• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

But I have been saying all along that our military is professional and can handle what needs to be handled. It's those damn antis who are like "OMG, those soldiers are all going to quit so they don't get gay cooties, and the ones who stay are going to be afraid to bend over, and the others are going to commit assaults on every gay they see".

People who have been against DADT repeal have had the stupidest arguments.

Then why the need for all the training on gays serving openly? Is it because they need more adult supervision that the Liberals want to--suddenly--admit?
 
Then why the need for all the training on gays serving openly? Is it because they need more adult supervision that the Liberals want to--suddenly--admit?

This does not follow. Being able to handle it does not mean you don't need training on changes to the rules.
 
As are men. I had no idea how bad guys were until I spent 7-8 years working nights in an office, and hanging with the guys in the shop on breaks. Holy Hannah. We got nothin on y'all.

nah, we're too lazy, and not nearly sneaky enough ;)
 
And I seen the opposite while I was in division with men and women, whether I was one of a few women or the only woman or women made up half the workplace, the problems did not arise from the people sleeping together nearly as much as they did from the things that I mentioned put together, especially men treating women differently because they viewed us as "the weaker sex" or, as one of my chiefs put it to me, "the guys just aren't as reliable" (which is the reason that I ended up holding 4 collateral duties, while some of the guys at my level had none).

and again, as a woman, you have never seen anything different - you have no comparison available to you. however, when you ask other members who DO havethe ability to compare:

Benzin said:
...In 2007, I was in an infantry company in Iraq, living on a remote outpost (not a FOB). For the first 5 months of combat, we had no females at our outpost. I would regard the company as one of the more disciplined I've served in. After five months, we required additional support to move our troops out to missions. 3 five-ton trucks with female drivers were attached to us. Even though we afforded them their own living space (which wasnt mandatory), problems began almost immediately. All three females started to linger around the platoon bays nightly. They began relationships with NCOs, subverting the chain of command, and were engaged in sexual activity with other lower enlisted Soldiers/Airmen, as well. This caused more than one fist fight. Sex was happening in the outhouses, in the platoon bays and in the vehicles. Adultery was committed on a number of occasions. The staunch discipline we enjoyed prior to their arrival was starting to erode. My commander chose to have them sent back to their support units and "swapped" for male truck drivers. All detrimental effects reversed immediately. We found out later that one of the females became pregnant, and was sent home.

-Later, living on another remote outpost in Iraq during 08-09, the unit i was under had a combat support company attached to it. There were about ten females in this company. We weren't there for a month and the drama began. One female became pregnant. Another committed adultery. Fights between male soldiers erupted over girlfriends. Females were hopping on convoys to other FOBs to have "conjugal visits" with their boyfriends in other units. Then another female became pregnant. Then a female NCO began a relationship with a soldier that worked for her. Eventually, there were sexual assault accusations, he said, she said. And on, and on, and on. It was a mess.

Now this may sound like I am blaming females, I am not. I am blaming the fact that they were living with a predominantly male unit many times on FOB's. There would have been no issues if they weren't there. Of course, there are many answers to this. Some could blame male soldiers for lack of discipline. I know I do. Others would say that both males and females are to blame. Others would blame the chain of command for turning a blind eye and not wanting to do anything about the issues. But one must understand how difficult it is for a male commander to do the finger pointing...

the results are generally the same. 19-22 year olds just aren't as disciplined, focused, or cohesive when their genitalia are involved.

Also, if you are saying that most of the problems are coming from cliques and jealousy

i'm not. I'm saying it comes from sexual tension. cliques, jealousy, backbiting, affairs, fraternization, all the problems that come along with it are symptoms of sexual tension between members of the unit. Unit cohesion is rapidly degraded.

I might point out your own professed views here are not so far off from my own, where you point out the social problems that would arise from putting women in combat arms.

how the hell do you think that will happen with only a few gay guys, even if they beat the statistics, per unit? It wouldn't be the same in numbers, since if you assume that say 3 women are assigned to a division of 100 total. So statistically, out of a hundred people, 3-5 should be gay. Lets round high and say 5, but one of them is one of the women. So now you have 4 gay men, 1 gay woman, 2 straight women, and 93 straight guys.

mostly here I am focusing on the combat arms. they are the ones who can least afford the kinds of problems and increased strains that the repeal of DADT will put on the military. the rest of the military is already co-ed, and already has to deal with this crap. so there would be no women in this example.

And you are telling me that the problems come from jealousy and sexual tension.

generally, yes, that is correct.

But the problem with this is that you must be assuming that a) those gay guys are going to look at the straight ones for companionship

not really - but being guys they are going to look because we are more visually oriented creatures. that's what we do. and all other guys know this. ask yourself how comfortable you (or your average young lady) would feel if I were to suddenly hop in the shower with you. that reduces the level of comfort and ease that members of the unit will feel around each other, and reduces cohesion.

The numbers do not work to be the same for the sexual tension and especially not the jealousy that you believe you are seeing in your unit with the women.

it is certainly true that repealing DADT will be less damaging to the combat arms (at least the Grunts) than letting in women would be.

Because the gay guys are most likely going to only be messing with the other gay guys or looking to go outside the unit altogether (which is what most people do)

perhaps that's a navy thing - or perhaps it's ya'lls workschedule, or perhaps it's just the dynamics of being on a boat v being on a fob / camp. Of the female Marines I have observed, the only ones that do NOT screw someone in their unit fall into two groups: 1. the only lesbian in the unit 2. married and among the faithtful - there are plenty of married females who cheat just as there are plenty of male Marines who cheat (but only a small fraction of male Marines who would cheat on deployment get the chance - 100% of Females who would cheat can and do). The stresses long hours and constantly being thrown into each other are the perfect stew to stimulate and encourage the release of sexual tension - the pressures and stresses of war are particularly noted for their tendency to have this effect.
 
Doesn't require sneaky to be a four-squared gossip.

:shrug: perhaps (I would say it does to be a good one), but generally females talk more about relational things while males talk more about functional things.
 
:shrug: perhaps (I would say it does to be a good one), but generally females talk more about relational things while males talk more about functional things.

I must have traveled in the wrong circles. Because thanks to a couple of the guys I worked with, a marriage almost tanked. They thought it would be funny to stick a love letter, ostensibly from me, in a third guy's lunch box. He didn't see it, and brought it home. His wife found it, and flipped. Despite the fact that I had nothing to do with it, I became an outcast.

My future husband had been his best friend since they were kids. Like first grade - kids. Once we were married, the other couple never spoke to my husband again.

Maybe that colors my perceptions.
 
I must have traveled in the wrong circles. Because thanks to a couple of the guys I worked with, a marriage almost tanked. They thought it would be funny to stick a love letter, ostensibly from me, in a third guy's lunch box. He didn't see it, and brought it home. His wife found it, and flipped. Despite the fact that I had nothing to do with it, I became an outcast.

see, that's a joke gone wrong. they're not wrong (as I would understand that situation occuring in the guys i've known) for slipping in the note to be funny - they are wrong for not having the testicular fortitude to come forward and admit it when the thing went south.

My future husband had been his best friend since they were kids. Like first grade - kids. Once we were married, the other couple never spoke to my husband again.

Maybe that colors my perceptions.

do you think the guy in question wanted to lose his best friend - or do you think that the jealousy/insecurity factor of his wife pushed him in that direction?
 
They did admit it. She didn't care. And yeah, it was "if you ever speak to her again" *she wasn't exactly mentally healthy* ... so J let it go. Maybe they've been reunited since I'm out of the picture. I would hope so.
 
And what really gets me? J is one of the good guys. He would NEVER stray. We flirted, but the kind of flirt that happens in front of god and country, and everybody knows there's nothing going on there. He was one step down from other J, who flirted like a madman, but if you looked like you believed him, he'd invoke his wife's name like the mere mention could prevent evil from befalling him. Simply adorable. :)
 
They did admit it. She didn't care. And yeah, it was "if you ever speak to her again" *she wasn't exactly mentally healthy* ... so J let it go. Maybe they've been reunited since I'm out of the picture. I would hope so.

well, i hope so too.


....though it seems odd that this would cause you to blame the men involved for creating this problem...
 
well, i hope so too.


....though it seems odd that this would cause you to blame the men involved for creating this problem...

None of it would have happened if they hadn't put that stupid-ass note in J's lunch.
 
true, but that's a prank in fun, not any kind of clique/evil/backstabbing/jealousy/etc. item, like we were discussing. i've done the same and worse to my own friends.
 
What about gays who can't maintain discipline? You're right, we expect the best. We have standards. Not flaunting one's sexuality is a part of that standard.

Whos flaunting their sexuality?
 
My husband and I have both had our training.

Mine included only one question about berthing arrangements and comfort level (that was handled pretty well by our officer who was giving the training). And, there is some talk that the plan right now is to eventually incorporate some sort of benefits arrangement for same sex partners (after a few years, and from what our officer told me from the info he has gotten) should getting SSM legalized take a lot longer than expected.

My husbands' training included a message from his leading officer that was basically "no change". Although that really isn't true, since an issue that came up in the past year involving a fight between girlfriends shows that there are at least some things that will be treated differently once DADT is officially repealed, including domestic fights (now, at least some military police recommend that no matter the circumstances of a fight between a same sex couple and which was to blame, they should not claim themselves as a couple since they could technically still be discharged for doing so, until the repeal is final, at which time domestic disturbance/violence laws/rules would apply to them as it does opposite sex couples in similar relationships).

I was curious about marriage benefits. I heard that a same sex spouse wont get the same benefits as an opposite sex spouse.
 
I think the ****ers should just fight instead of being fighting ****ers.
 
I was curious about marriage benefits. I heard that a same sex spouse wont get the same benefits as an opposite sex spouse.

Should. It's only equality.
 
Should. It's only equality.

SSM is not recognized by the federal government currently, and the military is part of the federal government, so it is my understanding that gays who are married in states that allow SSM will not be married in the eyes of the military.

However, most commands do extend their support functions for families to include girl/boyfriends, or did when I was in. The souse support groups and such would let girl/boyfriends in no problem, the ombudsman would talk to them and offer advice, and so on.
 
SSM is not recognized by the federal government currently, and the military is part of the federal government, so it is my understanding that gays who are married in states that allow SSM will not be married in the eyes of the military.

However, most commands do extend their support functions for families to include girl/boyfriends, or did when I was in. The souse support groups and such would let girl/boyfriends in no problem, the ombudsman would talk to them and offer advice, and so on.

Well that sucks :(
 
What a surprise... no one is batting an eyelash. Could it be that following protocol and dedication to the service mean more to those enlisted than these social squabbles?

The reaction in the U.S. military is the same as in every other western nation that allows gays to serve openly: absolutely nothing.
 
What a surprise... no one is batting an eyelash. Could it be that following protocol and dedication to the service mean more to those enlisted than these social squabbles?

The reaction in the U.S. military is the same as in every other western nation that allows gays to serve openly: absolutely nothing.

Too bad they have to deal with this stupid ****, along with everything else they have on their plate.
 
Too bad they have to deal with this stupid ****, along with everything else they have on their plate.

It is stupid to fight it. Frankly, once done, it's over. No more stupid ****. :coffeepap
 
It is stupid to fight it. Frankly, once done, it's over. No more stupid ****. :coffeepap

It'll never be, "over". Now soldiers, along with everything else, have to be sensitive to yet another group of oppressed persons.
 
It'll never be, "over". Now soldiers, along with everything else, have to be sensitive to yet another group of oppressed persons.

Sensitive how? As in they won't be able to discriminate against them and claim that the gays are a problem to the military just because they are gay, even if they are in no way disrupting any actual cohesion or ability of the unit.

All the rules that apply to everyone else, still apply to gays. They still cannot fraternize or commit adultery or sexually harass anyone. They still have to follow orders and maintain proper military bearing. It isn't any of your business what they do in their offtime, as long as it isn't illegal or it doesn't reflect badly upon the military. And military members haven't been able to discriminate against people based on their sexuality, technically, for a while now, with the exception being DADT policy.

The only real change is that a person cannot be discharged for revealing their sexuality, either intentionally or unintentionally.
 
Sensitive how? As in they won't be able to discriminate against them and claim that the gays are a problem to the military just because they are gay, even if they are in no way disrupting any actual cohesion or ability of the unit.

All the rules that apply to everyone else, still apply to gays. They still cannot fraternize or commit adultery or sexually harass anyone. They still have to follow orders and maintain proper military bearing. It isn't any of your business what they do in their offtime, as long as it isn't illegal or it doesn't reflect badly upon the military. And military members haven't been able to discriminate against people based on their sexuality, technically, for a while now, with the exception being DADT policy.

The only real change is that a person cannot be discharged for revealing their sexuality, either intentionally or unintentionally.

It will mean even more cases of sexual harassment and discrimination for unit commanders to deal with, taking time away from training and threatening unit cohesion.
 
Back
Top Bottom