Obama will end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy — but not right away.
Obama will end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy — but not right away.
On Friday, President-elect Obama’s incoming press secretary Robert Gibbs answered public-submitted questions on Change.gov. One of those questions was on whether Obama would repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military. Gibbs replied, “You don’t hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it’s ‘Yes.’” Watch it:
However, CNN reports that Gibbs today expanded his answer, clarifying that the repeal won’t happen right away:
“There are many challenges facing our nation now and the president-elect is focused first and foremost on jump-starting this economy.
“So not everything will get done in the beginning but he’s committed to following through” with ending the policy against being openly gay in the military.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
wow, you mean the only criteria for being a good soldier is being a good soldier?? What an astounding way of thinking!
January 14th, 2009 at 4:15 pmWow.
I was wondering about this one. That’s going to suck some strength from the “Obama’s a homophobe” oppositional chorus.
Just, wow. This bodes well.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:16 pmand the folks in the military, the front line grunts, have never know there was a possibility of some of their buddies being GAY?
The only people who care about this crap are the people who aren’t there.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:17 pmas a veteran who lived in close quarters with lots of guys, 70 some odd in my personal ‘bedroom for 3 years, I never even wondered.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:19 pmGay Americans are Americans with quirks, strengths, shortcomings, and patriotism just as any other American. We are everywhere in this nation and now maybe we can serve this country with more than our tax dollars.
By the way, I hate the way this headline is written. It’s like everything else in the media since his election: Obama Wins, Failure Looms. Obama Plans Great: Never Gonna Happen.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:22 pmpardon my outrage but I never even cared. We did our job, bottom line.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:25 pmcompared to Torture, Economy, and Middle East, it’s clear that don’t ask don’t tell can wait.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:30 pmand if you think about it that phrase will probably go down as this administration’s credo.
And I am not referring to gayness.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:33 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
The part that annoys me is the “not right away”, something I didn’t notice until just now… Too much like wait on the back of the bus, and we’ll eventually give you equal rights… It sounds like PR more than actionable policy.
republicans hate facts Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 4:39 pmplease stop baiting people, and just be happy for such a good decision - can you be a human being for just 5 minutes?
Hoodathunk Says:
pardon my outrage but I never even cared. We did our job, bottom line.
So you mean while you were stationed somewhere with a bunch of guys no one started up a conversation like “Hey, I noticed you looked at my butt, are you gay?” Hoodathunk! As you say the bottom line is the job at hand. Same goes for having blacks serve – not long ago they had all black divisions (sorry if that is the wrong term). Oh crap, could you imagine and all gay division! “Okay, who tinted all the fatigues pink?” Anywho, a soldier must trust that the soldier next to him/her is going to watch their back and vice versa, regardless if they are gay, blond haired, have a nipple ring, like marijuana or read the bible.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:40 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
The part that annoys me is the “not right away”, something I didn’t notice until just now… Too much like wait on the back of the bus, and we’ll eventually give you equal rights… It sounds like PR more than actionable policy.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
____________
Because it is. Repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is important, sure, but on the grand checklist of policies the incoming Obama administration has to deal with it’s around #30 or 40. There are far more pressing issues facing the country, and I’d hate to see this administration derailed over this issue the way the Clinton administration was.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:41 pmrepublicans hate facts
Sure glad hillary didn’t get the nod. She’s agains gay marriage.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:45 pmone question for live longandprosper…are you a vet?
January 14th, 2009 at 4:47 pmFred Says:
republicans hate facts
Sure glad hillary didn’t get the nod. She’s agains gay marriage.
Oh no. I sense another thread in the hundreds.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:47 pmI’ve never seen an administration during which issues pushed to the back burner early on are usually brought forward later.
I fear DADT will be treated similarly.
Meanwhile, to those of you who agree that this is a low priority issue, I would say: (1) Imagine yourself gay or lesbian and in the military or wanting to join — still think this is not important? and (2) Why the hell can’t this country ever do two things at once?
Yes, holding back economic disaster is critical. But does every one of the 300+ million people in America have to give all of his or her attention to that?
January 14th, 2009 at 4:49 pmno, I don’t need an answer because your post screams no. In 4 years of military service I was never once confronted with anything even close to your fears. And I knew of several who were gay or bi.
Keep your paranoia for what is under your bed. Or in that thing you call a mind.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:50 pmYou know, where has Daryll/RupturedRectum been? All these gay threads lately and not one word out of that sick fcuk.
Must still be in his “Flog out the Gay” closet on an extended session.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:51 pmOh shit. Somebody said the H word…
January 14th, 2009 at 4:52 pmIf you’re hungry or facing losing everything then sex takes a back seat.
I think congress should be the ones pushing for equality anyway. I think this wedge issue should be retired and let our gay friends and loved ones and gay comrad’s at arms marry and live the American dream with the rest of us.
Of course we still have racial issues we haven’t fully addressed so the plate is full.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:53 pmActually, I’ll go to the Ron White bit on gay. I am willing to bet LLAP fits it.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:56 pmHoodathunk Says:
one question for live longandprosper…are you a vet?
No Hoodathunk. I have two dogs but couldn’t tell you what’s wrong with them when their sick. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
I am not a vet. I am Canadian and in the 70’s I was in Air Cadets. I got to go down to Grand Forks on a trip once and went inside a missle silo. Also got to wander around a B52 – pretty tight in there so not much wandering. Also got my pilots license through Air Cadets – alas it was too expensive to keep it up.
Hoodathunk, I am generally a pacifist but I understand that human nature demands that pacifism won’t protect you from the war monger. I greatly appreciate the job that some are willing to do that would be too hard for me (mentally and physically).
I hope my previous comment didn’t offend.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:56 pmHoodathunk Says:
no, I don’t need an answer because your post screams no. In 4 years of military service I was never once confronted with anything even close to your fears. And I knew of several who were gay or bi.
Keep your paranoia for what is under your bed. Or in that thing you call a mind.
Oh crap man. I was trying to be funny. Damn it, I failed again.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:57 pmS1 Says:
Meanwhile, to those of you who agree that this is a low priority issue, I would say: (1) Imagine yourself gay or lesbian and in the military or wanting to join — still think this is not important? and (2) Why the hell can’t this country ever do two things at once?
Yes, holding back economic disaster is critical. But does every one of the 300+ million people in America have to give all of his or her attention to that?
January 14th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
____________
All 300 million people? No. The country and the government is more than capable of doing two things at once.
The 24-hour corporate cable newsigarchy, however, is not. It is a one-issue-at-a-time bohemoth, and all it needs is one little nudge to thoroughly derail the public agenda from actual policy that affects the country to non-issues such as this. It’s exactly what happened in the first month of the Clinton administration. Someone made a comment about allowing gays to serve in the military, and the media frenzy that followed thoroughly derailed the administration from more important economic and social issues.
With all due respect to the gays and lesbians who are serving and suffering under the current policy, I must reiterate that it is a non-issue. Like gay marriage, it’s an issue manufactured by the radical right in order to fire up their homophobic base. I see nothing wrong with punting it down the field a bit.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:58 pmno offense LLAP. But if “you greatly appreciate the job that some are willing to do that would be too hard for me (mentally and physically).” then you might want to listen before you spew.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:00 pmHoodathunk – Bored? Need attention? It is sure showing.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:04 pmAfter skimming the thread where rhf melted down last night I just had to face the fool down with the facts….
sorry rhf Hillary is no more forward thinking on this than Obama and it would be manly of you to apologize to all you offended.
Clinton said that she favors civil unions, not same-sex marriage.
Now I love Hillary too and think she, just as Obama will do all she can to move this issue into the 21st century, but rhf’s hatred for Obama based on this issue alone disqualifies him from any discussions until he acknowledges that the two politicians are basically on the same page on this issue.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:04 pmthen you might want to listen before you spew.
Again I am sorry if I offended. My point was that things like “Are you gay?” isn’t something that, in my view, would come up as part of the everyday conversation in the Armed Forces. Then I pictured a Monty Python sketch with a completely gay division – and I laughed and shared.
Your statement “pardon my outrage but I never even cared. We did our job, bottom line.” is right on.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:06 pmPUMAs and other faux-dems love it when she triangulates and describes progressive issues from a conservative framework, hate it when Obama does the exact same thing.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:10 pmExactly, Reps aren’t the only people full of hate and low on facts.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:11 pmWhy is important, to people who are gay, that they must make it known to their military recruiters that they are?
It isn’t that they ‘must make it known’ but rather that they ‘must not’ let anyone know currently…
‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell’ kinda says it all…
So what is important to them is not that they have the right to announce their sexuality to their recruiters but that we stop pretending that their sexuality matters to their service at all.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:33 pm“Why is important, to people who are gay, that they must make it known to their military recruiters that they are?”
Being honest and open is a step in the direction towards knowledge, understanding, and acceptance. With knowledge and understanding, fear is handicapped.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:35 pmTracy – you’d think that’d be a no-brainer, eh? It shouldn’t make a single bit of difference whether a recruit is gay or not.
As it happens, it has always only been you idiotic bigoted wingnuts who are so obsessed with gayness in the first place – you’re the ones who always make it a big effing deal, with your Prop. 8’s, your Huckabees, etc. etc. etc. ad-freaking- nauseum.
It shouldn’t be any sort of consideration to service in the military at all…but when the simple fact of being gay can ruin your entire career – the stakes go waaaaay up.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:48 pmLLAP, if I misunderstood your original post, my bad. Didn’t taste like snark tho. Your responses make me think differently. Anyone who knows Monty can’t be all bad. Gender preference ranks right up there with ethnicity when it comes to fox holes.
And Buckie? Go lay by your dish.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:54 pmlivelongandprosper Says:
Oh crap, could you imagine and all gay division!
Ironically, one of the first and only military forces to defeat the famous Spartans in open battle was the Theban Sacred Band at the Battle of Leuctra in 370 B.C. The Sacred Band was a hoplite phalanx of 5000 pairs of lovers. They were some of the finest troops Classical Greece ever produced. But I think their colors were Blue and Bronze, not pink as you suggest.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:19 pmThanks, Tracy 5, for perceiving the true problem.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:24 pmTracy__5 Says: “Acceptance means you don’t see anything morally wrong with it. Tolerance means that you don’t hold any animosity towards someone who engages in something you find morally wrong.”
Thank you for your definitions. I wasn’t making any statement regarding morality…
“You want to know if I’m moral enough to join the army and go kill men and women and children after being a litter bug?!!!!!
January 14th, 2009 at 6:32 pmArlo Guthrie: Alice’s Restaurant
Touche! Nevar, a classic.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:50 pmNo, Tracy, I’m not the bigot.
If you have the least bit of honesty in your wingnut soul (which may itself be an oxymoron), you must admit that over the last 8 years the vast majority of anti-gay rhetoric and hate-speech has come from the right…
And yes, perhaps I am bigoted – against wingnuts, that is. I’ll gladly admit that.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:51 pmBTW, that was a very feeble swipe, Tracy.
Tsk.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:53 pmOh no, referenced in two different threads. Old hippies are making a comeback!
January 14th, 2009 at 7:14 pmIf it’s not important to you, Tracy, why keep it illegal?
Your personal viewpoint of morality and tolerance doesn’t belong in any government policy.
It’s no longer 1995, it’s 2009. The GOP positions are no longer highlighted because they. don’t. work.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:30 pmWho was it who said “a President should be able to do more than one thing at a time?” I seem to recall somebody in the news said that last year…
.
Tracy__5 Says:
Why is important, to people who are gay, that they must make it known to their military recruiters that they are?
Fair question, actually.
It takes a bit of work to hide it. You have to kind of go out of your way. Most straight people don’t realize how often they make casual references to being straight. Example: “I went camping with my girlfriend this weekend. You?”
Everytime such conversations come up, closeted gays have to invent stories or find a way to change the subject without drawing attention to the fact that they’re changing the subject.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
There is a BIG difference between acceptance and tolerance. Acceptance means you don’t see anything morally wrong with it. Tolerance means that you don’t hold any animosity towards someone who engages in something you find morally wrong. I am the latter.
To have an opinion on something that you don’t do, and which victimizes no one else, is meaningless. I mean, literally meaningless, in the strictest word-analysis sense. It’s like me saying that I don’t like Cherry Garcia ice cream; I “tolerate” others who do, but I don’t “accept” them. No difference in any state of affairs follows form that policy. A careful analysis of all such statements demonstrates that they are nonsense, quite literally.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:43 pmOkay – I am trying to gain insight here, please bear with me.
I was talking this over with one of my wives. I was thinking, so, I gotta undress in front of a bunch of people. Some may be gay and checking me out. That doesn’t really bother me so long as they don’t touch me.
Then I am thinking, what if the military was completely desegregated by the sexes and male and female soldiers shared showers, tents, etc. If I am surrounded by disrobed women, I am definitely checking them out. At least I think I am, maybe chivalry would prevail, but maybe not. Okay, compromise, I am checking them out discreetly. Should they be bothered by that? I would never touch them against their will and it is banned under fraternization anyway, but I am looking at them.
Is there any validity to this comparison? Or is it totally bunk? I am seriously asking.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:52 pmRobert Gibbs is not a veteran, Barack Obama is not a veteran…treating the military like a corporation will turn the military into a corporation…just what we need, more Enrons, Sachs etc….if a man like girls like gay men like men, then I guess eventually, straight guys will sleep in co-ed tents and shower with the girls..bring it on!
January 14th, 2009 at 8:07 pmKeltoi at Night Says: “I am seriously asking.”
Good quandary.
Your hypothetical situation is so rife with sexual conundrums I doubt if you could ever find a simple solution, other than to shower one at a time, or entirely eliminate sexuality from the psyche.
Just curious, do you and your wives all shower together?
January 14th, 2009 at 8:13 pmNevar Says:
Your hypothetical situation is so rife with sexual conundrums I doubt if you could ever find a simple solution, other than to shower one at a time, or entirely eliminate sexuality from the psyche.
The first is logistically impossible, the second psychologically impossible.
Just curious, do you and your wives all shower together?
Just curious – you scamp! Nah, it isn’t that type of relationship. They are both hetero, and while we dabbled in the three way thing it never really did much for any of us.
Besides, my shower is not that big.
January 14th, 2009 at 8:25 pm“The first is logistically impossible, the second psychologically impossible.”
That was my point.
“Besides, my shower is not that big.”
I’m an accomplished plumber and tilesetter….
January 14th, 2009 at 8:29 pmNevar Says:
“Besides, my shower is not that big.”
I’m an accomplished plumber and tilesetter….
In all honesty, it isn’t the size of the shower. I am hopelessly dull when it comes to showers. They are for getting clean so you can do other fun things.
But back to the conundrum: Does the scenario hold water? (Rimshot!) If heterosexual men must shower with gay men who are looking at them sexually, is there a substantial difference there from unisex showers? I assume most women would be uncomfortable showering in front of guys. I also think most straight guys would be uncomfortable showering in front of gay guys, so it seems like a valid comparison…
January 14th, 2009 at 8:38 pmKeltoi at Night Says:
Okay, compromise, I am checking them out discreetly. Should they be bothered by that?
Nobody should be bothered by what might or might not be going on inside somebody else’s head, so long as it stays there.
It seems like most guys who are really worried about other guys checking them out aren’t nearly as good looking as they like to think they are. Guys who actually are good looking tend to be flattered. So it doesn’t really matter.
This seems similar to the sort of things that people always worry aloud about before genders or races are mixed in some way. However, none of those concerns ever become a problem afterwards. People get used to it and it never turns out to be a big deal.
.
powerful Says:
Robert Gibbs is not a veteran, Barack Obama is not a veteran…
Don Rumsfeld isn’t a veteran, George Bush isn’t a veteran… this has no relevance whatsoever. Civilian control of the military is a necessary foundation of stable democracy.
.
powerful Says:
treating the military like a corporation will turn the military into a corporation…just what we need, more Enrons, Sachs etc….
I really don’t understand what you’re talking about here. I don’t think anybody mentioned corporations.
.
powerful Says:
if a man like girls like gay men like men…
What is this, poetry?
January 14th, 2009 at 8:39 pmThanks for the positive feedback..after 30 years active duty and two years in corporate America, I can tell you this: corporations can afford to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly and I firmly support that…in fact, my current corporation will discipline anyone who discriminates. That’s appropriate. The military in not a corporation. At 5 PM, in deployed arenas, you don’t go home. You go to your quarters sharing sleeping areas and shower areas. As I said, if gay men get to share quarters and showers with other men, then straight men should be allowed to shower and sleep with the women. Gibbs said it best when he said, “not right away”…Obama won’t make the same mistake Clinton made in year one. He’ll get around to it in 2010 at the earliest. Oh yea, one clarification: George Bush is a veteran. Military serving civilian leadership is the bedrock of our Constitution and I defended that principle for 30 years. When you have equal stake in the issue, get back to me. Thanks
January 14th, 2009 at 8:53 pmKeltoi at Night Says: “But back to the conundrum: Does the scenario hold water?”
For someone who’s only interested in the shower for getting clean, you manage to create quite the scene…
You are perhaps making the assumption that a gay male is always looking at other males, which may or may not always be the case. I know that straight males are looking as well…
I’m certain that most women would be uncomfortable showering with men, I’ve had the experience of showering in a coed situation where I felt threatened…. those women would have ripped my member off if I had so much as looked higher than knee level.
I appreciate your willingness, for the sake of conversation, to make a big deal out of what for most people in an institutional environment would be something to get on and over with.
January 14th, 2009 at 8:54 pmAs I said, if gay men get to share quarters and showers with other men, then straight men should be allowed to shower and sleep with the women.”
So, by the same token, should straight women not have to sleep with gay women, and therefore be allowed to sleep with the men?
Pretzel logic.
The crux of the biscuit is that the foundation of the military is to channel sexual energy away from creativity, and towards murder and mayhem.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:06 pmPost #60 is directed towards “powerful”…
January 14th, 2009 at 9:07 pmnow what if I am bisexual. Where do I get to sleep?
January 14th, 2009 at 9:15 pmwith the enemy
January 14th, 2009 at 9:23 pmNevar Says:
So, by the same token, should straight women not have to sleep with gay women, and therefore be allowed to sleep with the men?
Well, Yes! But there is a double double twist in your pretzel here. First, women make up a small minority of military personel, especially in combat units where things are the toughest and the most intimate. Second, lets admit it, society has a totally different take on female homosexuality and male homosexuality. I’ll leave it at that.
The crux of the biscuit is that the foundation of the military is to channel sexual energy away from creativity, and towards murder and mayhem.
True, and insightful. But it is the military, after all. While they do all sorts of support tasks (and powerful, thank you for your service) the ability to inflict mayhem is job one.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:23 pmdbadass Says:
now what if I am bisexual. Where do I get to sleep?
Its determined by lottery.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:24 pmI suppose I’d better go with the eyes wide shut approach then….
January 14th, 2009 at 9:25 pmdbadass Says:
I suppose I’d better go with the eyes wide shut approach then….
Ag! Please don’t mention that film. I love Kubrik, but I wish that wasn’t his last movie. How do you make Nicole Kidman totally unsexy? More importantly, why do you make her that?
January 14th, 2009 at 9:34 pm“…the eyes wide shut approach”
Which brings us right back to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…
“Dang, it’s hard to shoot when this mask keeps slipping down!”
January 14th, 2009 at 9:36 pm“More importantly, why do you make her that?”
Tom got her the part….
January 14th, 2009 at 9:38 pmNevar Says:
——————————————————————————–
“More importantly, why do you make her that?”
Tom got her the part….
Ouch.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:43 pmLook, I’m active duty, and really don’t give a damn about the sexual preference of the person next to me. As long as they don’t push their agenda on other (same with religion), and do their job, hoorah to them.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:51 pmNow, I am married, so I wouldn’t be living in the dorms with these folks, and I think that’s where you may see a problem. A military dorn is something akin to a high school camp, and all it would take is a bad instance, and all the good intentions in the world could go out the window.
“A military dorn is something akin to a high school camp”
I was sort of afraid that might be the case.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:54 pmWell, it is filled with 18-21 YO folks, so it’s kinda expected. I would however, take this group of kids over any other in the world.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:09 pmHere is a question I pose to you all: Do you really think that, when the policy is repealed, gays and lesbians will flock to the recruiters office in droves, eager to join up? Seriously……
January 14th, 2009 at 10:13 pmIn my personal opinion, I see less than a percent increase in enlistments. And the folks that are in that are gay and lesbian aren’t gonna have a huge “coming out” moment at the next commanders call either. Nothing much will change. Again, my personal opinion.
Craig Mack Says:
Here is a question I pose to you all: Do you really think that, when the policy is repealed, gays and lesbians will flock to the recruiters office in droves, eager to join up? Seriously……
Well, to be honest, I associate testosterone with aggression. I think of gay men as having less of it than other men, and gay women as having more than other women. That being the case, I’d expect more lesbians than gay men to be interested in military service. Never been in, correct me if I am wrong. That being the case, and women, in my experience, being less prone to homophobia than men, maybe this issue is overblown from the standpoint of how many people it will actually affect. In other words, this is a question of political ideology more than practical reality.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:52 pmYeah, now everyone has an equal opportunity to die for their country!
January 14th, 2009 at 11:55 pmhttp://democralypsenow.blogspot.com/2009/01/homosexuals-may-soon-be-able-to-die-for.html
#71 – Craig Mack Says:
———————————————————
“A military dorn is something akin to a high school camp, and all it would take is a bad instance, and all the good intentions in the world could go out the window.”
January 14th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
You do make a good point. My entire time in the Army, not one of my roommates had a problem with me being gay. the only comment I got was “I just don’t want to walk in on you doing anything. . . .” I felt the exact same way about them. We decided that if we were going to bring anyone back to the room that we’d turn the name-tag on the door sideways to let the other know not to just barge in.
Our barracks had a maximum of 2 persons per room. Not the typical barracks you see in basic training where it’s one huge room with a line of bunks on each side. This was the duty station at Ft. Myer in Arlington VA. I was stationed at the Pentagon so Ft. Myer was the support base for most military personnel.
I did have a gay girl stay with me one night. We had mad, passionate sleep! My roommate told me later that she was really hot and told me how lucky I was, even though he knew she was gay!
January 15th, 2009 at 7:30 amNevar Says:
The crux of the biscuit is that the foundation of the military is to channel sexual energy away from creativity, and towards murder and mayhem.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
__________
Um, I thought the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe.
January 15th, 2009 at 9:20 amDemocrat Soldier Says:
Our barracks at Ft. Bragg had 2 to a room, as well. However, we were not allowed to have ANY over-night guests of any gender, and day guests had to sign in and out with CQ. I’m jealous.
I agree that any actual effects would be minimal. The MAIN effect, though, would be that the gay soldiers would not HAVE to hide their orientation and would not have to pretend to be someone they are not (that is to say: these soldiers would not be FORCED to continue to DECEIVE their fellow soldiers and officers). My recollection of the fellows serving with me would be that very few of them would care at all (and odds are pretty high that several men in my unit were gay, reflecting back on it…. kind of like how I never realized in my youth that Rob Halford was gay, but looking back at those early Priest videos — how could you NOT see it?!?!).
Showering: well, some barracks have individual stalls and NOT the shower-room. That is not a tall order. Several soldiers I served with refused to shower with anyone else in the shower room (and thus were pretty stinky after moring PT and through the day). Those were the likely homophobes.
As long as no one is touching you (nor touching themselves while staring at you), what does it matter? That is part of a general hang-up that is prevelant in the western world: shame over nakedness, and the assumption that nakedness equates only to sex. Time to grow up. If you can’t shower with a mixed grooup and not think about sex, then the rpoblem is in your head. if you can’t do the same and not touch someone, you have a serious disorder and need medical help.
Keltio: impressively reasonable posting. Are you feeling o.k.? I mean, how can you be the dissenting voice of opposition if you aren’t? :)
January 15th, 2009 at 9:31 am“Um, I thought the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe.”
“It doesn‘t, and you can‘t, I won‘t, and it don‘t
January 15th, 2009 at 11:29 amit hasn‘t, it isn‘t, it even ain‘t, and it shouldn‘t
it couldn‘t”…
#81 – glezzery Says:
———————————————————-
“The rest of the gay soldiers that just want to be soldiers and not be singled out as a victim group, will continue not to advertise it and get on with their lives, like most of you should!”
January 15th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
You’re ignoring the gay-only brigade will be safe for women as the men would not end up raping them.
Or, we could not even ask a soldiers sexual orientation, and soldiers could get on with their military lives like everyone else in America.
Interesting that you didn’t think of that aspect as you were trying to assert that gay soldiers must think of themselves as victims.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:37 pmWhy are you back here in the dark talking to your self Tracy?
January 15th, 2009 at 3:58 pmJust taking out the trash.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:17 pmYou know, this is one of the more mellow and respectful debates to occur around here. Props all around. Maybe that’s due to a lack of presence by lefty screamers like republicanshatefacts. But I like to think that’s because this issue is extremely close to being settled in most folks minds, and that while a few minor reservations exist, it’s nothing that isn’t extremely close to consensus, compared to many other more controversial issues.
.
powerful Says:
As I said, if gay men get to share quarters and showers with other men, then straight men should be allowed to shower and sleep with the women.
Maybe that’ll be the case in the long run. But you can’t be kicked out of the military for being male or female. That’s a difference.
.
powerful Says:
George Bush is a veteran.
Debatable.
.
powerful Says:
Military serving civilian leadership is the bedrock of our Constitution and I defended that principle for 30 years. When you have equal stake in the issue, get back to me. Thanks
So you get the whole military serving civilians thing, but you also believe that civilians should have no opinion on how the military functions. Cognitive dissasociate much?
.
Craig Mack Says:
Here is a question I pose to you all: Do you really think that, when the policy is repealed, gays and lesbians will flock to the recruiters office in droves, eager to join up? Seriously……
This isn’t about increasing enlistment. That’s not really the point. But of all the people who were discharged from the military for being gay since DADT was instantiated, how many of them do you think were bad soldiers? Can you really say that the military is better off with them gone? If not, then the policy is detrimental.
I’m not going to make an “equal rights” argument here, since the military is exempt from the same claim to rights that the rest of us have anyways. However, I will point out that at every stage in which we have integrated a new group into regular military service – racial minorities and women specifically – it has only made increased the effectiveness of the military. There’s no good reason to think that this would be any different. None of the reasons against that have been provided are any better than the reasons that were provided for integrating minorities and women.
.
Democrat Soldier Says:
My entire time in the Army, not one of my roommates had a problem with me being gay.
That’s a great personal anecdote, DS. Thanks for sharing.
.
glezzery Says:
I’m thinking, that if the policy changes, the military can id gays and transfer them to a separate brigade, perhaps with a rainbow patch.
Ooh, and we could put a yellow six-pointed-star patch on the Jews!
.
glezzery Says:
Then there could be a leather/fisting battalion.
Um, no. That’s just your imagination there. But you have fun with that. There are probably some vidios on the Interweb you could buy.
.
glezzery Says:
The rest of the gay soldiers that just want to be soldiers and not be singled out as a victim group, will continue not to advertise it and get on with their lives, like most of you should!
It’s not a question of advertisement; it’s a question of not having to go out of your way to hide it and lie to your fellow soldiers. Those soldiers would have to actively watch themselves to make sure they don’t mention it, or else they’d be transferred to the “patch” brigade.
But you know, maybe segregation would be a good start. Once the gay brigade achieved consistently better results than the straight one, we could talk about integrating them.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
Icecream? That your comparative example?
Yup. So-called “moral” judgements that don’t have any real-world consequences constitute nothing more than statements of personal preference. Just like ice cream.
.
Here’s the bottom line: troops serve, as ordered. If ordered to get used to it, that’s what they’ll do. I may be a civilian, but I afford our troops enough respect to assume that they will do as they are instructed. To believe anything less dishonors their spirit of service.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:44 pm