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

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher
Patroklos: You have a very fundamental misunderstanding about this argument.

We're not talking about "organizational stress".
We're not talking about logistics.
We're not talking about how many troops are deployed and how the US is by far the bigger warmonger in terms of troop deployments.

What we're talking about is how openly gay people can serve in the military. The simple fact is, openly gay people do serve in combat situations on a regular basis around the world. They serve in tight confines and high-stress situations, too.

Your attempts to dismiss this with your crap about "organizational stress" is just ridiculous.

Hey Asher, I strongly disagree with Pattycakes myself, but I respect his perspective based on his knowledge of military service and his own experience.

He was talking about the problems of sexual tension between soldiers in situations such as public showers and other examples where sexual tension can undermine unit cohesion or cause disruption among some soldiers on a ship. So he's not necessarily talking about only when they are actually out in the field, in combat, but back in the quarters, barracks, or ship deck.

Maybe you should reread his arguments/points, Asher.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Well then provide a personal first hand experiance at managing the issues/problems involved with integration of military units, or retrun to your spectators seat. All I see you doing looking for a reason to be pissed of, and looking a little foolish while doing so.

Why do I need to look for a reason to be pissed off when I've got an arrogant sailor to do it for me?

You don't need first hand experience to deal with the integration of military units to recognize what the rest of the world realized long ago. Other nations work just fine, and if you think just because the US is a larger military that has any impact on letting gays serve and "integrating them", you need help.

If you're going to play the "experience" card, something tells me I've got far more experience with integrating homosexuals into environments than you do.

[PLATO]

I haven't been following this thread that much but I just read the last couple of posts. Maybe my comments are not relevant...I don't know.

But...

If seperating men and women is okay (which I assume is done for reasons of sexuality), then why would we not seperate gay and straight men? Isn't it basically the same thing?

Now, don't get me wrong. I have no issue with gays serving in the military. In fact, I support the idea of sexual orientation (or gender for that matter) not being an issue at all.

Uncle Sam wants us all uniform anyway, right? So let's just have one bathroom and one shower for everybody. That way it is fair.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by PLATO
I haven't been following this thread that much but I just read the last couple of posts. Maybe my comments are not relevant...I don't know.

But...

If seperating men and women is okay (which I assume is done for reasons of sexuality), then why would we not seperate gay and straight men? Isn't it basically the same thing?

Now, don't get me wrong. I have no issue with gays serving in the military. In fact, I support the idea of sexual orientation (or gender for that matter) not being an issue at all.

Uncle Sam wants us all uniform anyway, right? So let's just have one bathroom and one shower for everybody. That way it is fair.

The expense of needing separate bathrooms and showers for gay men and straight men. Not to mention the fact that you will find it difficult to separate closeted gay men from the other men anyway.

And on Navy ships, where do you find the infrastructural space for these additional facilities?

I think it would more simple and reasonable to just let gay men and straight men use the facilities the way they already have been using them . . . .

together, with, for the most part, no relational problems as indicated by the majority of the young gay male soldiers interviewed on 60 Minutes.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun
Hey Asher, I strongly disagree with Pattycakes myself, but I respect his perspective based on his knowledge of military service and his own experience.

He was talking about the problems of sexual tension between soldiers in situations such as public showers and other examples where sexual tension can undermine unit cohesion or cause disruption among some soldiers on a ship. So he's not necessarily talking about only when they are actually out in the field, in combat, but back in the quarters, barracks, or ship deck.

Maybe you should reread his arguments/points, Asher.

He can talk about that all he wants, but it's not the point. The gays are already there. What difference does it make?

And I certainly don't respect his knowledge of military service and experience, because as far as I know he's had precisely zero such experience in "integrated" environment. I probably have more such experience since I do know, very well, an openly gay private in the military who has served overseas. I was also good friends with connorkimbro who -- if you all remember him -- was a gay military serviceman for the US.

If Patty feels uncomfortable showering with a gay man, that's something he has to deal with. If he thinks that'll destroy military unit cohesion in the US while it hasn't elsewhere, than that's saying the will of the US soldiers to serve their countries is secondary to the fact that Patty is uncomfortable showering with somebody who happens to like men.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MrFun


The expense of needing separate bathrooms and showers for gay men and straight men. Not to mention the fact that you will find it difficult to separate closeted gay men from the other men anyway.

And on Navy ships, where do you find the infrastructural space for these additional facilities?

I think it would more simple and reasonable to just let gay men and straight men use the facilities the way they already have been using them . . . .

together, with, for the most part, no relational problems as indicated by the majority of the young gay male soldiers interviewed on 60 Minutes.

Okay. No problem with that. So we throw in the women to and save even more on facilities?

Or is sexual orientation not the reason we segregate the women?

[Asher]

Originally posted by PLATO
I haven't been following this thread that much but I just read the last couple of posts. Maybe my comments are not relevant...I don't know.

But...

If seperating men and women is okay (which I assume is done for reasons of sexuality), then why would we not seperate gay and straight men? Isn't it basically the same thing?

Now, don't get me wrong. I have no issue with gays serving in the military. In fact, I support the idea of sexual orientation (or gender for that matter) not being an issue at all.

Uncle Sam wants us all uniform anyway, right? So let's just have one bathroom and one shower for everybody. That way it is fair.

Am I the only one in the world who thinks that "segregation" is a bad thing? Whether it's black/white, gay/straight, whatever.

Sometimes, I think I am.

[Ramo]

Ramo, what the hell are you talking about? I have been talking in this thread about what the character of open gay service would/should be and how female integration can show you what some of th issues might be, not about whether or not it should happen.

This thread is about DADT (see opening post). From what I can tell, you oppose repealing the policy (or at least are skeptical about it). To that end, you were discussing negative consequences that you believe are likely.

I pointed out that the scenarios right wingers bring up about reduced morale, combat efficiency, etc. don't happen in places like Israel or the UK where gay people can serve openly.

You brought up, as a rebuttal, that every gay person in these militaries may not have come out, so these countries' experiences are not relevant.

I pointed out that the policy debate is over allowing gay people to serve openly, not forcing gay people to publicly come out.

This isn't complicated.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Asher

Am I the only one in the world who thinks that "segregation" is a bad thing? Whether it's black/white, gay/straight, whatever.

Sometimes, I think I am.

No! I agree with you. I am just saying that if we take sexual preference out of it, then it should be across the board. Why segregate women from men?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You are obvioulsy no longer interested in discussion. Well, you can prove me wrong by admitting your complete overeaction and false accusation against me concering your fatacy of me insulting your troops. You can put that in place of that rather nice video of your CF guy.

I can and have proven you wrong simply by illustrating there's no known issues in the entire world about openly gay military members serving in their unit.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Show me the stats that contradict reports from the dozens of countries that permit it. Do something other than talk down about the military of other countries just because their numbers are fewer. Do something other than arrogantly talk about your vast experience on a ship and how it somehow relates to countries that have the policy we're referring to.

[Dis]

What's the deal with showers? I haven't read the whole thread, but I don't see too many problems with don't ask don't tell. I just think if they accidently find out, they shouldn't be booted. So if some guy is busted at a gay club, they shouldn't be booted. It's not like he told, he was found out.

When I was in I later found out we weren't supposed to go to the birdhouse in Charleston because they had a gay night. It was thursday night- I went on friday night- honest . Birdhouse was a club. And in a city like that, was one of the few young people hangouts in the city that underage people can get into. The south sucks when you are under 21. But I was never found out. I'm not sure what would have happened. But there were a few places that were off limits to sailors. Mainly because of drugs/prostitution.

As for showers, even onboard ship we had a thing called shower curtains. I really don't see what the big deal was. Only in boot camp did we have open showers were you could openly view each others wangs.

What generally happened was I'd have a pair of shorts on the hook with my towel. After I dried off, I'd put the shorts on. I didn't routinely walk around the head naked. though I admit I dried off inside the shower stall, I'm modest, what can I say. I still do that even at home, because I don't like to get water everywhere. There were guys that would walk around the head naked, but most would not.

[Dis]

Originally posted by PLATO
I haven't been following this thread that much but I just read the last couple of posts. Maybe my comments are not relevant...I don't know.

But...

If seperating men and women is okay (which I assume is done for reasons of sexuality), then why would we not seperate gay and straight men? Isn't it basically the same thing?

Now, don't get me wrong. I have no issue with gays serving in the military. In fact, I support the idea of sexual orientation (or gender for that matter) not being an issue at all.

Uncle Sam wants us all uniform anyway, right? So let's just have one bathroom and one shower for everybody. That way it is fair.

I might just rejoin if that's the case.

err wait a minute. Navy women sailors were uggos. Scratch that.

[Ramo]

Why segregate women from men?

I don't think they should be segregated...

[Patroklos]

The expense of needing separate bathrooms and showers for gay men and straight men. Not to mention the fact that you will find it difficult to separate closeted gay men from the other men anyway.

If you don't know, you won't care. Well, if they do come out you might care after the fact. I don't know, thats a good question, obviously the divide is not as easly as male female, people tend to notice the differences.

And on Navy ships, where do you find the infrastructural space for these additional facilities

We had to cope with this with women as well. What pretty much happened is new ships were built with facilities for all, old ships that had the space were modified, and those that didn't just stayed all male until decomissioning. There are still all male enlisted ships, but they do have female officers since those spaces don't usually require modification besides the heads. You just assign female officers their own stateroom.

He can talk about that all he wants, but it's not the point. The gays are already there. What difference does it make

Are you serious?

And I certainly don't respect his knowledge of military service and experience, because as far as I know he's had precisely zero such experience in "integrated" environment

I guess women don't count, the issues between straight male and female crews have zero relevance to the issue of integrating people with sexual differences.

If Patty feels uncomfortable showering with a gay man, that's something he has to deal with.

Then I guess the women will just have to deal with it to. No special privledges. All people check your sexuality at the door, Asher has a "Starship Trooper's" shower stall scene fantacy to live out.

[Dis]

They eventuallly modifed the Enterprise to accomidate female sailors I believe. when I was there only there were only a couple (and a few officers). And the female enlisted were fat uggos.

The thing is I knew a guy in the Navy who was gay. Thinking back, it really doesn't bother me if he might have saw me shower. What's the big deal?