CBS News Report on U.S. Military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy

[Patroklos]

You never go to the games with your boy friends?

I take girls to the local hockey team games all the time. Cheap, easy date for the middle courtship phase and it used to be a five minute walk from my apartment.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You never go to the games with your boy friends?

I take girls to the local hockey team games all the time. Cheap, easy date for the middle courtship phase and it used to be a five minute walk from my apartment.

The boy does not like hockey. I don't bring him.

I do bring a lesbian friend of mine, and go with my brother also.

[Patroklos]

The boy does not like hockey. I don't bring him.

Thats a shame, considering how much you seem to like it. Though I guess it gives you a sanctuary.

[Kontiki]

I like the analogy. Just as a very small percentage of hockey fans are gay, so too are a very small percentage of sailors straight.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos

I think you are jumping to conclusions here Mr. Fun.

I don't think gay men have the self control of horny dogs. I think 17 year old straight men/woman AND gay men/woman have the self control of horny dogs.

Let me tell you something about the military. It is made up of young people. Young, imature, sexually active, sexually inexperianced, sexually curious 17-20 year old for the most party which most times display the intelligence of a toaster oven when it comes to personal matters. Is there any reason why I should expect anything else form a gay 17-20 year old?

So I am not worried about their professional ability. I can think of no reason why a gay man can't shoot a rifle, man a console, swab a deck, fix a gas turbine, or do a thousand other things work related as well as any striagh man. However, we don't do those things 24 hours a day, a good portion of our time is spent living sholder to sholder on a 466"x60"x66" tin can. I lived in a 12"x6"x8" room, and I shared it with two other guys and all the worldy possecions we needed for 6 months. If you are E-6 and below you live 100 to a berthing, which is basically, maybe, 800 square feet. Most of that being take up by the rackes, stacked three high, 12 in each bay.

So with those factors in mind, I wasn't asking you whether gays should serve, but rather what would the situation look like if they did? And I want to know, you being a gay man, what would you require for accomidations? And more importantly, since you know more gay men than me, what would the average gay man require for accomidations?

Nice strawman. I asked an honest/unloaded question, and it is about the realities of what your asking vice just some lofty concept. This is what happened with the integration of woman, which has been a disaster for military effectivness (not their fault, it is shared) because people didn't think about the realities of what would happen when they did it. It just sounded like the right thing to do so they pursued it regardless.

So you think military effectiveness is fine the way it is by recruiting young men with the intelligence of toaster ovens?

And I will give you one thing; in this context, my teacher-scandal example was not fitting for this argument.

As for what accomodations gay men would require in the military, I still believe that gay men, even given their young adult age, can use the same showers that straight men use. In other places that have showers, gay men use the same showers and in every place of business that has public restrooms, gay men use the same restrooms that straight men use.

Which also brings us to Wezil's question about comparable accomodations for gay men that we have for straight men and straight women. I think asking that women and men use the same showers is something different from asking that gay men and straight men use showers.

I'm also surprised to hear you think that integrating straight women into the U.S. military has done more harm than good. So let me make sure I understand you; you believe in the equality of women and men, but in spite of that equality, the military is not the place for women?

And honestly, back to your point about young, insecure and dumb young men in the military. Maybe it's time for the U.S. military to look for stronger qualifications in new recruits. If our military relies on dumb, sexually insecure young men for combat effectiveness, then we may have a real problem within our military that has nothing to do with gay men.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He claims to be. What does that have to do with this?

Then why he should give a rat's ass whether or not people are gay?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by MrFun


So you think military effectiveness is fine the way it is by recruiting young men with the intelligence of toaster ovens?

Basically, if we're banning Gays friom the military we should also ban females, or keep single-sex units.

Pat's probably had too many headaches from E-nothings dating on ship.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lonestar

Basically, if we're banning Gays friom the military we should also ban females, or keep single-sex units.

Pat's probably had too many headaches from E-nothings dating on ship.

So tell me why Great Britain or Israel do not have any problems with the integration of straight women, gay men, and lesbians?

The sky did not fall down on them.

[Patroklos]

So you think military effectiveness is fine the way it is by recruiting young men with the intelligence of toaster ovens?

It is made up of young people. Young, immature, sexually active, sexually inexperianced, sexually curious 17-20 year old for the most party which most times display the intelligence of a toaster oven when it comes to personal matters.

Personal matters, Mr. Fun, personal matters. I can train a seaman to don an FFE, charge a mainspace fire and extinguish a bilge fuel oil fire until he can do it in his sleep. I can drill a 3rd class Petty Officer on AAW protocols until he sees the training diagrams on the back of his eyelids. I can't train a 17 year old how deal with his hormones. How boys don't always mean they love you just because they say it. How do deal with breaking up with your "deployment wife" when there are 4 months left at sea and you see her every day, not to mention she is now ****ing your watch section supervisor. Oh yeah, you also got promoted and are now in charge of her.

Teenagers are stupid when it comes to life, and only more life will cure them of that.

As for what accomodations gay men would require in the military, I still believe that gay men, even given their young adult age, can use the same showers that straight men use. In other places that have showers, gay men use the same showers and in every place of business that has public restrooms, gay men use the same restrooms that straight men use.

Really? I don't know about you, but it would be damn hard for me not to stare at a woman showering next to me after not getting laid for 5 months (well I guess replace woman with dude for you ). Nor would any reasonable person expect me to have to. And even it if is perfectly understandable, is my staring sexual harassment if it was unsolicited (not to mention it would inappropriate no matter what)? Or if I was successful and didn't, do I really need that extra sexual tension?

There is a difference between integrating race and sexual orientation. Race is a superficial difference; our sexual desires mandated by nature are not (If I remember correctly you are of the “born gay” side). I don't think gay men are any more "horny" than straight ones, but I know they are probably just as "horny" as straight men. So just like I wouldn't blame myself for the situation described above, I would not blame a gay man for doing the same if showering next to me but that doesn't make it any less inappropriate. More so actually, because I would not be of the same orientation as him, so his advances/attention would always be unwanted. And that is why yes, facilities would have to be separate.

Which also brings us to Wezil's question about comparable accomodations for gay men that we have for straight men and straight women. I think asking that women and men use the same showers is something different from asking that gay men and straight men use showers.

And this is where you break form reality in my opinion. You are vehement in your belief that gay men are no more sexual than straight men, but you seem to have no problems insinuating that gay men are LESS sexual than straight men. If it is perfectly reasonable to assume straight men staring at nude women is not conducive to good order and discipline, what is so special about a gay man that means it would not be the case if he was forced to be in the presence of nude men every day?

I'm also surprised to hear you think that integrating straight women into the U.S. military has done more harm than good. So let me make sure I understand you; you believe in the equality of women and men, but in spite of that equality, the military is not the place for women?

If you really want to discuss this we can make a thread, I will participate. However, briefly, since it came up...

It is not a place for women, they way it was implemented and is currently run. For one, we dramatically lowered standards (and they are still lowered in many cases) to get them in the military in the first place. Obviously that equates to loss of combat effectiveness.

Pregnancy. Combat units go through training cycles, months and months of workups including medical readiness screenings, intensive drilling, classroom training, and team building. So after all of that a female gets pregnant and, poof, is gone. This might have been your best MSS console operator, your best ASW plotter, your best OOD. Maybe even your Combat Systems Officer? Gone. If you are lucky you will get a replacement from the fleet who, though probably competent (but maybe not), didn't train with you. He doesn't know the strengths/weaknesses of his team, and you don't know this. Not only that, but you ripped him away from the team he DID know and belong to, hurting that units effectiveness. His unit probably wasn't deploying, so now you have totally ****ed up his personal life/marriage. Not only that, now he is deploying for 6 months with people he doesn't know while that crew has been training/drilling intensely for months and is a tight knit group, one he might never get to integrate into. And to top all that off, that replacement's actual command might deploy right after he gets back. Awesome for him.

And what I describe concerning pregnancy above is almost always the case, because guess when all the females are suddenly surprised with an unexpected pregnancy?

What if the father is on the crew as well. What if it was adultery? Why don't we compress all that into a steel box for six months?

But guess what Mr. Fun? IT’S NOT THE WOMEN's FAULT! Overall of course, they are still responsible for their personal actions no matter how understandable, especially when they violate regulations. However a lot of the things that destroy combat effectiveness require two, and that dude is just as responsible. But, if one party had been absent, there would not have been any problem in the first place. And these problems add up, and we can discuss that if you want in another thread.

So your comment "So let me make sure I understand you; you believe in the equality of women and men, but in spite of that equality, the military is not the place for women?" is sort of correct. I guess we could have an all woman military, but if we are going to go with all one out of the two, which is more practical? And the simple fact is there are a lot of jobs in the military women won’t do in enough numbers or simply can’t.

To counter the above people bring up two things. One is recruitment, that a whole new pool of recruits has been opened up to us. While true, they usually gloss over the fact that standards (notably PT) are lowered to make that happen. Also, I don’t believe that is enough to cover all the problems I already stated. Not to mention, especially in the Army/Marines, women fill the billets that we NEVER have trouble filling anyways.

Two, combat effectiveness, that our military capabilities are greater now than before integration. That’s all well and good, but the reality is that our technology edge is what is letting us conduct grand social experiments and increase capabilities at the same time. But it is in spite of integration, not because of it. We could have even more capability.

But, like I said, a lot of the problems are not simply because of integration, but more from how it was done.

And honestly, back to your point about young, insecure and dumb young men in the military. Maybe it's time for the U.S. military to look for stronger qualifications in new recruits. If our military relies on dumb, sexually insecure young men for combat effectiveness, then we may have a real problem within our military that has nothing to do with gay men.

Like I said, dumb in personal matters, not professional. And you won't solve that unless you make the minimum service age 35, and I still know plenty of people that age that are trainwrecks when it comes to their personal, especially sexual, lives.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by MrFun

Which also brings us to Wezil's question about comparable accomodations for gay men that we have for straight men and straight women. I think asking that women and men use the same showers is something different from asking that gay men and straight men use showers.

Quit dodging.

Why is it "something different"? It seems to me the point is to avoid having naked people around that some may see as objects of desire. For hetero men that would be women, for gay men is that not other men?

For the record, I agree with your underlying argument but I find this part to be weak.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Mr. Fun, being gay yourself perhaps you can answer this for me.

Would gay military memebers require seperate facilities such as heads and quarters like the current male/female separation?

I gurantee the straight ones will homophobe or not, and the military would require it, but what would the gay members want in your opinion?

No need. Gay and straight guys have all been using public showers since their first day of junior high school PE.

[Patroklos]

Pat's probably had too many headaches from E-nothings dating on ship.

Bingo

And not just E-dogs either. Those are easier because there are plenty of things to assign non specialized people to so that they don't run into or have problems with their significant other.

The big problems are when two officers or senior enlisted (E-6 and up, and sometimes **** hot E2s) date as there are only so many ways to cut a watch team so that neither EVER has positional authority over the other (which is why officers dating on the same ship is pretty much banned outright everywhere).

Which is important because when I have do decide which fireteam goes into the main engine room first for a major fuel oil leak (and thus basically aren't coming back out), which one do I send? The one with my ex, or not the one with my **** buddy? Or even if I didn't take that into consideration, and its an arbitrary choice, what keeps someone from claiming I showed favoritism after the fact?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by MrFun


So tell me why Great Britain or Israel do not have any problems with the integration of straight women, gay men, and lesbians?

The sky did not fall down on them.

I'm not SAYING we shouldn't have openly gay guys and gals in the armed services, I'm saying it should be an all-or-nothing proposition. Pat's thoughts on the matter are influenced, and not without reason, from the difficulties from integrated ships. nothing says "good use of government time and equipment" by having the MAC wear NVGs to try to catch some sailors ****ing on the aft missile deck.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos






Personal matters, Mr. Fun, personal matters. I can train a seaman to don an FFE, charge a mainspace fire and extinguish a bilge fuel oil fire until he can do it in his sleep. I can drill a 3rd class Petty Officer on AAW protocols until he sees the training diagrams on the back of his eyelids. I can't train a 17 year old how deal with his hormones. How boys don't always mean they love you just because they say it. How do deal with breaking up with your "deployment wife" when there are 4 months left at sea and you see her every day, not to mention she is now ****ing your watch section supervisor. Oh yeah, you also got promoted and are now in charge of her.

Teenagers are stupid when it comes to life, and only more life will cure them of that.



Really? I don't know about you, but it would be damn hard for me not to stare at a woman showering next to me after not getting laid for 5 months (well I guess replace woman with dude for you ). Nor would any reasonable person expect me to have to. And even it if is perfectly understandable, is my staring sexual harassment if it was unsolicited (not to mention it would inappropriate no matter what)? Or if I was successful and didn't, do I really need that extra sexual tension?

There is a difference between integrating race and sexual orientation. Race is a superficial difference; our sexual desires mandated by nature are not (If I remember correctly you are of the “born gay” side). I don't think gay men are any more "horny" than straight ones, but I know they are probably just as "horny" as straight men. So just like I wouldn't blame myself for the situation described above, I would not blame a gay man for doing the same if showering next to me but that doesn't make it any less inappropriate. More so actually, because I would not be of the same orientation as him, so his advances/attention would always be unwanted. And that is why yes, facilities would have to be separate.



And this is where you break form reality in my opinion. You are vehement in your belief that gay men are no more sexual than straight men, but you seem to have no problems insinuating that gay men are LESS sexual than straight men. If it is perfectly reasonable to assume straight men staring at nude women is not conducive to good order and discipline, what is so special about a gay man that means it would not be the case if he was forced to be in the presence of nude men every day?



If you really want to discuss this we can make a thread, I will participate. However, briefly, since it came up...

It is not a place for women, they way it was implemented and is currently run. For one, we dramatically lowered standards (and they are still lowered in many cases) to get them in the military in the first place. Obviously that equates to loss of combat effectiveness.

Pregnancy. Combat units go through training cycles, months and months of workups including medical readiness screenings, intensive drilling, classroom training, and team building. So after all of that a female gets pregnant and, poof, is gone. This might have been your best MSS console operator, your best ASW plotter, your best OOD. Maybe even your Combat Systems Officer? Gone. If you are lucky you will get a replacement from the fleet who, though probably competent (but maybe not), didn't train with you. He doesn't know the strengths/weaknesses of his team, and you don't know this. Not only that, but you ripped him away from the team he DID know and belong to, hurting that units effectiveness. His unit probably wasn't deploying, so now you have totally ****ed up his personal life/marriage. Not only that, now he is deploying for 6 months with people he doesn't know while that crew has been training/drilling intensely for months and is a tight knit group, one he might never get to integrate into. And to top all that off, that replacement's actual command might deploy right after he gets back. Awesome for him.

And what I describe concerning pregnancy above is almost always the case, because guess when all the females are suddenly surprised with an unexpected pregnancy?

What if the father is on the crew as well. What if it was adultery? Why don't we compress all that into a steel box for six months?

But guess what Mr. Fun? IT’S NOT THE WOMEN's FAULT! Overall of course, they are still responsible for their personal actions no matter how understandable, especially when they violate regulations. However a lot of the things that destroy combat effectiveness require two, and that dude is just as responsible. But, if one party had been absent, there would not have been any problem in the first place. And these problems add up, and we can discuss that if you want in another thread.

So your comment "So let me make sure I understand you; you believe in the equality of women and men, but in spite of that equality, the military is not the place for women?" is sort of correct. I guess we could have an all woman military, but if we are going to go with all one out of the two, which is more practical? And the simple fact is there are a lot of jobs in the military women won’t do in enough numbers or simply can’t.

To counter the above people bring up two things. One is recruitment, that a whole new pool of recruits has been opened up to us. While true, they usually gloss over the fact that standards (notably PT) are lowered to make that happen. Also, I don’t believe that is enough to cover all the problems I already stated. Not to mention, especially in the Army/Marines, women fill the billets that we NEVER have trouble filling anyways.

Two, combat effectiveness, that our military capabilities are greater now than before integration. That’s all well and good, but the reality is that our technology edge is what is letting us conduct grand social experiments and increase capabilities at the same time. But it is in spite of integration, not because of it. We could have even more capability.

But, like I said, a lot of the problems are not simply because of integration, but more from how it was done.



Like I said, dumb in personal matters, not professional. And you won't solve that unless you make the minimum service age 35, and I still know plenty of people that age that are trainwrecks when it comes to their personal, especially sexual, lives.

Your posts are becoming as long as Pekka's.

So you mean that you can train young men to do the things you mentioned above, in spite of their complete lack of maturity and intelligence in PERSONAL matters. Okay, so for this reason, you believe the U.S. military forces can only consist of straight men at the exclusion of gay men, straight women, and lesbians.
But maybe this simply means, as I have implied/stated earlier, that if our military forces are relying on immature, sexually insecure "brats" for recruits we have to change something in our recruitment procedures? If a young straight man cannot cope with working with gay men, lesbians, or straight women in the military, that might say a lot about that young man's inability to function as a responsible adult; in SPITE of the fact that you say you can still train him to adequately perform his field/combat duties. So why the continued reliance on immature "brats" for recruits in our U.S. military?

By the way, I still want to hear from you about how Great Britain and Israel seem to be doing just fine with integration of gay men, straight women, and lesbians. As I've already said; the sky has not fallen down on them because of this.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Wezil


Quit dodging.

Why is it "something different"? It seems to me the point is to avoid having naked people around that some may see as objects of desire. For hetero men that would be women, for gay men is that not other men?

For the record, I agree with your underlying argument but I find this part to be weak.

Well to be honest, I am having difficulty articulating why it is different to have separate facilities for men and women, but not separate facilities for straight men and gay men, and for straight women and lesbians.

I have to think about this some more; your question is thought-provoking.