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

[Navy Pride]

Two Generals and the Secretary of the Army speak against lifting the DADT ban:


Pentagon faces hurdles in 'don't ask, don't tell' study - CNN.com


Washington (CNN) -- As the Pentagon tries to move forward with studying the effects of repealing the ban on openly gay troops serving in the military, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is finding hurdles at almost every corner.

 

[Deuce]

I have a solution!

Don't study it. Just repeal it.

edit: Ooh, or maybe study one of the dozen or so other nations with homosexual troops already serving openly? *gasp* I know, dirty foreigners and all, but that JUST MIGHT BE USEFUL.

 

[Navy Pride]

I have a solution!

Don't study it. Just repeal it.

edit: Ooh, or maybe study one of the dozen or so other nations with homosexual troops already serving openly? *gasp* I know, dirty foreigners and all, but that JUST MIGHT BE USEFUL.

Why don't you practice what you preach.....If your old enough enlist........I won"t hold my breath.......

 

[Deuce]

Why don't you practice what you preach.....If your old enough enlist........I won"t hold my breath.......

That doesn't make any sense. Why should I join an organization who I feel is acting in a discriminatory fashion? Practicing what I preach would be joining an organization that is trying to repeal these laws.

 

[Navy Pride]

That doesn't make any sense. Why should I join an organization who I feel is acting in a discriminatory fashion? Practicing what I preach would be joining an organization that is trying to repeal these laws.

Well you could work to change it and then your opinion on the issue might be a little more creditable if you were willing to spend 90 days at sea with a gay crew.....Anyone can have a "Bleeding heart feel good opinion" when it does not affect them....No skin off your liberal ass.......Its a whole different matter when you have to walk in the shoes of the guys that actually have to face the problem.......

 

[Deuce]

Well you could work to change it and then your opinion on the issue might be a little more creditable if you were willing to spend 90 days at sea with a gay crew.....Anyone can have a "Bleeding heart feel good opinion" when it does not affect them....No skin off your liberal ass.......Its a whole different matter when you have to walk in the shoes of the guys that actually have to face the problem.......

You think gay people are a "problem," got it. Other countries already do this, NP. They don't have issues with openly gay personnel. Are you suggesting that American sailors are uniquely incapable of getting along with each other?

 

[Navy Pride]

You think gay people are a "problem," got it. Other countries already do this, NP. They don't have issues with openly gay personnel. Are you suggesting that American sailors are uniquely incapable of getting along with each other?

Other countries don't have militaries like ours...There militaries are like a regular job where you work for 8 hours and are home at night.......Our military is stationed all over the world.......There is a huge difference.......

I notice you ignored my invitation.......Like I said that does not surprise me.......Its just like spending money.......You Liberals love to spend it on failed projects as long as it is not yours but the taxpayers......Like actually being in the Navy and actually spending your money its a whole new ball game...

 

[Deuce]

Other countries don't have militaries like ours...There militaries are like a regular job where you work for 8 hours and are home at night.......Our military is stationed all over the world.......There is a huge difference.......

I notice you ignored my invitation.......Like I said that does not surprise me.......Its just like spending money.......You Liberals love to spend it on failed projects as long as it is not yours but the taxpayers......Like actually being in the Navy and actually spending your money its a whole new ball game...

As a Navy man I would have expected you to have a better picture of how our allies' operate their military, but I guess not. 8 hours and home at night, you really think we're the only ones who station troops outside our own soil? That's just laughable.

Of course I ignored your invitation. I have no interest in signing my life away to prove a point to some old guy on the internet with a superiority complex. You're moving back to blanket statements about those dirty liberals rather than actually addressing anything related to the topic. Is that your idea of debate? Claim vague superiority on the subject and declare that nobody else has an opinion that counts? Two can play that:

Military personnel can't possibly hold an unbiased opinion because it's a ruling that affects them. Only unbiased opinions should be paid attention to. Therefore, military personnel should have no say in DADT.

 

[roguenuke]

Well you could work to change it and then your opinion on the issue might be a little more creditable if you were willing to spend 90 days at sea with a gay crew.....Anyone can have a "Bleeding heart feel good opinion" when it does not affect them....No skin off your liberal ass.......Its a whole different matter when you have to walk in the shoes of the guys that actually have to face the problem.......

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.

 

[Captain America]

Well you could work to change it and then your opinion on the issue might be a little more creditable if you were willing to spend 90 days at sea with a gay crew.....Anyone can have a "Bleeding heart feel good opinion" when it does not affect them....No skin off your liberal ass.......Its a whole different matter when you have to walk in the shoes of the guys that actually have to face the problem.......

Bet the chow would be better and we'd have cleaner table linens.


Just sayin'.... :3oops:

 

[Captain America]

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.

 

[Navy Pride]

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........

 

[Navy Pride]

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.........:lol:

 

[roguenuke]

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.

 

[Navy Pride]

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........

 

[roguenuke]

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.

 

[Navy Pride]

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........

 

[Captain America]

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?

 

[Manc Skipper]

..... (I am not talking about lesbians) .....

Why not lesbians? Your repellent fantasies aside, you are not even consistent in your bigotry.

 

[roguenuke]

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.

 

[Navy Pride]

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:



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.

We are just bumping heads here but I will mention a couple of things......You say they could never make ships coed......well I can remember when I was on a destroyer in Norfolk where the waves barracks was like a fortress...........there were big wall all around in and a guard at the gate......No male was allowed in the barracks after 1700 hours......I'll bet the women serving then would never believe the way it is today........

I don't think its unrealistic to say there will never be coed ships so don't dodge the question....If that happened would you want out and how would your husband feel about that? That is a major change and so is gays serving opening..Both are social experiments.....If gay can control themselves then so should straights be able to........

As far as gays go I can remember when that word use to mean happy until it was stolen away......All gays were in the closet........I bet you gays would have accepted DADT in a New York Heart beat..........


Here is what I say if the majority of Enlisted people (at least 60% and that is is lenient) go along with the change then I will go along with it.......I think you will be surprised when they survey the people it actually affects....

 

[jujuman13]

Immaterial whether your 60% will accept what will happen, they will have no choice but to accept.

 

[roguenuke]

We are just bumping heads here but I will mention a couple of things......You say they could never make ships coed......well I can remember when I was on a destroyer in Norfolk where the waves barracks was like a fortress...........there were big wall all around in and a guard at the gate......No male was allowed in the barracks after 1700 hours......I'll bet the women serving then would never believe the way it is today........

I don't think its unrealistic to say there will never be coed ships so don't dodge the question....If that happened would you want out and how would your husband feel about that? That is a major change and so is gays serving opening..Both are social experiments.....If gay can control themselves then so should straights be able to........

As far as gays go I can remember when that word use to mean happy until it was stolen away......All gays were in the closet........I bet you gays would have accepted DADT in a New York Heart beat..........


Here is what I say if the majority of Enlisted people (at least 60% and that is is lenient) go along with the change then I will go along with it.......I think you will be surprised when they survey the people it actually affects....

Actually, NP, I didn't say they never would make males and females live together and share facilities. I said they won't at this time. Society does not generally accept that it is okay for men and women to share facilities, which is the reason for male and female restrooms in pretty much every business, school, and other public places around the US, and pretty much around the world. We separate males and females, we do not separate gay men from straight men or gay women from straight women. So what is your explanation for this? How come there are not gay and straight bathrooms? Why not gay and straight changing rooms in gyms, schools, police stations, or firehouses? Do you think that heterosexuals or homosexuals have a right to have such public, non-military facilities separated by gender and sexuality? And what exactly gives them such a right?

And truthfully, considering that the most likely boat(s) to be coed are subs, then actually, not only would I be okay about sharing facilities with men, I would be willing to volunteer for it, if it were the only way for me to be on a sub. If the plan to put women on subs would have came out 2 or 3 years earlier, I would have stayed in the Navy. And as for my husband, although he would definitely have objections, he is willing to support me because we have trust. He knows that I wanted to serve on a submarine, and he realizes that it might have meant that I might have had to share personal space and/or a head with men. My husband is well aware that I changed in the same space with the men that I worked with, and that, due to my job, it was not inconceivable that I might have had to get naked in front of men. He is also aware that the only roommates that I ever shared an apartment with, besides my family, were men. All of my roommates were able to control themselves, as was I.

The thing is, most enlisted could truly care less whether gays are allowed to serve openly or not. They just want to do their job and get as much free time as they can, at least in the Navy. Besides, as I stated earlier, some may actually believe that it will be a detriment to good order and discipline, without knowing why, only because they have been told that so much that they actually just believe it without question. I do not trust that all branches would actually know whether or not allowing gays to serve openly would affect them or if they would just believe it will because that is what they have been told.

What is needed is for the military to set a date to repeal DADT and those UCMJ laws, and then do massive training on tolerance, discrimination, and sexual harassment, along with a huge refresher on being professional, up to the repeal. Then after it is repealed, work that training into the annual training the military already requires.

 

[Navy Pride]

Immaterial whether your 60% will accept what will happen, they will have no choice but to accept.

When you join it might...........

 

[Redress]

When you join it might...........

His joining the service is entirely irrelevant Navy. So is your 60 %. The military does not, and should not poll the troops about changes in policy.