Don't ask, Don't tell

[30ashopper]

logistics and housing? would this really require a lot of change? why?

and benefits for partners? a separate issue.

Sure, thanks to our police the world mentality, we have bases all over the earth with housing and barracks in training camps. Are we going to stick the gay men in with straight men so they can sleep and shower together, ditto for gay women? (Maybe the gay men should sleep in the womens quarters and vice versa? That might save some money and time.) The logistics equal what we went through when women joined the military. It took a while to get the issues worked out and they weren't integrated fully for decades. Which isn't to say it can't be done, we just need a Gays Armed Service Integration Act from Congress and Obama (would he sign it? doubt it), and the military won't have a choice.

Then benefits are a whole different issue. Currently under federal law partners would not receive benefits. Changing that requires yet another act from Congress and Obama (would he sign it? doubt it.)

I think you would have to start with the benefits, and work your way backwards (no pun intended ). Start by getting people to accept gay couples. We have a long way to go, even California has a gay marriage ban in their Constitution now. Seems like we are going backwards sometimes.

 

[Matt J]

Sure, thanks to our police the world mentality, we have bases all over the earth with housing and barracks in training camps. Are we going to stick the gay men in with straight men so they can sleep and shower together, ditto for gay women? (Maybe the gay men should sleep in the womens quarters and vice versa? That might save some money and time.) The logistics equal what we went through when women joined the military. It took a while to get the issues worked out and they weren't integrated fully for decades. Which isn't to say it can't be done, we just need a Gays Armed Service Integration Act from Congress and Obama (would he sign it? doubt it), and the military won't have a choice.

Then benefits are a whole different issue. Currently under federal law partners would not receive benefits. Changing that requires yet another act from Congress and Obama (would he sign it? doubt it.)

I think you would have to start with the benefits, and work your way backwards (no pun intended ). Start by getting people to accept gay couples. We have a long way to go, even California has a gay marriage ban in their Constitution now. Seems like we are going backwards sometimes.

This is nothing like when women joined the military. Women weren't already in the military, but shaving their heads, and strapping down their breasts. Many gay people are already serving and sharing housing. The idea that allowing them to do so openly will cause a huge logistics issue is as ignorant as don't ask don't tell.

Currently if someone is gay and has a partner they generally live in off base housing. If the partner serving in the military is sent overseas the partner who is not usually stays behind as they cannot live on base.

Once again the right has transposed a non-issue over something that straight people take for granted so that they can restrict others. In that I mean that the subtext is that people will abuse military housing or housing allowance by faking a relationship and that this is another good reason to continue to discriminate. A friend of mine, who is straight, came up with a scheme to marry an enlisted woman and they would then reap a better off base housing allowance. All went well for 2 whole months until they were caught. He lost a rank and was confined to base for 6 months. There are already regulations in place to cover such abuse.

The idea of segregation is as offensive as racial segregation. Once again you have shown that lovely stereotype that just because someone is gay they are/want to have sex with anyone of the same sex. This is not true and 99% of the time people concerned about this are simply dealing with their own internal sexual identity issues. Without going over the various harassment scandals the military has encountered over the years, every one of which was straight men harassing or violating women, the military can adapt it's current rules regarding sexual conduct.

You also have to understand that this is not just an enlisted man issue. It literally goes to the top. I have met gay Navy Seals, Marines, Colonel's, and the second in command of a major local base. These people are no more interested in their fellow officers, sexually, than you are of perhaps 99% of the people you encounter on a daily basis.

 

[Lynnie]

I love San Francisco!

 

[Teresa]

This is nothing like when women joined the military. Women weren't already in the military, but shaving their heads, and strapping down their breasts. Many gay people are already serving and sharing housing. The idea that allowing them to do so openly will cause a huge logistics issue is as ignorant as don't ask don't tell.

Currently if someone is gay and has a partner they generally live in off base housing. If the partner serving in the military is sent overseas the partner who is not usually stays behind as they cannot live on base.

Once again the right has transposed a non-issue over something that straight people take for granted so that they can restrict others. In that I mean that the subtext is that people will abuse military housing or housing allowance by faking a relationship and that this is another good reason to continue to discriminate. A friend of mine, who is straight, came up with a scheme to marry an enlisted woman and they would then reap a better off base housing allowance. All went well for 2 whole months until they were caught. He lost a rank and was confined to base for 6 months. There are already regulations in place to cover such abuse.

The idea of segregation is as offensive as racial segregation. Once again you have shown that lovely stereotype that just because someone is gay they are/want to have sex with anyone of the same sex. This is not true and 99% of the time people concerned about this are simply dealing with their own internal sexual identity issues. Without going over the various harassment scandals the military has encountered over the years, every one of which was straight men harassing or violating women, the military can adapt it's current rules regarding sexual conduct.

You also have to understand that this is not just an enlisted man issue. It literally goes to the top. I have met gay Navy Seals, Marines, Colonel's, and the second in command of a major local base. These people are no more interested in their fellow officers, sexually, than you are of perhaps 99% of the people you encounter on a daily basis.

wonderfully written and I appreciate every single word.

 

[sunspotbaby]

Obama criticizes Ugandan anti-gay bill at prayer breakfast - CNN.com

It is "unconscionable to target gays or lesbians for who they are," Obama said during an appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast.

The measure being considered in Uganda is "odious," he added.

The organization which sponsors the breakfast, the Fellowship Foundation, has been associated with efforts to pass the bill, according to the ethics group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The measure would punish sexual activity between persons of the same sex with long jail terms or death.

 

[beachmouse]

Sure, thanks to our police the world mentality, we have bases all over the earth with housing and barracks in training camps. Are we going to stick the gay men in with straight men so they can sleep and shower together, ditto for gay women?

Why not? The shower argument is utterly silly. I was a swim team kid for 15 years, and had out gay teammates in college. In a venue where locker room nudity happens constantly from about age 6, no one ever had an issue with E., J., or even B., who was like the bad stereotype of the bisexual who would hit on anyone of either gender outside of practice or the locker room but who had enough manners to behave himself in team situations.

And manners and respect for colleagues,teammates, etc. is what it really comes down to in close quarters situation in a whole bunch more ways than sexual identifiaction.

Speaking of B., if you're going on the rant of 'but they can't share a room if they're attracted to someone of that gender' should claiming to be bisexual guarantee a single room in many berthing situations?

 

[scooterbug44]

Ditto - the number of people who have seen me naked/showering/changing clothes number in the hundreds. Some of them have been lesbians - no big deal.

And bear in mind that they are CURRENTLY showering/bunking with each other without incident.

 

[poppy]

These situations occur daily in every gym, fitness center etc. in this area and there doesn't seem to be problem.

 

[30ashopper]

The idea of segregation is as offensive as racial segregation. Once again you have shown that lovely stereotype that just because someone is gay they are/want to have sex with anyone of the same sex. This is not true and 99% of the time people concerned about this are simply dealing with their own internal sexual identity issues. Without going over the various harassment scandals the military has encountered over the years, every one of which was straight men harassing or violating women, the military can adapt it's current rules regarding sexual conduct.

"that lovely stereotype that just because someone is gay they are/want to have sex with anyone of the same sex".. so if I'm male, straight, but I assure the powers that be that I don't want to have sex with 99% of the women I'm around, I should be allowed to shower with the women at the local health club? Apparently equal treatment is not enough?

 

[30ashopper]

These situations occur daily in every gym, fitness center etc. in this area and there doesn't seem to be problem.

I'm all for mandatory mutual sex health club bathrooms and showers, assuming we all agree that's ok.