This is just my opinion about Open homosexuality in the Milatary. I spent twenty years in Navy. I lived in berthing compartments that were about the size of your living room that held 20 guys. The thought of a man (who I knew) may be sexually attracted to me and watches me undress, take a shower and even use the toilet makes me uncomfortable. I sort of think of it as putting a women in that same compartment of twenty men knowing she is being looked at as a potential sexual partner. I was in the service when they passed the Don't ask Don't tell. It was very bad for morale. Now not all services are going to sea and are forced to sleep in the same room for 6 months at a time. But as for the Navy, it creates enough problems just in itself. thanks
So, blaineo, you think that homosexuals who join the "Milatary" (as you put it) to look for a "potential sexual partner"?
I'm sure that is not the case. I'm sure that homosexuals are just as willing to risk their lives as you were.
Gays (just too many letters to type out homosexuals every time) have fought and died in every war we have ever waged. Almost every family has probably had an uncle/cousin/nephew who was "light in the loafers" as old novels put it. What tauts my wire is that this is even an issue. Most folks do not flaunt being straight and many gays do not flaunt being gay. If I'm in a foxhole and you're gay and the best damned shot in the platoon - I'm not changing foxholes.
Couch and Bryant, Charlie.
Have either of you ever served in th emilitary? Do you have first hand/first person knowledge of active duty military life? Have you ever deployed? Have you ever had to trust you life on a daily basis to the guy next to you?
If the answers are "no", especially to the three questions, then you have no place to criticize blaineo.
Bryant - I agree with you in part, actually. I do not flaunt being straight. I actually served with peopel who were gay - they were also competent at their jobs. They kept their military bearing at all times. They were a credit to the service. They also kept their homelife home, they wore no inappropriate jewelry, and they most definately were not Flaunting, Flaming homosexuals
Having said all that, I believe DADT is a good policy as it stands now.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The system IS broke. The military goes into personal emails and belongings to out these people.
Also, all the arguments against gays in the military could be applied to say, blacks in the military.
Couch your answers make no sense to me.
Yes - you served in the military? Ok...
No - you have no first hand/first person knowledge of active duty military life? What? This seems to be a direct contradiction of the first answer.
yes - you have deployed? OK...
I disagree that the system is broke. There probably are instances of hacking emails and personal belonging searches, but they are either illegal or prompted by the individual crossing the DADT boundaries.
My first answer to that is that the military makes it clear that your military email is for official business and can be monitored. Secondly, if you live in military housing, you do not enjoy the same right of privacy that civilians do. That is the military life, like it or not.
Do I agree with these types of searches. Not really, if the soldier is doing his job and is not openly gay and flaming. But, I will say there are probably acts and conversations which will identify a person as possibly gay, and the aforementioned searches may result.
I can see how all these arguments could be applied to blacks in the military, they could also be applied to women, straight or gay.
How'd you like you sister/girlfriend/wife rooming and sharing an open bathroom with 49 guys? How'd do you think she'd like it? How would you like to to share bedspace and bathrooms with 49 women in the military. I wouldn't. I would be very uncomfortable, and so would they.
Comfort affects morale, morale affects duty performance, duty performance affects combat effectiveness. The military is for national defense - combat effectiveness is job#1; social experimentation is not. IMO.
I messed up my answers, my bad. No/yes/no/yes
So if people are uncomfortable with sharing rooms/showers with blacks, we should kick them out too?
Women have different parts than men. You can't compare the two. Men however pretty much all have the same parts.
The searches aren't supposed to happen under DADT. I'm pretty sure it even says it. Therefor, it is broken.
Segregation is very much alive with DADT.
Thanks for the clarification.
However, if you have never served in the military and never deployed, then how do you believe you have first hand/first person knowledge?
A military family may have knowledge of military life, but unless you have suited up in uniform, gone through BMT, lived in a military barracks with a commander and a first sergeant, served isolated away from your family in a harsh/foreign environment for months or years, then I do not believe you have first hand/first person knowledge of active duty military life.
Women may have different parts, but that does not matter. Beds and bathrooms are the same. The issue is sexual preference. A straight man forced to live with a gay man would have the same discomfort as a woman forced to live with a straight man. Each is a POTENTIAL sexual partner of the other. That is not military or civilian, that is human nature. It can be controlled, suppressed, ignored, but never, ever, removed. IMO.
I believe DADT has a no search policy, UNTIL or UNLESS credible information makes it apparent that the service member is gay. Then, in order to affect the discharge, evidence must be gathered.
If MSgt Rock leaves his gay porn mag in his barracks latrine in plain view during a 1st Sgt inspection, then an investigation will follow. If the same magazines are out of sight in the MSGT's personal effects, they will likely not be discovered by search during the barracks inspection.
Are you for real, Couch? I don't think you understand. The straight men/women in the military don't want to shower, dress, or sleep in the company of others who MAY consider them in a sexual way. Granted, just because you are male doesn't mean a gay man will be attracted to you, but I can understand a straight person not wanting to be naked/nearly naked/in an uncomfortable position with someone who may consider them in a sexual way.
That being said, DADT handles that issue. Gay people are just as capable as anyone else to fight for their country - a person's sexual orientation doesn't affect that. It's not about disliking homosexuality - it's about privacy and comfort. The issue is not similar to racist issues at all.
And what if someone doesn't want to shower/sleep/etc near someone with a different skin color watchdog? Some people may feel uncomfortable around people with different skin colors.
Just switch the words "sexuality" (and other key phrases) with skin color (and other phrases like that). Same arguments against DADT were applied to racial segregation. Homophobia is the new racism it seems.
Your right, it is uncomfortable showering, dressing, etc with someone of a different skin color. And with someone who is physically taller or shorter, has more muscular development, or other biological differences. But, soldiers can put that aside because there is no interest or potential interest in any sexual issues. We are just guys or girls, when we sleep, shower, do parasite checks or whatever.
But, I would never do those things with a female service member uless it was under the MOST SEVERE and UNUSUAL circumstances because neither one of us would be comfortable with that much intimacy, no matter the circumstances.
It would be no less stressful between me and an openly gay male service member. I would be decided less open to a parasite check or sharing a hooch with a gay man. And I am sure a straight woman would not wish to be that intimate with a lesbian.
Tell me Couch, would you go for a month long camping trip in the deep woods and far into the outback with an openly gay man? With one tent? During tick season? Remember, ticks like crevices and you really don't want to just leave them there, considering all the diseases they carry.....
I apologize if I offended anyone, but if you are old enough to read and follow what I have said, then I haven't told you anything new and shocking.
why, charlie. i am not only shocked, i am disgusted at your "lets play hide the tick" inuendoes!!! i thought that was a game only me and my wife played. we would really love to make it a foursome activity. are you and the wife in?? i dont really care if you look at me, but i can promise you i wil only look at your wife. really, im not that into you, but it couls be fun.
hey, a bottle of wildturkey and a few rounds of "lets hide the tick" can really liven up a weekend!!!!!!
Nah, don't think my wife would be interested, but maybe you could pass along a pic of your wife as a selling point.
Maybe...maybe if your wife was Heidi Klum.....but she ain't cuz I highly doubt you are Seal in disguise.
I don't go camping. But I'm not homophobic/racist so I wouldnt care who I went with.
Also, Charlie wants the military to either be dissolved or have an army of exact clones.
Quote 1: "Comfort affects morale, morale affects duty performance, duty performance affects combat effectiveness".
Quote 2: "Your right, it is uncomfortable showering, dressing, etc with someone of a different skin color. And with someone who is physically taller or shorter, has more muscular development, or other biological differences."
No, Couch, I want neither.
The US miltary is one of the strongest militaries in history BECAUSE we are diverse, intelligent, and innovative. And because we care about each other. We are (I hate to use the term, but it's true) a band of brothers. And sisters.
The quotes you use are true and I will stand by them. Apply them to a sports team, a factory work force, a family. Those quotes have a lot more to do with human nature than any military indoctrination.
I will give you a controversial statement though. Sometimes, I wish we still had a draft because then people like you (who want to tinker with the military, but have never had the courage or inclination to serve) would have some idea of what your messing with. Right now, you seem more like a moron with an xBox.
In fact Couch, I will go a step further. You seem to want to be a petty dictator. In this instance, you seem to want it YOUR way, according to YOUR version and vision of the world and anyone who disagrees is dis-valued and branded with some negative tag that they should be ashamed of.
I do not think you have the depth of character to see that in yourself. You believe you are enlightened, accepting and perfect - the culmination of a liberal upbringing and education.
On the other hand, I am just a poor soul who learns what the world will teach him in the process of getting by from day to day.
In a sick sense, I'd like to see you in hand-to-hand combat in real life - not on the video game. Try telling the terrorist, or partisan, or anarchist who can barely read his own language that you are not his enemy as you pray for some lowlife Marine grunt to save your skin. I'd like to let you reap your reward. Instead, I would likely try to save you, so you could get elected to Congress and shove more social experimentation down my throat.
Enjoy your day, Couch. No need to thank a Vet.
Okay, so you want a highly segregated army according to those quotes. Because, as YOU said "it is uncomfortable showering, dressing, etc with someone of a different skin color. And with someone who is physically taller or shorter, has more muscular development, or other biological differences.". And, on the topic of comfort you also said "Comfort affects morale, morale affects duty performance, duty performance affects combat effectiveness".
Also, I see you still go straight for ad homins when you start losing debates. That's cool.
No more ad hominem than you, Couch, when you have no answer.
Quote 1, "But I'm not homophobic/racist..." In saying so, you imply that others are. I am neither and do not wish to be called either.
Quote 2, "Charlie wants the military to either be dissolved or have an army of exact clones." I said neither, nor desire neither. No reasonable person could even infer that from my comments.
IMO Couch, you appear to be very close to what I described. Reasonable people with open minds will understand what i have said and see that the issue is not clear cut - it is in fact very complex and not prone to easy cookie cutter answers.
One day, you may realize that. I have known it for some time. Benefits of age and exerience in addition to education.