Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Pentagon faces hurdles in 'don't ask, don't tell' study

  1. #11
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,674

    Re: Pentagon faces hurdles in 'don't ask, don't tell' study

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    I have spent almost 10 months on a WestPac with women that we knew were gay, and it was not a problem at all NP. And, there were several men in my department who the entire department knew were gay, and no problems ever came up with the other guys due to their sexuality.

    Deuce is right, they should just repeal it and remove the rules against homosexuality. The vast majority of the military will not be affected by a repeal. They will simply continue to do their jobs because that is what we do. The ones who absolutely cannot handle the repeal will just get out, but I highly doubt that we will see some mass resigning and/or discharges or early retirements just from DADT getting repealed. Not in this economy. If someone is really basing their decision to get out of the military on just the fact that gays are allowed to serve openly, then they probably shouldn't be in anyway. And there are plenty of unemployed people who will be more than happy to take their place. Not to mention some of the people who have gotten out and now regret it, but can't get back in.
    I have no doubt that I have served with many a "sista's" in the fleet. They did as good of a job as any other woman onboard I guess. I just wish they ****ed men. Or, at least, let me watch.

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  2. #12
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Pentagon faces hurdles in 'don't ask, don't tell' study

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    I have spent almost 10 months on a WestPac with women that we knew were gay, and it was not a problem at all NP. And, there were several men in my department who the entire department knew were gay, and no problems ever came up with the other guys due to their sexuality.

    Deuce is right, they should just repeal it and remove the rules against homosexuality. The vast majority of the military will not be affected by a repeal. They will simply continue to do their jobs because that is what we do. The ones who absolutely cannot handle the repeal will just get out, but I highly doubt that we will see some mass resigning and/or discharges or early retirements just from DADT getting repealed. Not in this economy. If someone is really basing their decision to get out of the military on just the fact that gays are allowed to serve openly, then they probably shouldn't be in anyway. And there are plenty of unemployed people who will be more than happy to take their place. Not to mention some of the people who have gotten out and now regret it, but can't get back in.
    Well whether your for or against DADT it looks very much like the people it truly affects are speaking up now......The sec of the Army, the Marine Commandant and a couple of other generals have voiced their opinion about leaving the status quo and that is good news to me because if the lift it I truly believe it could destroy unit cohesion and morale.....They have been taking the pulse of the active duty personnel.

    If they do lift it it will not affect me but I feel sorry for the guys it will......If they lift it I think any man on active duty should be given a chance to resign and be paid a large separation bonus to do it say about $50K each or more depending on their pay grade....After all they did not sign up to be a social experiment designed by "feel good" liberals who are not in the service and have no intention of joining..........after that they can let gays and lesbians do anything they want..........

    Just remember gays and lesbians have rights and so do straights........

    If all that happens I will live with DADT.........

    By the way 200 retirees from my Fleet Reserve Assoc in fact have drafter a letter to the CNO and Secretary suggesting the above......By the way we only have 207 members in our lodge........
    Last edited by Navy Pride; 04-04-10 at 10:44 PM.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  3. #13
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Pentagon faces hurdles in 'don't ask, don't tell' study

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    I have no doubt that I have served with many a "sista's" in the fleet. They did as good of a job as any other woman onboard I guess. I just wish they ****ed men. Or, at least, let me watch.
    Hey CA I have no problems with Lesbians serving openly just make sure they let me know when there might be a show......



    Just kidding.........
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  4. #14
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,073

    Re: Pentagon faces hurdles in 'don't ask, don't tell' study

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Well whether your for or against DADT it looks very much like the people it truly affects are speaking up now......The sec of the Army, the Marine Commandant and a couple of other generals have voiced their opinion about leaving the status quo and that is good news to me because if the lift it I truly believe it could destroy unit cohesion and morale.....They have been taking the pulse of the active duty personnel.

    If they do lift it it will not affect me but I feel sorry for the guys it will......If they lift it I think any man on active duty should be given a chance to resign and be paid a large separation bonus to do it say about $50K each or more depending on their pay grade....After all they did not sign up to be a social experiment designed by "feel good" liberals who are not in the service and have no intention of joining..........after that they can let gays and lesbians do anything they want..........

    Just remember gays and lesbians have rights and so do straights........

    If all that happens I will live with DADT.........

    By the way 200 retirees from my Fleet Reserve Assoc in fact have drafter a letter to the CNO and Secretary suggesting the above......By the way we only have 207 members in our lodge........
    Except those guys are not the people that it will truly affect. Those are officers and bureaucrats. The people the ban will affect are the enlisted personnel and lower officers.
    And there is no way to see how lifting the ban will actually affect the troops unless it is done, since the side for keeping DADT seems to think that the other countries who have done it can't be used for comparison. There are a lot of people who are afraid of the unknown. There are even more who have had something told to them so many times that they believe that it is true without even knowing how or why, such as the belief that allowing gays to serve openly will be detrimental to good order and discipline. This is the favorite phrase of everyone who favors keeping gays in the closet, or out of the military totally, but most can't even give good reason for why good order and discipline would be affected at all just because homosexual personnel will not be discharged/punished for telling someone they are gay, whether intentionally or not.

    There is no way that the military will actually offer a separation bonus to people who don't want to stay in just because they lift the ban on gays serving openly. That is just ridiculous. Those soldiers/Marines/sailors joined the military for various reasons, but I highly doubt that any of them included that they wouldn't have to work with homosexuals. I would not be against a one-time offer for those who absolutely feel that they can't serve beside openly gay personnel to be able to get an administrative or general discharge, but bonuses would be out of the question. There is no reason to give them money for not willing to be tolerant. And, besides there are a lot of people who would simply take advantage of such an offer to get out just simply because they don't want to be in anymore, not because they have any problem serving beside openly gay personnel. In fact, it is more likely that you would lose a bunch of personnel from your offer not because they actually don't want to work with gay personnel but rather because a) they don't want to be in anymore for other reasons, and b) you just offered them a crapload of money to get out for something stupid.

    And this should sound familiar, the initial feelings and actual reaction when the UK lifted their ban.

    BBC News - Gays in the military: The UK and US compared

    Large-scale resignations from the UK armed forces were widely expected in some quarters, when the ban on gays was lifted - but in practice they did not materialise.
    "There was this expectation that there would be problems, but it just didn't happen. People just got on with their work," said Dave Small, who was in the Royal Navy at the time,
    And the UK was forced to allow gays to serve openly.

    And I bet that those same retirees were/are not happy about women serving either. Those retirees are not in the military now, they do not actually know how well this generation that is in now will react to a lift on the ban of gays serving openly. I can tell you NP, that there are a lot more servicemembers in all the branches who have no problem serving with openly gay personnel.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Pentagon faces hurdles in 'don't ask, don't tell' study

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Except those guys are not the people that it will truly affect. Those are officers and bureaucrats. The people the ban will affect are the enlisted personnel and lower officers.
    And there is no way to see how lifting the ban will actually affect the troops unless it is done, since the side for keeping DADT seems to think that the other countries who have done it can't be used for comparison. There are a lot of people who are afraid of the unknown. There are even more who have had something told to them so many times that they believe that it is true without even knowing how or why, such as the belief that allowing gays to serve openly will be detrimental to good order and discipline. This is the favorite phrase of everyone who favors keeping gays in the closet, or out of the military totally, but most can't even give good reason for why good order and discipline would be affected at all just because homosexual personnel will not be discharged/punished for telling someone they are gay, whether intentionally or not.

    There is no way that the military will actually offer a separation bonus to people who don't want to stay in just because they lift the ban on gays serving openly. That is just ridiculous. Those soldiers/Marines/sailors joined the military for various reasons, but I highly doubt that any of them included that they wouldn't have to work with homosexuals. I would not be against a one-time offer for those who absolutely feel that they can't serve beside openly gay personnel to be able to get an administrative or general discharge, but bonuses would be out of the question. There is no reason to give them money for not willing to be tolerant. And, besides there are a lot of people who would simply take advantage of such an offer to get out just simply because they don't want to be in anymore, not because they have any problem serving beside openly gay personnel. In fact, it is more likely that you would lose a bunch of personnel from your offer not because they actually don't want to work with gay personnel but rather because a) they don't want to be in anymore for other reasons, and b) you just offered them a crapload of money to get out for something stupid.

    And this should sound familiar, the initial feelings and actual reaction when the UK lifted their ban.

    BBC News - Gays in the military: The UK and US compared





    And the UK was forced to allow gays to serve openly.

    And I bet that those same retirees were/are not happy about women serving either. Those retirees are not in the military now, they do not actually know how well this generation that is in now will react to a lift on the ban of gays serving openly. I can tell you NP, that there are a lot more servicemembers in all the branches who have no problem serving with openly gay personnel.


    I don't care about a bunch of second rate military who for the most part never get underway........We have the greatest military in the world and are spread al over the world.......We go to sea and stay at sea....we don't go home at 1600.......

    I don't think the veterans cared one way or the other whether women served but for the most part they don't like women serving aboard combatants.........There are already enough problems aboard ships at sea and adding another is stupid..........I have a E9 friend on the CVN74 who says that women aboard a combat ship is a total disaster....Men and women are hooking up at sea all the time....The pregnancy rate is outrageous.......If a guy even looks at a woman he is put on report and is guilty until proven innocent........I went to Pass and ID to get a new sticker for my truck a couple of weeks ago and there were 3 young woman sailors helping process the stickers........all 3 were either airman or seaman and all 3 were pregnant off the CVN74.... I can tell you we never had that problem when I was aboard ship.......If you listen to the big shots on the record they will tell you that women aboard ships is working fine but if you ask anyone off the record hey will tell you its a total disaster........

    As far as the veterans go your right it does not affect them except like me they all served 20 years in the service and love the military and miss it and don't want to see it used for social experimentation.......We feel as strongly about it as any sailor serving today.........

    I don't know what will happen about being paid and discharged but like I said straight people have rights to......This is not what they signed up for....

    I can tell you that there is a grass roots movement to stop this insanity......It is by no way a done deal........
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  6. #16
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,073

    Re: Pentagon faces hurdles in 'don't ask, don't tell' study

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I don't care about a bunch of second rate military who for the most part never get underway........We have the greatest military in the world and are spread al over the world.......We go to sea and stay at sea....we don't go home at 1600.......

    I don't think the veterans cared one way or the other whether women served but for the most part they don't like women serving aboard combatants.........There are already enough problems aboard ships at sea and adding another is stupid..........I have a E9 friend on the CVN74 who says that women aboard a combat ship is a total disaster....Men and women are hooking up at sea all the time....The pregnancy rate is outrageous.......If a guy even looks at a woman he is put on report and is guilty until proven innocent........I went to Pass and ID to get a new sticker for my truck a couple of weeks ago and there were 3 young woman sailors helping process the stickers........all 3 were either airman or seaman and all 3 were pregnant off the CVN74.... I can tell you we never had that problem when I was aboard ship.......If you listen to the big shots on the record they will tell you that women aboard ships is working fine but if you ask anyone off the record hey will tell you its a total disaster........

    As far as the veterans go your right it does not affect them except like me they all served 20 years in the service and love the military and miss it and don't want to see it used for social experimentation.......We feel as strongly about it as any sailor serving today.........

    I don't know what will happen about being paid and discharged but like I said straight people have rights to......This is not what they signed up for....

    I can tell you that there is a grass roots movement to stop this insanity......It is by no way a done deal........
    From the information that I can find NP, you are very wrong about the operations of the Royal Navy, which is the UK's Navy.

    The information I have found seems to support that the Royal Navy operates pretty closely to the same way that our Navy does. They have 6 month deployments just like we do. Do you have any proof that they, or most of those other country's navies or other branches, operate so completely different than our military, or are you just speculating because you don't like that they allow homosexuals to serve openly?

    Royal Navy

    During training ships may sail for just one day returning to their home port at night. Deployments last for up to six months and occasionally may be as long as 9 months.
    FAQs : Parents / Guardians / Teachers : Careers : Royal Navy

    Most deployments are about six months in length, though this can vary.

    Ships generally only deploy once every two or three years. though. Between deployments they will have some periods alongside (in port) and some time doing trials and training, when they are often at sea for just 1-2 weeks at a time.
    How is this different than what the US Navy does? That is pretty much exactly how the US carrier groups operate, doing a 6 month deployment out of every 2-3 years, depending on what type of maintenance period they did in between, and they did training and trial operations in between maintenance periods and deployments that generally last from a week or so to a little more than a month at a time.

    Women aboard ship is not a disaster, unless you want to prove that we have significantly reduced our readiness and offensive and defensive capabilities due to allowing women onboard ships. To the contrary, I think there are plenty of jobs in which the capabilities of the division/department has increased due to allowing women to serve because there are more personnel to handle maintenance and/or watchstanding duties. Also, prove that the pregnancy rates are outrageous. In fact, you have brought up those particular three women before, and I can recall proving to you that there is no way that those three women became pregnant while out on deployment, since that ship had not been on deployment between the time you told us about them and at least 9 months prior to that. So can you prove that they all got pregnant out to sea and/or that they are all single and/or slept with someone on the ship?

    You call it social experimentation, I call it progress beyond bigotry and unfair policies. I believe that most of our servicemembers are more than capable of putting their own feelings aside on a fellow servicemember's off-duty lifestyle to just do their job. You seem to think that our heterosexual military members are so worried about someone else being homosexual that they will either a) give up their military career because they just can't take having to serve with a gay guy/gal or b) the entire military will fall apart because the straight guys just won't be able to handle having to serve with or under someone who might be checking them out.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Pentagon faces hurdles in 'don't ask, don't tell' study

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    From the information that I can find NP, you are very wrong about the operations of the Royal Navy, which is the UK's Navy.

    The information I have found seems to support that the Royal Navy operates pretty closely to the same way that our Navy does. They have 6 month deployments just like we do. Do you have any proof that they, or most of those other country's navies or other branches, operate so completely different than our military, or are you just speculating because you don't like that they allow homosexuals to serve openly?

    Royal Navy



    FAQs : Parents / Guardians / Teachers : Careers : Royal Navy



    How is this different than what the US Navy does? That is pretty much exactly how the US carrier groups operate, doing a 6 month deployment out of every 2-3 years, depending on what type of maintenance period they did in between, and they did training and trial operations in between maintenance periods and deployments that generally last from a week or so to a little more than a month at a time.

    Women aboard ship is not a disaster, unless you want to prove that we have significantly reduced our readiness and offensive and defensive capabilities due to allowing women onboard ships. To the contrary, I think there are plenty of jobs in which the capabilities of the division/department has increased due to allowing women to serve because there are more personnel to handle maintenance and/or watchstanding duties. Also, prove that the pregnancy rates are outrageous. In fact, you have brought up those particular three women before, and I can recall proving to you that there is no way that those three women became pregnant while out on deployment, since that ship had not been on deployment between the time you told us about them and at least 9 months prior to that. So can you prove that they all got pregnant out to sea and/or that they are all single and/or slept with someone on the ship?

    You call it social experimentation, I call it progress beyond bigotry and unfair policies. I believe that most of our servicemembers are more than capable of putting their own feelings aside on a fellow servicemember's off-duty lifestyle to just do their job. You seem to think that our heterosexual military members are so worried about someone else being homosexual that they will either a) give up their military career because they just can't take having to serve with a gay guy/gal or b) the entire military will fall apart because the straight guys just won't be able to handle having to serve with or under someone who might be checking them out.
    The English are only one Navy.they don't represent all the other navies........I pulled a liberty with a petty officer off and English ship in Southhampten England and he said off the record that they don't like gays serving openly........

    In 1991 the USS PUGET SOUND a destroyer tender made a 6 month deployment to the mid east with a crew of about 1200 including about 300 women......Upon their return they had 33 pregnancies, that is 33 jobs without replacement...They called that ship the USS LOVEBOAT......

    The straight guys have some rights to.........They did not sign up for social experimentation.........They should be allowed to leave the military and be compensated for it........How would you feel under social experimentation if they allowed men and women to live together aboard ship......that is sleep, shower and dress........If you were in would you like to get out? How would your husband feel about that......How high do you think the divorce rate will go?

    I am sorry but to appease about 1% of the population (I am not talking about lesbians) it just not worth it especially at a time when we are fighting 2 wars....

    I give you credit for 1 thing though at least you don't keep bringing up the black comparison because there are no comparison........
    Last edited by Navy Pride; 04-05-10 at 07:41 PM.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  8. #18
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,674

    Re: Pentagon faces hurdles in 'don't ask, don't tell' study

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I don't care about a bunch of second rate military who for the most part never get underway........We have the greatest military in the world and are spread al over the world.......We go to sea and stay at sea....we don't go home at 1600.......

    I don't think the veterans cared one way or the other whether women served but for the most part they don't like women serving aboard combatants.........There are already enough problems aboard ships at sea and adding another is stupid..........I have a E9 friend on the CVN74 who says that women aboard a combat ship is a total disaster....Men and women are hooking up at sea all the time....The pregnancy rate is outrageous.......If a guy even looks at a woman he is put on report and is guilty until proven innocent........I went to Pass and ID to get a new sticker for my truck a couple of weeks ago and there were 3 young woman sailors helping process the stickers........all 3 were either airman or seaman and all 3 were pregnant off the CVN74.... I can tell you we never had that problem when I was aboard ship.......If you listen to the big shots on the record they will tell you that women aboard ships is working fine but if you ask anyone off the record hey will tell you its a total disaster........

    As far as the veterans go your right it does not affect them except like me they all served 20 years in the service and love the military and miss it and don't want to see it used for social experimentation.......We feel as strongly about it as any sailor serving today.........

    I don't know what will happen about being paid and discharged but like I said straight people have rights to......This is not what they signed up for....

    I can tell you that there is a grass roots movement to stop this insanity......It is by no way a done deal........
    Just the law of averages makes me realize that there were certainly gay men present at any and all duty stations I have ever served. Some, we suspected, some we would have never known. Other than the rare giggle I would supress watching some shipmate whom I might have thought was a bit prissy, I can't say that I was ever distracted from my duties by the presence of gay men that may, or may not, have been around me.

    The lesbian sailors, although never discussed, were pretty obvious to everyone but usually well respected. No distraction. In fact, they put a few of us guys to shame, they were so good at their job. And I'm sure several other ladies I served with might have liked a lil' poonanny too, but they weren't as "readable." I just didn't know. I really didn't care. I'd check their ass out anyways. Distraction. Why? Because I am a male. A horny one at that. It's not the women's fault.

    The sad truth is, women are more of a distraction to me than any gay man would ever be.

    Should women be held back just because my eyes might wander from my radar screen to their little tear-drop ass?
    Last edited by Captain America; 04-05-10 at 08:13 PM.

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  9. #19
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,254

    Re: Pentagon faces hurdles in 'don't ask, don't tell' study

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    ..... (I am not talking about lesbians) .....
    Why not lesbians? Your repellent fantasies aside, you are not even consistent in your bigotry.
    Last edited by Manc Skipper; 04-05-10 at 08:15 PM.
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  10. #20
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,073

    Re: Pentagon faces hurdles in 'don't ask, don't tell' study

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    The English are only one Navy.they don't represent all the other navies........I pulled a liberty with a petty officer off and English ship in Southhampten England and he said off the record that they don't like gays serving openly........

    In 1991 the USS PUGET SOUND a destroyer tender made a 6 month deployment to the mid east with a crew of about 1200 including about 300 women......Upon their return they had 33 pregnancies, that is 33 jobs without replacement...They called that ship the USS LOVEBOAT......

    The straight guys have some rights to.........They did not sign up for social experimentation.........They should be allowed to leave the military and be compensated for it........How would you feel under social experimentation if they allowed men and women to live together aboard ship......that is sleep, shower and dress........If you were in would you like to get out? How would your husband feel about that......How high do you think the divorce rate will go?

    I am sorry but to appease about 1% of the population (I am not talking about lesbians) it just not worth it especially at a time when we are fighting 2 wars....

    I give you credit for 1 thing though at least you don't keep bringing up the black comparison because there are no comparison........
    No, but where is your proof that the other countries' navys don't go out to sea for extended periods of time? I showed you the Royal Navy specifically because the article I quoted from the earlier post was dealing with specifically the UK's Navy and the reaction to allowing gays to serve openly. The same post which drew this comment from you:

    I don't care about a bunch of second rate military who for the most part never get underway........We have the greatest military in the world and are spread al over the world.......We go to sea and stay at sea....we don't go home at 1600.......
    Those quotes that I posted were directly from the article about how the argument from the British military was pretty much the same as the arguments made by people like you in our military who are against allowing gays to serve openly, and all of their arguments proved to be unfounded.

    First of all, this 2010, not 1991. And I know that on both my actual cruises, 2000 and 2002, with a ship's crew of around 3000 and an airwing each time from 2500-3000, and 10-15% of that crew was females, we had less than 33 pregnancies between both cruises together that actually occurred during the cruise. We might have reached this number in those girls who got pregnant before a deployment, if you include all my deployments, including the "surge deployment" in 2004. I didn't know of any girl getting pregnant during the 2004 deployment, but I did fly off the ship prior to that one actually ending, however, I can't imagine too many doing much since a few days after I flew off the ship, the tsunami hit the area and the ship was providing relief aid until they left the area to go home.

    You know I was going to answer your question on male/female joint berthing, but realized that it is so far out of the realm of possibilities at this time, that it is a stupid comparison. There are so many reasons that the military could not and would not combine male and female living spaces. You really need to stop using this argument. Women and men cannot share spaces where they would be frequently naked for several reasons, most of which I have already listed somewhere on this forum, but I can think of several more. If you would like a full rundown of why this is a horrible argument, please start another thread, because I don't have enough room in this one to go off on this tangent. Straight men living with gay men is not the same as trying to make men and women live together, especially when some of those men and women are married. Straight men in the military already have to live with gay men, and because everyone is aware that DADT is in place in the military, that means that everyone who joins the military knows that there is at least a possibility that they will be living with someone who may find them attractive.

    Also, as I mentioned earlier, there might be many people who would simply try to use an offer to get out with compensation, who do not have a problem living with gays at all, they simply don't want to be in the military anymore. I knew several guys who would have taken an offered opportunity to get out of the military, without compensation, simply because they weren't happy in the Navy. So, how exactly would you suggest they determine who truly has a problem living with those who are openly gay and who is just trying to get out of the military with an honorable discharge and a lot of money?

    The straight guys in the military do not have a right to not have rules change while they are in the military. They are in the military. Nowhere in any military contract does it say that these guys have a right to not serve with openly gay men. And, no, DADT and the rules against homosexual acts are not a part of the military contract, because if they or any other laws of the UCMJ were considered unchangeable, then the military would have no right to propose a law that will make it against the rules for a servicemember to hire a prostitute even in countries/places where prostitution is legal or for them to propose a military drinking age of 21, even in countries where it is legal to drink at younger ages. And, no, the US drinking age of 21 is not a federal law, it is only that age in every state because the federal government will only give highway funds to states that have a drinking age of 21. And there is no actual right for anyone to not have to share living spaces with someone that may be attracted to them. If the military wanted to make the men and women serving share living spaces, they have every right to do so, they simply won't because of the multiple problems that such an act would cause, not to mention the loss of personnel from both those problems and the disapproval of such a policy by spouses.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •