to ask this for the millionth time. What problems popped up after Canada, the UK, and Australia allowed openly gay people to serve in their militaries?

Ethereal said:

What unit were you with?

Click to expand...

CC went through this earlier in the thread. You being in the military doesn't give you the only perspective in the debate

roguenuke said:

I certainly blame the guy. There is no excuse for sexual assault. Plenty of people spend a lot of time around others whom they are attracted to, and don't sexually assault them. I've known plenty of submariners who knew of gays onboard their sub, and they went that same amount of time and longer around guys that they were possibly attracted to and still managed to control themselves. And women are aboard Navy ships now, and very few are sexually assaulted by either the men or the women who may be sexually attracted to them while they are aboard the ship. It's not like we spend a lot of time out to sea walking around wearing barely anything or having to endure watching others walk around wearing barely anything. I know I spent a lot of time working, fully clothed or sleeping. Sure we had down time, but I don't think most people spend it in their skivvies or nude.

And I'm telling you that my experience is most don't care really. On my ship, we had gays who were open, and no one really cared. Most heterosexuals won't even be able to tell the policy has changed when it happens, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I was in the Navy for 21 years and I never knew anyone who was openly gay aboard the 6 ships I was on or any of the shore stations.....I guess in that time I saw 9 or 10 guys get discharged for making unwanted advance,,,,we even had and incident where NCIS came aboard undercover and after about a month the caught 3 or 4 guys who were having sex.......Actually one guy was servicing the other 2 on a regular basis.......
The 2 guys were burley rough guys and claimed they were not gay but they got prosecuted just like the one that was doing the servicing.....

From the guys I talk to I disagree that it won't be a huge thing in fact I would say its 50-50 that it will actually happen esspecially if the poll the troops involved..........

Navy Pride said:

I was in the Navy for 21 years and I never knew anyone who was openly gay aboard the 6 ships I was on or any of the shore stations.....I guess in that time I saw 9 or 10 guys get discharged for making unwanted advance,,,,we even had and incident where NCIS came aboard undercover and after about a month the caught 3 or 4 guys who were having sex.......Actually one guy was servicing the other 2 on a regular basis.......
The 2 guys were burley rough guys and claimed they were not gay but they got prosecuted just like the one that was doing the servicing.....

From the guys I talk to I disagree that it won't be a huge thing in fact I would say its 50-50 that it will actually happen esspecially if the poll the troops involved..........

Click to expand...

I spent 6 years in, and knew 2 semi-openly gay people. This was pre-DADT.

There will most likely be polls done of the troops on general attitudes towards gays, which will have the predictable result of showing growing numbers of troops know gay people, and fewer having negative attitudes towards gays and gays in the military. This has been the pattern for some time across the country as a whole.

* 73 percent of military personnel are comfortable with lesbians and gays (Zogby International, 2006).
* The younger generations, those who fight America's 21st century wars, largely don't care about whether someone is gay or not-and they do not link job performance with sexual orientation.
* One in four U.S. troops who served in Afghanistan or Iraq knows a member of their unit who is gay (Zogby, 2006).

Click to expand...

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Redress said:

I spent 6 years in, and knew 2 semi-openly gay people. This was pre-DADT.

There will most likely be polls done of the troops on general attitudes towards gays, which will have the predictable result of showing growing numbers of troops know gay people, and fewer having negative attitudes towards gays and gays in the military. This has been the pattern for some time across the country as a whole.



Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Click to expand...

Boy we are going around in circles now.......That poll was posted at the beginning of this thread or another thread on DADT.....There was another one posted later that rebutted this poll and shoed the active duty military were dead set against it........We will see what happens when and official post is taken by the miliary to the military,,,,,,

Navy Pride said:

Boy we are going around in circles now.......That poll was posted at the beginning of this thread or another thread on DADT.....There was another one posted later that rebutted this poll and shoed the active duty military were dead set against it........We will see what happens when and official post is taken by the miliary to the military,,,,,,

Click to expand...

They are not going to ask service people if DADT should be repealed. That is not how the military makes decisions. They will most likely ask about the attitudes of people in the service about gays.

Redress said:

They are not going to ask service people if DADT should be repealed. That is not how the military makes decisions. They will most likely ask about the attitudes of people in the service about gays.

Click to expand...

Well that is not how General Petreaus or General Casey feel about it....They want input from the enlisted people affected........

Redress said:

I spent 6 years in, and knew 2 semi-openly gay people. This was pre-DADT.

There will most likely be polls done of the troops on general attitudes towards gays, which will have the predictable result of showing growing numbers of troops know gay people, and fewer having negative attitudes towards gays and gays in the military. This has been the pattern for some time across the country as a whole.



Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Click to expand...

Semi-openly gay people? What is that, like bisexuals?