Poll: Troops oppose repeal of "don’t ask don't tell"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That this is even an issue for the military suggests to me that it has some similarities with office environments from the 50's where discrimination against women was rampant.

[Uncle Wally 2]

I'll tell you what, if they 'officially' allow gays to serve, that will mean they'll have to 'officially' respond anytime someone gets shoved around or called a 'faggot'. Not that any of that's cool, but do you folks have any idea how much time and money that will waste?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'll tell you what, if they 'officially' allow gays to serve, that will mean they'll have to 'officially' respond anytime someone gets shoved around or called a 'faggot'. Not that any of that's cool, but do you folks have any idea how much time and money that will waste?

I suspect people said much the same about women in the workplace a few decades ago.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

faggoting in uniform should be restricted to the officer's lounge.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

faggoting in uniform should be restricted to the officer's lounge.

some of those uniforms do look kinda gay

[one...two...tree 2,762]

faggoting in uniform should be restricted to the officer's lounge.

some of those uniforms do look kinda gay

"How would you like a promotion?"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

faggoting in uniform should be restricted to the officer's lounge.

some of those uniforms do look kinda gay

"How would you like a promotion?"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

faggoting in uniform should be restricted to the officer's lounge.

some of those uniforms do look kinda gay

"How would you like a promotion?"

"Shhhh....let's keep this a secret."

[mRx 16]

I don't know who the primary participants in this poll were, but I don't have any problem with teh gheys serving. And, I really don't see any operational repercussions with it either.

The only legitimate objection would be that it may perhaps be cultural barriers to it in other countries, but even then, we are occupying countries where men are running around giving each other piggy back rides. So gheyness is pretty much accepted. Women, on the other hand, is another story. Women are lower than dogs in some of these countries. And if a female soldier were to be separated from her team, it would be unlikely that she could receive any help from the locals.

[alienlovechild 75]

Since the main purpose of the military is readiness or fighting a war, the question is whether having gays serve openly hinders or helps that mission. I knew soldiers who were probably gay but as long as they didn't say it we couldn't ask or hassle them (didn't do it anyway).

Why not have openly racist soldiers taunt one another? Do they to be in the closet and can't express political views? How about adulterers serve openly (a UCMJ crime)? How about about patriotic potheads and guys with long hair? They can fight, too.

You don't want some soldiers doing anything they please because it disrupts unit cohesion. The irony is you have less personal freedom in the military while being asked to defend everyone else's. We still prohibit females from serving in some combat units despite the fact some may do a better job than some men.

That this is even an issue for the military suggests to me that it has some similarities with office environments from the 50's where discrimination against women was rampant.

Don't get the idea the military is naturally discriminatory. The first major insitution in America to get desegrated was the military few countries have had so many women in uniform and in action. I saw a lot less racism and more inter-racial dating and inter-racial marriages than in the civilian world.

Also remember that the military has shifted into retaining more married couples rather than singles compared to 40 years ago. I think they seen as more reliable and stable than wilder single guys. Presumably, the military would want married gay couples if the policy changed.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Should heterosexual men and women shower together? If a woman objects to that, is she therefore backward, unenlightened, and prejudiced?

[Scott & Lai 12]

Should heterosexual men and women shower together? If a woman objects to that, is she therefore backward, unenlightened, and prejudiced?

This is arguing extremes. You're taking an extreme position to argue against a non-extreme. It's not even worth considering.

How is it an extreme? Heterosexual men are sexually attracted to women, so we understand why a woman would not want to be naked in front of her male co-workers. Homosexual men are sexually attracted to men, so why is it so strange that a man would not want to be naked in front of his homosexual male co-workers? Why should a woman get protections that are denied a man in the corresponding situation?

[alienlovechild 75]

How is it an extreme? Heterosexual men are sexually attracted to women, so we understand why a woman would not want to be naked in front of her male co-workers. Homosexual men are sexually attracted to men, so why is it so strange that a man would not want to be naked in front of his homosexual male co-workers? Why should a woman get protections that are denied a man in the corresponding situation?

Because there is a world of difference between gender and sexual orientation. By this logic, you'd have the lesbians showering with the men and the gay men showering with the women, since they all obviously like the same thing.

As I said in another post, gay men have been living with a ####### all their life. Gay women have been living with boobies and a ####### their whole life. I'm pretty sure they know how to conduct themselves in a same-sex environment.

They don't have any rules against certain kinds of fraternization in the Navy? No sexual harassment charges?

Your answer doesn't recognize how this stuff in handled in the military. Problems are handled by the chain-of-command and if it's ignored to goes to the JAG or whistle blow it to the press. Of course, there's no re-up or resign your commission if you don't like it.

[alienlovechild 75]

I don't understand what point you're addressing. I was talking about shared facilities with gay soldiers and sailors, and that I believe the majority of service members would conduct themselves professionally in such an environment.

Yes of course the Navy has rules covering fraternization and misconduct. It's all covered in the UCMJ. Any service member, gay or straight, should be held to these standards.

I was drawing a direct comparison between how problems between male and female personnel are handled and elevate the discussion above brilliant observations about whether they are aware of their genitals. Most people could handle changes but there will some friction but would a few individuals be nuisance enough to dispute units or greatly affect retention?

The military kicks out people who are more trouble than they are worth and it's questionable why we are playing around with social engineering during wartime. It bothers me that politics mean more than the military and surely it's no coincidence that all this stuff is happening again at the start of another Democratic presidency just like in 1993. There are far more important issues than gays in the military and it's ridiculous to waste the time making a huge issue on something that will affect a very small minority in uniform just to satisfy gay voters.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If there is no reasonable logical justification for the policy, then it would seem that the military has created an institutionalised prejudice, regardless of whether or not the members of the military feel strongly about the issue.

If that's the case - then there's no way it can be justified.