Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers: ‘Gays Can Serve…They Just Can’t Serve Openly’
Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers: ‘Gays Can Serve…They Just Can’t Serve Openly’
Yesterday in his speech to the Human Rights Campaign, President Obama pledged to “end” the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. That comment was the subject of a debate this morning on NBC’s Meet the Press. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) expressed his support for Obama’s position, but emphasized that it needs “buy-in from the military.” Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers struck a different note:
HOST: Do you have an opinion about whether it’s time?
MYERS: Well, I take some exception with what Senator Levin said because gays can serve in the military; they just can’t serve openly. And they do. And there’s lots of them. And we’re the beneficiary of all that.
Levin rolled his eyes after hearing Myers’ remark. Gen. Barry McCaffrey said “there’s no question it’s time to change the policy.” Asked for his thoughts, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) avoided making any clear statements. Watch it:
According to Myers, silent discrimination is totally acceptable in the military. He’s happy to be the “beneficiary” of the sacrifices of soldiers who have to hide their sexual orientation. As the Pentagon’s own journal — Joint Force Quarterly — explains, the current policy damages unit cohesion:
The law as it currently stands does not prohibit homosexuals from serving in the military as long as they keep it secret. This has led to an uncomfortable value disconnect as homosexuals serving, estimated to be over 65,000, must compromise personal integrity. Given the growing gap between social mores and the law, DADT may do damage to the very unit cohesion that it seeks to protect. Finally, it has placed commanders in a position where they are expected to know everything about their troops except this one aspect.
This current status quo of quiet discrimination is responsible for the dismissal of many qualified soldiers with critical skills. “By not allowing gay Americans to serve openly, we are imposing an artificial limit on the number of loyal Americans that our military can draw upon to fill its ranks,” writes Stephen Walt.
After Myers left his post in 2005, he was replaced by his deputy, Peter Pace, who opposed repealing DADT because he said homosexuality is “immoral.” The current Joint Chiefs chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen, has taken a different view, stating that the military is prepared to accept a change in policy.
My understanding of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was that if I kept quiet about my sexuality and didn't break any rules, I would face no punishment. I was wrong.Once I joined the Navy, I was tormented by my chief and fellow sailors, physically and emotionally, for being gay. The irony of "don't ask, don't tell" is that it protects bigots and punishes gays who comply. [...]
I told no one about what I was living through. I feared that reporting the abuse would lead to an investigation into my sexuality. My leaders and fellow sailors were punishing me for keeping my sexuality to myself, punishing me because I wouldn't "tell."
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Does this mean gays have to have the broom closet for a duty station?
October 11th, 2009 at 1:27 pmTo his credit what Myers is saying is far better than what the Pat Robertson’s of the world would say.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:29 pmDear Richard Meyers,
Bite me.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:31 pmMyers stance, (while sounding sort of wide legged and toe tapping) says a great deal about the military. Blowing things up and gunning things down is wonderful but thinking about sex makes them feel icky.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:31 pmAnybody who has trouble serving with gays doesn’t need to join the military. Case closed. End of story.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:32 pmAs I noted a few minutes ago on a TP thread related to this topic;
The proper question is not, “Should gays be allowed to serve in the military?“.
The correct question to ask our Congresscritters, our President, our Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs is this, “Why are a pack of homophobic bigots allowed to dictate which citizens may and may not serve in OUR nation’s military services?“
October 11th, 2009 at 1:32 pmMeyer’s is quite the suck ass, just like when the shrub was president.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:33 pmAs an Army veteran, I can tell you it’s not exactly a secret to people serving that they are serving with gay people. It is openly talked about that there are gay and lesbian people serving, especially men talking about female soldiers.
From my experience, I do not think allowing a gay soldier to be open about who they are will change ANYTHING within the ranks. There will likely be some cases of hate crimes (just like there are incidents of violence against female soldiers), but these can be dealt with.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:35 pmFormer Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers: ‘Gays Can Serve…They Just Can’t Serve Openly’
– - The former JCC Myers has about as much relevance as the former Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:37 pmWe’re struggling enough as it is with women in teh military! Don’t further divert mission effectiveness with TEH GAY!!!!!!!
October 11th, 2009 at 1:56 pmMyers is the enduring Rumsfeld parrot. People in the military are attracted to a loyal chairborne ranger.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:57 pmMyers needs a history lesson. The military was against integration for many of the same reasons. But Roosevelt forced the issue because “it was time” to do it. Much like now.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:58 pmThey already serve, and you enjoy the fruits of their service by sitting your fat ass in front of my computer, troll. Go home.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:09 pmWith the way the foreign policy of this country is run, why would anyone want to serve?
October 11th, 2009 at 2:09 pmWe don’t want murphis to serve. anything. really. we want murphis to go away. really.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:11 pmMurphis says:
Tell that to the Spartans… idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece
What a surprise!
October 11th, 2009 at 2:16 pmShutup you babbling idiot. I’m not putting you on the clock for a single penny. Go to hell.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:20 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
What is so infuriating is if on the battlefield and a straight soldier needs help and the gay soldier is there for him/her, the straight soldier doesn’t care at that particular moment if his comrade is gay or straight! This point should be driven home when our soldiers are in basic training. Soldiers are soldiers no matter who or what they are. Period.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:23 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers: ‘Gays Can Serve…They Just Can’t Serve Openly’
– - So, gays can serve in the closet, just not in a foxhole.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:27 pmKinda hard to fight the Taliban when the American Taliban keeps infiltrating the Joint Chiefs eh Myers? Can’t wait for the God Squad to get sifted out of the officer corps.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:28 pmFrom the headline:
They can serve OPENLY if d|ckheads like this did NOT have a CLOSED, PHUCKED UP MIND!
October 11th, 2009 at 2:29 pmbackup says: … I think what’s happened is that our leadership has looked into what it would cost to provide private facilities for our military (individual showers vs. communal showers, separate billets vs. communal billets); and decided that it’s cheaper to maintain the status quo (don’t ask, don’t tell) than to address the forced intimacy issues with individual facilities. … October 11th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
You might think, but you might think wrong, backup. I served on an aircraft carrier for a few years and while, for instance, there are communal shower areas, the showers are partitioned into individual stalls. The berthing spaces (billets for landlubbers) can have space for a lot of people to bunk, but each bunk is partitioned. Outside of boot camp and the war zones, my understanding (having a few young relatives in the services) is that open barracks aren’t as common as they once were. Probably the worst places for loss of privacy comes in submarines, and even there, the “leadership” is considering allowing women to serve on board.
The problem is not the gays who want to serve, the problem is the bigots who can’t handle it.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:33 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
From Faiz opening paragraph;
HOST: Do you have an opinion about whether it’s time?
MYERS: Well, I take some exception with what Senator Levin said because gays can serve in the military; they just can’t serve openly. And they do. And there’s lots of them. And we’re the beneficiary of all that.
Oh, I see. It’s not just that we want to use bigotry to set policy, we want to encourage dishonesty and lying in our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. That makes perfect sense; kind of a Bush/Cheney policy, eh?
October 11th, 2009 at 2:39 pm….gays can serve in the military; they just can’t serve openly. And they do. And there’s lots of them. And we’re the beneficiary of all that.
What a hypocrite this guy is. He says gays can serve and we all benefit from their service. Then why should they be forced to hide who they really are?
October 11th, 2009 at 2:39 pmBrianFL says:
You seem to be missing the point. It isn’t so much whether hate crimes and victimization of people perceived to be homosexual will occur. Sadly, nothing will change that. The point is that, among other tragic consequences, the mere reporting of such abuse by the victim is tantamount under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to “telling”. Victims of anti-gay persecution in the military are compelled by DADT to keep quiet about it and suffer, quite literally, in silence.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:41 pmbackup says:
KayinMaine. I don’t think most soldiers care about sharing a battlefield with people that are gay. But, I think if one soldier knows that another soldier is openly gay, that soldier may feel uncomfortable sharing a shower with the openly gay soldier.
And why would that be. Does that homophobic soldier really think that a gay soldier would want to hit on them? Believe it or not, gay people aren’t interested in hitting on heterosexuals any more than a heterosexual is interested in hitting on someone who they know is gay.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:47 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
pags2 says:
Truman did that, not Roosevelt.
There’s a really important distinction to be drawn between a racially segregated military and one which is nominally integrated but with an identifiable group within the military being constrained to conceal their identity.
I won’t add that the military is similarly constrained from ferreting out the identity of serving gays since the Don’t Ask provision of the law has been ignored right from the beginning.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:50 pm#23 Backedup,
You make it sound like, “I wash your back you wash mine”.
Is that how you think the soldiers shower, “TOGETHER”?
Imagine, they eat together, like on a date!
Imagine, they even sleep together!
Yep, typical…
… “OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND” mentality.
What, as long as you don’t know I’m gay, you don’t have to be faced with the ideas running through your mind of secret dates?
Sorry, you’re not my type, fella!
October 11th, 2009 at 2:51 pmWhy is it that the military in other countries have no problems with gays serving alongside heterosexuals. Just the US and a couple of other backwards countries have a problem.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:51 pmI never thought too much of Gen. Myers when I saw him standing next to Rumsfeld those many times. As a retired Naval Officer, I think this is one of the dumbest statements I have heard in a while.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:53 pmSlappyBastinado,
October 11th, 2009 at 2:54 pmThanks for standing up for teh gayz!
Care the same stance for teh womenz?
SlappyBastinado says:
Being Gay in the US military is one thing….being captured on the battle field by Al Qaeda being gay is quite another….might want to think this one through……
So what do you imagine slappy? Do you imagine AQ threatening the gay soldier with exposure if they don’t give up their secrets. Or do you think that gay soldiers are too “girlie” to keep their mouth shut when they are tortured? Personally I think that AQ would be less likely to get anything from a gay soldier than a heterosexual soldier. After all, gay soldiers have spent many years being forced to keep secrets.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:54 pmHumm…
October 11th, 2009 at 2:55 pm… Larry going BitBlt?
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
niether did Robin Hood and His Merry Men.
Isn’t Merry a synonym for gay?
October 11th, 2009 at 2:58 pmMurph, are you ever going to provide a complete thought for an opinion? Or do you pick up a hammer, hit a soft part of your skull, and write down whatever words spill out of your mouth?
October 11th, 2009 at 2:58 pmBilbo…..I just study and see what they do to there own……….
October 11th, 2009 at 2:58 pmpaleolib says:
As I recall, Meyers is USAF Ret. The Air Force is the service which has really been taken over by radical Christianists so I guess Myers’ position isn’t really a surprise.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:00 pmFraternities are about the gayest thing I can think of…
October 11th, 2009 at 3:01 pmBilbo. Come on. I was in the military for 10 years. In training, I showered daily with a dozen other men. I’m not homophobic, but I can use the experience to think about a hypothetical.
Imagine if the government wanted to save money by having one large communal shower, instead of a couple of showers segregated for men and women.
Now, imagine you telling a 20 year old female that her objections to showering with heterosexual males aren’t really valid. “Don’t worry about it”, you say, “They’re only interested in you if you’re interested in them.”
It doesn’t work. I agree with Virtual Pebble. Gay people should have every right that straight people have. Gay people should be able to openly serve in the military. But, because of intimacy issues, we need to ensure the facilities are private to respect the rights of everyone.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:01 pmbackup says:
I think if one soldier knows that another soldier is openly gay, that soldier may feel uncomfortable sharing a shower with the openly gay soldier.
– - I read a story in the NYT last week about soldiers in outposts in Afghanistan that haven’t washed clothes or showered since July 4, so that isn’t a problem.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:01 pmIMHO, it is Myers and Pace who don’t “fit in” anywhere. Neither one belongs near the military or anywhere else in a leadership position. Their attitude is why we are still hated by so many people around the world. These types are equal opportunity abusers of those they deem “unlike” themselves, and they are the prime reason Mr. Rocha’s fellow military members got away with abusing him, but he was the one who got punished by having to leave the Navy. When I read about people like these, as a Christian, I’m always left wondering, who made them God?
October 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pmgays can serve in the military; they just can’t serve openly.
In other words:
Gays can serve in the military no problems. They just have to bring a effing closet of lies with them everywhere to hide in whenever their secret dangerous gay identity risks being compromised so they arent exposing his/her fellow soldiers to hazardous gay stuff
October 11th, 2009 at 3:04 pmSo, backup, you are saying we need separate facilities for men, for women, for gay men, for gay women. How about we just work on the idea that people’s sex lives are their own and if you are curious, learn to ask in an appropriate manner.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:06 pmOh slappyBastardo,
I’d say that women are at more risk being captured by Al-CIA-Duh than a male(gay or straight). That’s all. No tokes thanks.
But you think teh gayz are more at risk. How odd.
I’d say that women are at greater risk, just due to social norms of the Taliban and al-CIA-Duh toward women. Pants, hair showing, face visible.
But you think differently. Care to explain?
If women are good enough to FIGHT al-CIA-Duh, why not (gay)men?
.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:07 pmbackup says:
Bilbo. Come on. I was in the military for 10 years. In training, I showered daily with a dozen other men.
Hate to tell you backup but the chances are the on occasion you DID shower with gay men – but, what a surprise, apparently they never hit on you! Probably weren’t interested in you.
You are attempting to reinforce the fallacy that gay men just cannot help themselves from hitting on every man they lay their eyes on. You sound very homophobic.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:07 pmMax. I support the right of gays to serve openly in the military.
I’ve served in the military and had to share communal showers. I didn’t have a problem with it. (To be honest, I wouldn’t have a problem showering in a communal shower with an openly gay guy; not my issue).
But, If I respect the objection of a female to shower with a male; I open my mind enough to respect the objection of someone that has an objection to showering with someone of the same sex that is openly gay.
My answer is to spend the money to ensure private facilities for our service members to overcome this objection. Not to force honorable homosexual service members to live a lie.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:08 pmlcdrrek says:
Right up there with Gen. Boykin’s, “We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this.”
October 11th, 2009 at 3:10 pmp.s.
Slappy,
Teh gayz want to stay and fight, too!
WHY WON’t YOU LET THEM?
October 11th, 2009 at 3:10 pmgays can serve in the military; they just can’t serve openly
Does this guy have any clue how stupid and self-contradictory he sounds?
.
backup says:
But, I think if one soldier knows that another soldier is openly gay, that soldier may feel uncomfortable sharing a shower with the openly gay soldier.
I don’t really care if they feel uncomfortable or not. Soldiers are supposed to do lots of uncomfortable things. It’s ridiculous to say that you can command someone to belly-crawl under razor wire with shots being fired overhead, and then balk at expecting them to share quarters with a homosexual. Who’s the real wimp in this scenario?
.
SlappyBastinado says:
Being Gay in the US military is one thing….being captured on the battle field by Al Qaeda being gay is quite another…
Again, this is cowardice talking. Either we’re too afraid of them to fight them, or we’re not.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:11 pmp.p.s.
Slappy,
Please address what al-Cia-Duh would do to a “LESBIAN”?
October 11th, 2009 at 3:11 pmRemember the old ‘Be all you can be’ slogan?
Now its, ‘Be what we want or else’
October 11th, 2009 at 3:15 pm“MYERS: Well, I take some exception with what Senator Levin said because gays can serve in the military; they just can’t serve openly. And they do. And there’s lots of them. And we’re the beneficiary of all that.”
That is certainly not a statement of equal rights. That is like saying to African-Americans [if there weren't the civil rights bill at all] that it is alright to eat at a restaurant as long as you sit in the back of the restaurant or sit in the back kitchen of the restaurant.
Like the fight for civil rights for African-Americans, equality for gays will be long and hard fight. Again, the President is fighting for the rights for gays and an end of discrimination but he cannot do this alone. As you can read Myers’ statement, equal rights for gays is still not accepted and his statement speaks volumes. And transgender rights is much more of a contraversial issue.
Amazing. Gay and lesbians are taxpayers in this country and pay their share as anyone else yet they are denied equal rights.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:15 pmGay people should have every right that straight people have. Gay people should be able to openly serve in the military. But, because of intimacy issues, we need to ensure the facilities are private to respect the rights of everyone.
That makes no sense. If a person has “intimacy” issues then it is irrelevant what sexual orientation the other people are because the person will always feel uncomfortable. A person who has hangups about nudity is still going to feel like he or she is being eyeballed by another person. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:16 pmIt is always the uptight, the repressed who whine about things like this. “I can’t take showers or work next to people because I have this severe problem of repressed sexuality that makes me want to pork anything soft and wet.”
October 11th, 2009 at 3:22 pmbruce….you the man….being captured by any of Obamas enemys at this time would not be good and I dont think being gay or a woman would help that much…..but I have good news….if you have the time and money you can enter the US military just about any gender or combination there of you would like and take your chances……good luck!
Max…..Please do your own research on this subject…I have no opinion…..do what you want…..
October 11th, 2009 at 3:22 pmpags2,
Suddenly, STRAIGHT MEN ARE CONCERNED ABOUT INTIMACY ISSUES?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL……
… ladies?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL….
October 11th, 2009 at 3:23 pmSlappy,
October 11th, 2009 at 3:25 pmBUT you DO have an opinion about teh gayz, NO?
ElBruce. I agree with you often. But, not on this.
I’ll think about it, but if we understand why women would want and expect privacy in some circumstances from men; we should understand why people may want similar privacy from homosexual peers of the same sex.
If a woman feels uncomfortable soaping up in a communal shower with another man, why would dismiss a similar objection from a man that’s uncomfortable soaping up in front of another man that has declared his preference for male sex partners?
The answer is to spend the money for private facilities, not for us to tell our servicemen and women to stop being wimps and suck it up.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:32 pmI would be more afraid to be left alone in a room with that psycho Jeffy Bovine (crazy legs) or Tammy Glenn Becker or Billdo than in a room filled with pink gun totting lesbians.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:39 pmImagine 50 years ago we decided to let women serve along side of men in the military.
Now, imagine those women expressing concerns about sharing communal showers or communal bittets with male soldiers.
What would we say? Toughen up, soldier. You’re in the Army now? Quit being so particular, these guys aren’t really into you? Who cares if these guys are checking you out a little, we do all kinds of uncomfortable things in the military?
Quit being such a wimp?
October 11th, 2009 at 3:40 pm“backup” is the word RePugniScums say to little naked boys just before they molest them in the butt.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:43 pmYeah, ’cause being captured on the battle field by Al Qeada being straight is such a picnic…
October 11th, 2009 at 3:44 pmYou go first jerk off.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:44 pmMyers has always sounded like an old queen to me, given his incredible lisp.
It’s high time to flush all this religious nonsense and bigotry down the toilet once and for all.
It has no place in civil society.
Our nation must be a nation of laws, not a nation controlled by evangelical nonsense and out-of-date baloney.
I always remind the holy rollers that Jesus spoke volumes on the evils of wealth and power. They always freak out, and then totally change the subject.
Why can’t the holy rollers actively and openly embrace the words and the examples of Jesus concerning wealth and privilege?
October 11th, 2009 at 3:45 pmpag2.
Imagine your 18 year old daughter wants to serve in the military.
She wants to serve, but doesn’t want to shower with males in the communal shower.
Should she forget about serving, if she has this ‘privacy hangup’? Should she suck it up, quit being a wimp and concede to the communal showers because that’s just how it is?
Or, should the government provide private facilities for her so she can serve her country while her rights and expectations of privacy are met?
October 11th, 2009 at 3:46 pm#69 backedup,
October 11th, 2009 at 3:47 pmThanks for the concern…
… PLEASE CITE WHERE OPENLY GAY SOLDIERS WANT THEIR PRIVACY FROM THEIR SAME SEX BUNKMATES?
And it’s time once again for b-cup’s favorite segment, “Let’s Pretend”. We can all play along at home, kiddies!
October 11th, 2009 at 3:47 pmShe wants to serve, but doesn’t want to shower with males in the communal shower.
Didn’t you admit that this issue had been addressed way, way back at post #28… pretty weak sauce, backup.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:49 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
I trained recruits at NTC. For the record, I knew several who were gay, and they did OK. This was back in the day–before DADT, and many were CO’s (conscientious objectors) who went on to finish their Navy tours.
One of the CO’s was a corpsman who went on to serve with the USMC in the first gulf war. He was and still is a brave man.
Don’t try to tell me that any man or woman who has the fortitude and patriotism to serve cannot serve. I know better.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:51 pmbackup, everybody pees. Considerate people bath. If there are those who get aroused by these things, I say it is them who have the problem. Everyone is responsible for their own ideas and if they can’t handle it, they should avoid situations that tempt their lustful thoughts.
Perversion is in the eye of the beholder.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:53 pm.
Dear Backedup,
Is your daughter a gay male?
.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:54 pmbelaccifer lacca. I agree. But, if you read back through the thread, there are those here that are promoting the idea that the privacy issues aren’t relevant between homosexuals and same sex peers.
I disagree with that.
If Virtual Pebble is correct and the privacy issues have been addressed, there is no good reason why homosexuals shouldn’t serve openly.
Let me ask you, do you think a heterosexual should be forced to share communal showers (or billets) with a homosexual?
October 11th, 2009 at 3:55 pm.
Dear backedup,
As a gay male, I can say that I do not have issues of privacy. If straight men want to watch, fine.
.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:57 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
As for the ‘communal shower’ argument: For women on ship it’s a matter of timing–arranging for female sailors to use the facilities at different times than the men. This will likely be the case aboard a submarine as it is aboard any other vessel.
As for gay men–well, like I said, I trained several, and none of them ever grabassed in the shower.
’nuff said.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:58 pmAt the rate of dismissal for ‘vital’ personnel [especially like the officer who was an interpreter in the middle east] on the whole, it seems that the ‘draft’ may have to be reinstated since there are simply not enough heterosexuals ‘willing’ to serve. I can’t understand this totally illogical rationale from the so-called racist uppity-ups in the military
October 11th, 2009 at 3:58 pmLet me ask you, do you think a heterosexual should be forced to share communal showers (or billets) with a homosexual?
Its a freaking shower! Are you really so pathetic that every time you see a naked person you think someone is going to have sex? Do you seriously think that if you walked into a shower room full of women you would be ravaged before you left?
October 11th, 2009 at 3:59 pm.
p.s.
Backedup,
… And if straight men can not control their sexual desires and urges and lash out in condemnation of their own desires and beat me for being me, then I say THEIR PHOBIA dictated their behavior!
And THAT is what you’re going to bat for!
.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:59 pmHoodathunk and Max.
So, Why don’t have co-ed communal showers in the military today?
Because of sexually repressed idiots like you.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:00 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Hooda,
October 11th, 2009 at 4:04 pmI bet that backedup get’s constipated about the sleeping quarters, too!
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
.
Backedup,
Are you arguing that MEN, generally, are shy about their bodies in the company of other men?
Oh, I get it, you respect the problem, the problem you don’t have with it…
… But we can keep pretending.
.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:07 pm.
BACKEDUP…
… WOMEN ARE NOT GAY MEN!
STOP EQUATING THE TWO!
.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:08 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Ha, Hooda,
Backedup said he’d do me in the shower…
… He’s just afraid of doing you.
I’d take it personally, if it were me.
But seeing that he’d do me in the shower…
… my backside that is.
BrokeBackedup style.
,
October 11th, 2009 at 4:12 pmThe only way this makes sense is if you are a pervert. So I guess you are a RePugniScum through and through.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:13 pmBackedup,
First let’s start from a place of common agreement…
… For you to speak for gays, are you, in anyway gay?
But for shits and giggles…
October 11th, 2009 at 4:14 pm… You watching me, in no way, affects HOW I DO MY JOB!
Hoodathunk. do you think women that would object to coed showers are sexually repressed?
No, I think they would be tired of having juvenile men drooling over them in their fantasies.
Put it this way, put one naked man in a communal shower with 20 women. Put a naked woman in a communal shower with 20 naked men.
Which one has the best odds of getting a shower and walking out unmolested?
October 11th, 2009 at 4:15 pmMax, I’d have no problem showering with backup, even scrubbing his back.
Pass the Tabasco sauce.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:17 pmFrom a purely epistemological point of view one must approach this subject with deference and scrupulous objectivity. But is that possible? I believe that, even in the chaos of unordered words, it is.
I once wrote “Do not use your best iron to make nails, do not use your best men to make soldiers” and I still believe that. The citizen soldier (be they gay or not) is an interesting concept but should we not consider at least the possibility of formal nurturing and instructions when they are younger and more malleable? It worked for gladiators (again gay or straight) why can’t it work with soldier/warriors as well?
backup your shower argument is an interesting one but moot. Observe nature. The donkey and the horse shower together and there is harmony. All is peaceful. Address this question; who will fight our wars? Who will be the tip of the spear? Gay or straight makes no matter, the right to cry “Victory” stands at the apex of our mission. Never forget that.
In the calgalum of sexual politics and identity agendas let us not lose our logic processes in the open confines of community showers. All who are about to kill and die in the service of the republic should share hygienic facilities together. Harmony of purpose, harmony of spirit, harmony of bravery and courage. Strength and honor.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:17 pmHooda,
October 11th, 2009 at 4:20 pmThe only sharing that dudes in BrokeBackedup Mountain ever did was with a girl. And I remind myself everyday that I am not a girl. He’s mine. ALL Mine! You find your own sponge boy!
backup-
If you’ve ever showered at a public gym you’ve showered with openly gay men.
If you’ve been in High School, you’ve probably showered with gay men.
If you’re issue is sexual harassment in any space… I agree, we should address each and every instance that arises… Whether the victim is male or female, gay or straight… whether the victim is male or female, gay or straight…
October 11th, 2009 at 4:23 pmBut to use the possibility of harassment to justify discrimination is pretty weak in my opinion.
Pliny,
October 11th, 2009 at 4:24 pmThanks.
.
5_finger-cheatos_Tracy = CRAZY LEGS?
well,
The hyperlinks on the ID say so.
.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pmPliny. I agree with this. I’m assuming the Virtual Pebble is correct and that most of the communal facilities are history.
Max and Hoodathunk. Peace. We are most likely on the same page. Gay people should be able to serve openly with pride.
Most importantly, we need gay people to serve.
and Hoodathunk: I’d wash your back, too. I’d rather shower with 25 naked women, but sometimes, a shower with 25 naked guys, is all you get.
If you can’t be with the one you want, love the one you’re with.
DADT is a relic. Let us do what it takes, so that our gay soldiers can serve with pride; openly.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:27 pmMax Anax junius -1 says:
faux trolls with names jacked from real trolls…
October 11th, 2009 at 4:28 pmbackup says:
pag2.
Imagine your 18 year old daughter wants to serve in the military.
She wants to serve, but doesn’t want to shower with males in the communal shower.
Hold on a minute. There is a difference between communal showers and coed showers. Communal showers are usually same sex but no privacy stalls. I am not advocating, nor are most of the people posting, the use of coed showers. Communal showers are not a big deal to most people. However, there are some people who have hangups about nudity. But that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. If you are self-conscious about nudity, it makes no difference who is doing the watching. Using sexual orientation is just a cop out for those people. I went to a high school that had not only communal showers but swimming in the nude and bathing suits were not allowed. You get over the hangup in time.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:28 pmbelaccifer,
October 11th, 2009 at 4:30 pmSo that’s how they maintain their credibility.
Classic tip-off that our troll was unable to understand the post.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:31 pmRalph… I’m pretty sure it’s a fake Crazy Legs, and the real one is fake enough already.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:32 pmb-cup is just amusing himself this afternoon, folks.
We’ve seen this act before.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:32 pmCrazy Legs:
October 11th, 2009 at 4:36 pmHow are you feeling today? Anxious much?
Does every hetero man fantasize about naked gay men raping them in the showers?
Is it a law of nature that hetero men turn into bottom fellatio experts if “exposed”
to naked gay men in a shower?
What’s with some of these holy roller trolls on this blog?
A few unresolved sexual issues?
October 11th, 2009 at 4:38 pmThanks for the heads-up, Belac. Name-jacking is not cool, even on trolls.
It’s not like they need our help to make them look foolish, anyway.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:40 pmAnyone know where bit is? He’s not usually one to miss a good “gay” thread…
October 11th, 2009 at 4:41 pmThe fake one seems to always hyperlink to a photo of our friend, RodanTrajanCrazyLegs, on every fake name they employ… the ‘Real’ Tracy__5 has a phobia of providing any links, as does the ‘real’ CrazyLegs… as you well know.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:43 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Thanks to the holy roller trolls, I have learned of the incredible sexual power that gay men have, in that their very nakedness in a shower can turn the most active hetero man into a total power bottom punk.
Awesome, repiggies.
Thanks for the “heads” up.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:44 pmAnyone know where bit is?
October 11th, 2009 at 4:49 pm—
I believe he may be testing his theory that a man can survive in a cetacean stomach….
If gays were allowed to serve openly in the military they would need to follow the same policys as the straits. Right now they do not need to follow those policys. As far as showering with lesbeins in the Army well I have done it and have been very uncomfortable doing it. I would not shower with a man that I am not in a relationship with so why should I shower with a lesbein? So if gays were to be allowed in the military we would need different accommodations for them. In the military your living quarters are seperated by sex no males and females are allowed to live together unless they are married. The military does not like to allow sexual harassment so they do everything they can to keep it from happening. Right now if you are strait and you have sex overseas it is an Feild Grade Article 15 or Court Marshel offence. I know male and female soldiers who have received a Feild Grade Article 15 with reduction in rank for just walking into the oppisit sexes room over seas. While we had same sex couples openly living together and sharing beds together. If President Obama allows gays to serve openly in the military then they need to follow the same rules as the rest of us!
October 11th, 2009 at 4:54 pmbackup says: and Hoodathunk: I’d wash your back, too. I’d rather shower with 25 naked women, but sometimes, a shower with 25 naked guys, is all you get.
You are missing the point. I went through 4 years of Naval service with both communal showers and sharing a bedroom with 60 guys and at no point did it ever occur to me that there was anything involved in it other than just that. And I know for a fact that there were gay guys in that mix. Funny thing was, in all those 4 years there was not a single incident reported of unwanted contact.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:54 pmpag2. Again, I think it’s moot, because those communal showers are less and less prevalent, but I’ll try to explain what I was thinking.
I believe why women would not want coed showers is because they believe that men in the same shower would look at the women naked as objects of sexual desire. For whatever reason, that is objectionable to the women.
I don’t share their objection, but it’s seems reasonable to me.
Considering the female objection to coed showers, it’s plausible to me that there would be males that would object to being naked in front of a homosexual male that might consider them an object of sexual desire.
Again, that wouldn’t bug me, but the objection is reasonable.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:56 pmbackup says: Or is homosexual dating just as complicated as it is for heterosexuals?
Only one way to find out. You might even be able to write a definitive book on your results.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:56 pm#123,
October 11th, 2009 at 5:01 pmDo you think that jelousy angle worked for Larry Graig and his wife? After all, HE. IS. NOT. GAY! NEVER. HAS. BEEN. GAY!
Hoodathunk.
I think the problem comes in with the awareness.
I could get a boob job and flesh colored tape and fake pubes to hide my junk. Sign up for the Army as a female and shower with all the women in my unit.
None of them would care. But a month into training, if I came out and acknowledged that I was actually a man, I imagine many of the women would protest.
Although I would be the very same person, they would then object to my presence in the shower.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:02 pmHooda,
October 11th, 2009 at 5:02 pmI see Backedup flipping a quarter ’bout now.
Yep, just as reasonable as would be the objection of being naked in front of a liberal. Or Rotarian. Or a Dodgers fan.
Totally plausible, and we should cater to all of those phobias in our military protocols.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:03 pmHow many times will he have to flip it before he gets the result he really wants?
October 11th, 2009 at 5:04 pm.
There goes Backedup…
… Playin’ let’s pretend.
.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:05 pmbackup-
Do you really believe that ANY gay man is so hard up that he has to JOIN the MILITARY to see any naked men?
Have you heard of the internet?
October 11th, 2009 at 5:06 pmI think you’re assuming the wrong conclusion.
The women would probably protest, but not because you’re a man — more because you’re a freak.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:06 pmMax, I think backup is just plain confused. And severely repressed. Counseling would help.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:06 pmWho said anything abouth jelousy I am just saying gays should be subject to the same laws as everyone else if they are allowed to serve openly. Right now they are not. Get rid of don’t ask don’t tell but put rules into place to protect others from unwanted attention or harassment.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:09 pmbackup, it sounds like you really need to get your ashes hauled and you are at a point where how and by whom is becoming less and less important.
Think about it. It might be why we have so many screwed up people.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:09 pmSoldierGurl,
October 11th, 2009 at 5:18 pmDoes that include HATE CRIMES against gays?
Yes- SoldierGurl, homosexuals should be subject to the same rule, the same respect and the same responsibility as everyone else who volunteers for the military.
No argument here, it’s Myers who is arguing for ’seperate but equal’ treatment…
October 11th, 2009 at 5:18 pmI don’t know if y’all missed it, but thousands marched in DC today in support of gay rights.
Of course, I heard from this one university that the actual count was about 2 million.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:21 pmralph,
Shhh…
… Barney said forgettabouit!
And so the media did.
.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:26 pmSoldierGurl. That’s exactly right.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:43 pmRalph, I heard it was 27 million. And that they had an orgy in the Reflecting Pool.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:46 pmbackup is waiting for the film at 11.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:47 pmralph. this isn’t correct.
Heterosexuals are sexually interested in people of the opposite sex. It makes sense that a heterosexual man in a shower of naked women would not be disinterested.
Homosexuals are sexually interested in people of the same sex. It makes sense to me that a homosexual man in a shower of naked men would also not be disinterested.
Being liberal, rotarian, or a dodger fan has no bearing on sexual interest.
Being heterosexual or homosexual by definition has bearing on sexual interest.
It is being the unwanted object of that sexual interest that is uncomfortable for heterosexual women that require privacy in certain circumstances. And makes the same sex peers of homosexuals requirement for similar privacy reasonable.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:10 pmIt is being the unwanted object of that sexual interest
Hello? You aren’t stupid enough to say that gays in the military are trying to seduce every straight person they see in the shower. The showers are a talking point.
No one, gay or straight, wants to be on the receiving end of unwanted advances. Last I heard, no one was saying teh gays were trying to seduce teh straights. The problem is in the pinheads who are afraid of something they have never been threatened by.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:17 pmMyers represents the thinking of the established military brass — they are dauntless in shooting, bombing, attacking and marching forward — except when it comes to homosexuality – then they are like frightened old women.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:21 pmWhatever does the brass think will happen when gays can serve openly in the military? Are they so uncertain of their own masculinity?
They didn’t want women in the military either.
Unfortunately, the congress is full of repugs and some dems who think the same — poorly thought out notions, irrational opinions, and fundamental christianity.
I find it ironic that the Repugs are terrified of a group even smaller than themselves.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:24 pmHoodathunk.
I assume you’re a man. I assume that if you were confronted with a situation in which you were in a military operation that required men and women to shower together in one shower, you could maintain your composure to respect the women in the shower, even though you are a heterosexual that would ordinarily be interested in them sexually.
I know that homosexuals are no different. They can also maintain their composure.
The point that I’m making is this: Even though you would maintain your composure, doesn’t it seem reasonable that some or most of the females would be uncomfortable with the situation?
If they were uncomfortable, would you think that the government should attempt to make accommodations to respect their privacy issues or simply tell them that the men are being responsible and they should just live with it?
October 11th, 2009 at 6:26 pmbackup, you know what they say about assume.
Your post proves it.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:30 pm.
Dear backedup,
Are you suggesting that STRAIGHT MEN are afraid of a wondering eye? A grabbit moment?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL…
Ladies?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL…
STRAIGHT MEN have been doing that for centuries!!!!!!!
.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:31 pmor simply tell them that the men are being responsible and they should just live with it?
Men have never been noted for acting responsibly when gonads are involved because somebody has been telling them for about 1500 years their gonads are more important than their brains.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:32 pmThe concept that men are more responsible than women ranks right up there with whites are smarter than blacks, Mexicans are all car thieves and Asians can’t do math. Gender and race have nothing to do with ability and everything to do with control mechanisms.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:35 pm.
Dear Backedup,
For you to even be believable, forget credulity(you lost that a long time ago) your argument is predicated on how STRAIGHT MEN operate.
Of course straight men grope, cattle call, taunt, make crude and suggestive remarks, crack sex jokes, and physically approach WOMEN this way. OFTEN!
Of course it’s logical to assume ALL men behave this way. YES?
Especially GAY men. YES?
They might treat STRAIGHT MEN the way STRAIGHT MEN treat women.
And we know how THAT castrates the STRAIGHT MALE EGO!!!
.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:37 pmhooda,
October 11th, 2009 at 6:39 pmFunny that STRAIGHT MEN FEAR teh GAY GAZE, NO?
OMG, for the first time ever I couldn’t read all the comments because of backup’s ludicrous assertions that being of the opposite sex is somehow equal to being of the opposite sexual orientation. I’m sorry, but if colleges allow it, the military should too.
The people who should be thrown out are the ones who are “uncomfortable” NOT the ones who are forced to lie about their lives.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:39 pmBackup, the beauty of the blogosphere is no one knows your age, your gender, your sexual preference. They don’t know your race or ethnic background.
They only know your words.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:42 pmbluesunflower says: The people who should be thrown out are the ones who are “uncomfortable” NOT the ones who are forced to lie about their lives.
But, but but, that would make sense.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:43 pmbluesunflower,
October 11th, 2009 at 6:44 pmbackedup is still making the argument:
THE DOG IS LIKE A CAT, BUT DIFFERENT!
You weren’t talking about being “disinterested”. You were talking about the discomfort of someone whose appearance may draw interest.
Such discomfort, in the absence of any outward action, is no more reasonable than any of the discomforts I mentioned in comparison.
Personally, I really don’t give a rat’s ass whether someone sees me in the shower or not, whether it’s a straight woman or a gay man. I got over that phobia many years ago. If that someone gets an eyeful and likes what they see, what does it matter to me, as long as there’s no untoward approach?
October 11th, 2009 at 6:44 pmThere are plenty of women that I have no interest in, not because of their sex but because I find them obnoxious or ditzy. Schlafly, for one, comes to mind. Another is the Spears of this world.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:49 pmAs bluesunflower says, wouldn’t it make more sense to take out the people who are having the problem? The idea is fairly irrational and I don’t know that I would want to trust their thinking processes.
If someone is afraid of dogs, do you get rid of all the dogs?
October 11th, 2009 at 6:50 pmIn the real world, homophobia is recognized as an illness.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:53 pm@ 110. pags2 says: … Hold on a minute. There is a difference between communal showers and coed showers. Communal showers are usually same sex but no privacy stalls. … October 11th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Excellent point, pags2. I think backup has made unwarranted assumptions about what I meant. My particular ship, and very probably most surface combatants, aircraft carriers, and the larger logistics ships built since the late 1950s have separate showers and heads (latrines for you doggies and civilians). There are frequently more than two showers and a like number of wash basins in a shower, but the showers have privacy walls between them; ditto for the commodes in a head.
I doubt that the privacy walls’n’stalls were put in for modesty or because sailors are a pack of puny little weenies with nudity issues, regardless of the ‘feelings’ or physique of any particular sailor. If there was any consideration other than trying to make the ship as comfortable for its inhabitants as possible without impairing combat or mission efficiency, it was probably to reduce bullying and grabass.
Some people will always be obnoxious, so reducing their opportunities is usually a good idea. Aboard ship, it really becomes more than just a good idea. Its not just the occasional incident where some young sailor in a communal shower, rather than a privacy shower, drops his bar of soap and finds out that the sailor next to him is ol’ Ben Dover. It’s the continued incidents when you’re out on patrol or an exercise for a couple of weeks or a couple of months and there’s some bastard who’s always picking on one individual (or he picks on a couple of individuals, whatever); that kind of crap screws with work group morale and discipline and it just spreads, so reducing the potential for harassment by physical means is useful.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:59 pmand backup, I am a resident observer of your culture from what you call Arcturus. We have a quad sexual society with links to several species that are intelligent but not bipedal sapient. Your difficulties in dealing with a bisexual society on a single planet should give me material for my dissertation which will increase the possibilities for me to make a divlerbian connection to one of our prime houses.
Or not.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:59 pmHooda,
October 11th, 2009 at 7:00 pmIn a Just world, ALL phobias receive coverage under Universal Care.
Max, in a just world, we recognize all phobias
And not let those afflicted to get into public office.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:04 pm@ 167. Hoodathunk says:
Max, in a just world, we recognize all phobias
And not let those afflicted to get into public office.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I like it better when it’s, “We recognize and celebrate all phobias.”
and
“And not let those afflicted get into public or pubic offices or orifices.”
Just sayin’, yanno.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:13 pmWell Hooda,
I’m not sure that that kind of test would pass Constitutional muster. You know, specifying which fear for example, could be a start, but from then on it gets rather dicey. Fear of closed spaces? Fear of heights? Fear of rats? Fear of Congress?
I say, let Democracy Ring and ring the bell, I will, when Members of Congress hang their colors! Let the People decide. I mean, how else did Obama get the Nobel?
I still think that treatment provides better solutions to ALL phobias, gay or straight.
:?
October 11th, 2009 at 7:17 pmWhat does backup suggest the military do with bisexuals?
October 11th, 2009 at 7:21 pmbluesunflower 56
Exactly. When Truman desegregated the military I am sure there were plenty of whites that werent “comfortable” serving with blacks. The commander and chief made a decision and the military got over it. Fast forward a few decades and a black became the head of the joint chiefs of staff
October 11th, 2009 at 7:23 pmpags2 says:
What does backup suggest the military do with bisexuals?
Send them to his house?
October 11th, 2009 at 7:23 pmVirtual Pebble and Max, I’m chuckling over both of your posts.
There is hope for us yet.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:26 pmand Eugene, I like these kinds of posts uch better than the angry ones. Just what is the difference between Harry and the blacks and today and the gays?
I vote nothing.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:30 pmFormer Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers: ‘Gays Can Serve…They Just Can’t Serve Openly’
Sort of like the Puerto Ricans who could wait tables and serve drinks in the O club?
October 11th, 2009 at 7:36 pmOr was it the Phillipinos? I can never keep those brown people straight.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:36 pmRE: Slappy Bastinado @ 33:
Well, now we know why Slappy never signed up.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:38 pmralph. I feel exactly as you do about it. But, should we project how we feel onto others?
If you feel that others should get over the phobia as you see it, should that apply to straight women that don’t want to be seen naked by straight men?
October 11th, 2009 at 7:42 pmYou are stupid AND a pervert.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:49 pmI think it is time to ask backup to change his name to weasel.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:54 pmI suggest the government spend the money to ensure the privacy of all the soldiers.
Separate shower stalls. Some form of privacy wall for billets.
Gays have a right to serve openly. If their open service causes privacy concerns of those that don’t want to be viewed nude by someone that may consider them an object of sexual desire, the government should address those concerns with more private facilities.
We shouldn’t insist on the rights of the one while we dismiss the rights of the other.
Is the privacy afforded by gender segregated showers and billets also unnecessary?
October 11th, 2009 at 7:54 pmGeneral Myers always gave me the impression that he was beyond his depth as CJCS. Either that or he came to work on a special bus. He must have been terribly afraid of Rumsfeld to stand beside him at all those press conferences and utter such banalities and inanities. What a disgrace to the armed services.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:58 pmWe shouldn’t insist on the rights of the one while we dismiss the rights of the other.
I guess you missed the equal rights idea, right weasel?
October 11th, 2009 at 7:58 pmThink about it, if you make an exception for one group, you have to make them for all. Equal means Equal. Get used to the idea.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:06 pmBackup that is ridiculous
There IS no right not to feel uncomfortable because someone else is pursuing the right to have the career of their choosing. Your attempt at a point was utterly inane
October 11th, 2009 at 8:07 pmI’ll try it like this:
I’m Sgt Jane. I love my country. I am willing to serve, but I would object to using coed showers because I’m uncomfortable with the idea that a man in the shower may view my nude state and consider me an object of his sexual desire.
I’m Sgt John. I love my country. I am willing to serve, but I would object to using a communal shower with an openly gay man, because I’m uncomfortable with the idea that the openly gay man may view my nude state and consider me an object of his sexual desire.
Where am I wrong? Why is it plausible for Sgt Jane to be legitimately uncomfortable, but not Sgt John? Why do we respect her need for privacy, but not his?
October 11th, 2009 at 8:07 pmHoodathunk. how would private stalls and billets for all not be equal?
October 11th, 2009 at 8:08 pmAre you KIDDING ME? You are Sgt John you dont GET to tell the military they have to discriminate against people because YOU are a bigot. You dont get to demand the military deny OTHERS who love thier country the right to serve because of YOUR hangups. Sgt John has a choice. Get over it or choose another career
October 11th, 2009 at 8:10 pmWeasel, that one is easy. Both deserve to find a career outside the military and most likely in Antarctica. There is no place in a military for anyone who thinks they deserve special treatment due to their phobias.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:10 pmHoodathunk. how would private stalls and billets for all not be equal?
Yup, everyone in the military gets to bring along their private portapotty.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:12 pmFace it, weasel, if you can’t shower or crap with someone, why would you want to fight with them on your side?
October 11th, 2009 at 8:13 pmGen. Myers was the weakest Chairman of the Joint Chiefs I can remember in my lifetime. He was a rubber stamp for Rumsfeld rather than a leader looking out for the welfare of those under his command. He disgraced the position.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:25 pmMy apologies, backup. While the weasel thing may be warranted, it isn’t appropriate. You may be an obtuse, irritating thing but at least you are consistent and honest. My personal opinion is dumber than a box of rocks but…
October 11th, 2009 at 8:42 pmHoodathunk. It’s okay.
The good news is we both support gays openly serving in the military.
Additionally, as Virtual Pebble suggests, most of the communal showers and billets are history.
The point is probably moot.
I initially suggested that the only plausible reason for the military to drag it’s feet on DADT would be costs to address the idea of forced intimacy. I came up with the communal showers issue, because I’m familiar with it from my own service.
If these types of intimate circumstances have been addressed by providing more privacy, then we’re left will no good reason at all for the foot dragging.
DADT should be ended. Gays should be able to serve openly. And if privacy concerns arise from the new policy, we should work to alleviate those concerns.
October 11th, 2009 at 9:18 pmBecause what you’re trying to protect against is discomfort, not active offense.
As others have pointed out, people can be uncomfortable around all sorts of things,. Should we indulge each of those quirks?
Should we have segregated units so that people who are uncomfortable around other races could be spared having to deal with that unease? Or should we tell them to suck it up, be an adult, and if someone of the class actually causes offense, then we’ll deal with it.
October 11th, 2009 at 9:41 pmOh, Hood, b-cup is perfectly capable of weaseling. He’s one of the best, as a matter of.
He can on occasion be as consistent and honest as you have judged him on this thread, but that’s not an unalterable condition.
October 11th, 2009 at 9:43 pmThere is no even handedness in this rule. I have a friend in the Army and he says that philandering military are free to brag about their illicit relationships with the opposite sex. To me, this sort of thing is equally egregious as any gay person talking about their exploits. This stupid rule seems to protect men in the military against unwanted advances from other men but women in the military still are faced with overwhelming sexism. I would like to either have the military shut their mouths about public acknowledgment of homosexual relationships or have the disgusting behavior towards female recruits by male military or male recruits from women military given the same emphasis Then and only then would they have any moral stand to diss same sex relationships. Of course, women in the military appear to have no protection from their male counterparts at all. A real double standard for sure. So get real, General Meyers. Why all this doom and gloom about protecting men when you wink and nod at hits of female recruits by men or about hits by females on male recruits.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:47 pmralph. when you’re ready to advocate for coed showers in the military, I’ll concede that if women are willing to overcome their aversion to being nude in a shower with other men in the unit, that heterosexual men should overcome their aversion to being nude in a shower with openly homosexual men of the unit.
I would personally shower with homosexual men and heterosexual women (lesbian women, well, that goes without saying). But, that’s just me.
October 11th, 2009 at 11:16 pmWho really gives a flying phuck what FORMER Joint Chiefs Chairman and former Bush a$$ kisser, Richard Myers has to say about anything…?
October 11th, 2009 at 11:31 pmBackup keeps insisting there is some connection between coed showers and communal showers. There is not. We do not have coed bathrooms in most public places. Separation by sex is done on a daily basis. However, we do not have bathrooms and showers for straights and for gays, and for blacks, and for Latinos, and so on.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:55 amThe entire thread content on showers is excessive and verges on neurotic. From observation and experience, I’d say that straight males have the least to worry about when gays are allowed to serve openly. It’s gays who will have to worry, and that’s about the homophobic bigots who’ll do their damnedest to make life miserable. I would expect that the bigots who will try to make gay’s lives and service time a truly negatively memorable experience are the same arses who are still trying to make the lives of African-Americans and other minority folks as bad as it can be. They didn’t go away just because Harry Truman and every President since has supported the civil rights and desegregation of the Armed Forces.
And I’m not talking about Southerners. Bigots are just as multi-cultural as everyone else; they come from a broad range of cultures and hate a broad range of people. Ah, humanity.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:01 ampags2 and Virtual Pebble. The coed shower is only being used to make the point.
The point is that there is a plausible objection to being compelled to share intimate situations (bathing, restrooms, billets) between homosexuals and heterosexuals beyond just prejudice.
The response that we wouldn’t honor someone’s aversion to being in an intimate situation with someone of another race doesn’t apply, because race doesn’t have bearing on sexual preference. The plausible objection is pretty much identical to the objection that women would have if they were compelled to shower in coed showers.
It seems reasonable to me if someone is uncomfortable being the object of another’s sexual interest, that that person should not be forced into circumstances to be nude in front of the other.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:59 ambackup… no one is ‘forced’ to join the military.
It’s all volunteer.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:52 amI was watching C-Span’s Washington Journal yesterday morning on this subject. I don’t know why I watch this Saturday and Sunday mornings. I really like C-Span, but am dismayed by many of the callers. Anyway, one man called in and said that Blacks, Gays, and Jews just need to realize life isn’t fair and to just get over it. All I can say is wow.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:07 amagreed. But, you see how that argument could be used to dismiss any advocacy for the rights of military members.
Don’t like unsafe conditions, don’t join. Don’t like harassment, don’t join. Don’t like male chauvinism, don’t join. Don’t like institutionalize racism, don’t join. Etc.
The answer is not to ignore the objections, but to work to mitigate them.
We should fight for the rights for gays to serve openly. We should also address the privacy objections that arise from ending that prohibition.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:38 pmbackup…
Your argument has lost me.
If there is harrasment, it needs to be dealt with.
If there is male chauvinism, it needs to be dealt with.
As far as possible in a military environment, unsafe conditions need to be dealt with.
Institutionalized racism needs to be dealt with.
The possibility of someone being ‘uncomfortable’ in close quarters with an ‘openly gay’ soldier is something that that person needs to deal with, not the military.
If they are harassed it’s a different story, but simply being in the same space with an openly gay person is not harrasment, sorry.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:29 pmbackup says:
I’ll think about it, but if we understand why women would want and expect privacy in some circumstances from men; we should understand why people may want similar privacy from homosexual peers of the same sex.
If someone refuses to serve with homosexuals, then they can simply not join the military. It’s not incumbent on the rest of us to support and coddle their biases.
Besides, gays serve in the military right now. If that poor homophobic soldier that you’re so concerned about would have crippling issues knowing that someone else in the shower is gay, how much worse is it with him wondering who that person is?
You could make exactly the same argument for racially segregating the military. If a
As for your analogy, I could envision a military that required coed showering and restrooms between males and females. The reason we don’t do it now is that’s not the accepted social standard. In civilian society there is no “male/female/gay” division of restroom facilities. It would be ludicrous to establish such a thing just for our armed forces. We’d be a laughingstock to the whole world over such a thing.
Also, males actually do rape females, in the military as well as civilian society. It really does happen, on a fairly regular basis. But homosexuals do not rape straight guys. So your hypothetical homophobic soldier’s fears are unfounded, as compared to the hypothetical female soldier’s.
.
backup says:
The answer is to spend the money for private facilities, not for us to tell our servicemen and women to stop being wimps and suck it up.
I’d remind you that these people get paid to die if necessary. If someone can’t remain professional in the company of homosexuals, then they’ve got no business serving in the military. Other people trust their lives to that person’s ability to follow orders in a professional manner.
.
backup says:
agreed. But, you see how that argument could be used to dismiss any advocacy for the rights of military members.
Don’t like unsafe conditions, don’t join. Don’t like harassment, don’t join. Don’t like male chauvinism, don’t join. Don’t like institutionalize racism, don’t join. Etc.
What if you hate black people, demand to be nowhere near them and also demand the right to serve? I can use your argument to demand that the military do whatever I want, insisting that it conform to any prejudices I have. I can’t stand camoflage, and insist on wearing solid bright colors, and I also insist on my right to join the military, so the military has to conform to my personal demands. Obviously with hundreds of thousands of soldiers all havign different opinions, your approach would become a logistical nightmare, and probably lead to the most ineffective military establishment imaginable.
It works like this: what the society deems appropriate and ethical becomes the military code; the enlistee then conforms to the military code. Individual enlistees do not change the military which then changes society. You’ve got the causality exactly backwards.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:08 pmWaaaaa Waaaaaa Waaaaahhhhhhh!
Someone might look at me!
Try being a woman with big tits. I do not “hang them out” or emphasize them in any way. Still, EVERY FREAKIN TIME I buy gas, I get stared at.
I cannot believe what pussies some men are.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:09 pmI cannot believe what pussies some men are
Agreed, cat lady.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pmI am Liberal in many ways, but this brings up a lot of issues that people who have never served don’t usually think about. I would be happy to point them out(if someone hasn’t already) or sit back and watch the name calling.
The military is ALLOWED to discriminate on many issues, and I think DADT should stand as is.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:41 pmNevermind, after reading about 30 dif posts, the discussion on this topic looks like Faux Forum.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:47 pmMilAfterLife says:
Faux forum?
How so?
Please point out these ‘issues’…
October 12th, 2009 at 3:52 pmI find it fascinating that the sticking issue about gays in the military is the bathroom/shower thing.
I can’t believe that open showers in the military are any more of a problem than open showers in high school gym class. Gay and straight kids seem to be able to shower together there and it’s no big freaking deal (it’s actually a bigger deal when you’re a teen to have to get naked in front of ANYBODY, regardless of who or what they are).
Sharing a bathroom with a gay person of the same sex hardly seems all that scary, either. I have used many public restrooms — in shopping malls, airports, restaurants, rest stops, etc. — along with total strangers of my gender whose sexual orientation I didn’t know. It never bothered me.
Another point I’d like to make is that serving in the military doesn’t always guarantee a nice cushy stateside barracks experience where group showers are the biggest problem. It often involves serving out in the field, in a foreign country, living in tents, and surviving in foxholes. Under these conditions, both men and women, gay and straight, are usually more concerned with working together, protecting each other, and ensuring their survival than they are about “privacy issues”.
And one last thought. I’m a woman who has served in the military. I was a Photographer’s Mate in the Navy back in the 70’s. I endured being groped in many a darkroom by heterosexual men who believed my presence there was solely to serve as pleasure for them. And I’m supposed to get worked up about possibly being ogled by lesbian women in the shower??? Don’t make me laugh — I think I’m safer with them!
October 12th, 2009 at 4:21 pmBalaccifer, your own post #209 and the one above it make it seem like fox forum.
Earlier Backup explained the individual rights of military members, which is one issue.
Another issue is deployments, the DoD is HELLBENT NOW on keeping troops (that aren’t married to each other) from having sex.
New stricter DoD Sexual Assault and Harassment Policies basically allow prosecution on word of mouth, with ZERO retribution for false accusations. How the heck are they going to reshape this little policy?
And I am guessing (from past deployments) that there are more troops punished for having sex on deployments than are punished for being gay (overall). Don’t forget that a BJ is still illegal in the military also (even if married). Just ending DADT, doesn’t correct the UCMJ, and still leaves other problems..
There are also Morale issues, although they have been dismissed by other posters, that are real.
These may not be issues for EVERY vet, troop but they are legitimate. Whether some anon poster wants to hurl an insult or not.
The whole system needs to be changed in steps, not all at once. I also know that gays are in the military, I had a coworker who was, everybody knew, but only about 90 days before his DOS.
October 12th, 2009 at 4:26 pmThe whole system needs to be changed in steps, not all at once.
Right.
Except this is not ‘all at once,’ DADT has been in place over 15 years… explain how ending it is rushing things.
October 12th, 2009 at 4:32 pmIn addition, why are you sure that gay service members are more likely to have sex on deployment?
I find that hard to believe…
And the morale issues can be dismissed. As those other posters have noted, there were ‘morale issues’ with integrating the military.
We survived. And are stronger for it.
My agreement with Cat Lady is hardly Faux worthy, in my opinion.
October 12th, 2009 at 4:37 pmIMO keep DADT or phase it out, correcting the mistakes along the way.
DADT is the system in place, and it doesn’t matter if it was 15 or 300 years old, IMO if it is done away with, it should be phased out. The time the policy is in place doesn’t count toward ending the policy.
October 12th, 2009 at 4:42 pmOkay. The answer is get rid of it. That’s what we’re talking about… phasing it out.
October 12th, 2009 at 4:43 pmThe time the policy is in place doesn’t count toward ending the policy.
This makes no sense… DADT was the policy compromise to ease the military into openly gay soldiers… the time it’s been in place is EXACTLY why it needs to go now.
If the military isn’t ready for this after 15 years, how much longer is it going to take?
BTW, Obama hardly seems to be rushing this, so I don’s understand your objections there either…
October 12th, 2009 at 4:49 pmMilAfterLife says:
Earlier Backup explained the individual rights of military members, which is one issue.
Actually, he didn’t address the individual rights of the gay military members at all. Just a few homophobes, and frankly you don’t have the right to not know who else you’re showering with might be gay.
.
MilAfterLife says:
Another issue is deployments, the DoD is HELLBENT NOW on keeping troops (that aren’t married to each other) from having sex.
Are you stating that gay servicemembers would be incapable of controlling themselves? What is it about gays that makes them less professional than straights?
October 12th, 2009 at 5:59 pmbelaccifer lacca says:
In addition, why are you sure that gay service members are more likely to have sex on deployment?
I in no way implied that. Everybody gets lonely especially on long deployments. The system is currently set to prosecute unmarried troops that have sex in combat zones. That brings its on set of problems.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:35 pmI in no way implied that.
Then why bring it up in a discussion of DADT?
I agree, it may be a problem… why is leaving DADT in place the way to deal with it?
That makes no sense…
October 12th, 2009 at 6:36 pmElBruce says:
you don’t have the right to not know who else you’re showering with might be gay.
I never said that, can you read?
Are you stating that gay servicemembers would be incapable of controlling themselves? What is it about gays that makes them less professional than straights?
Are you an idiot? Once again you show just how bad your reading comprehension is. Nothing was ever implied/said that gays can’t control themselves. Everybody gets lonely and eventually wants release.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:40 pmWell, MilAfterLife…
Fine… you didn’t say or imply any of those things…
What are your reasons for keeping DADT then?
Why bring those up as ‘issues’ if they are unrelated to DADT?
October 12th, 2009 at 6:43 pmbelaccifer lacca says:
Then why bring it up in a discussion of DADT?
I agree, it may be a problem… why is leaving DADT in place the way to deal with it?
That makes no sense…
The system is broken for a very small %. If you are trying to be fair to that minority, then take the time and work out some of the problems (one big one I believe is UCMJ article 119) that they will face in phases (DoD Policy) or leave DADT in place.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:45 pmI off to a new topic, C-ya
October 12th, 2009 at 6:47 pmThe system is broken for a very small %.
How can you be sure of this?
The entire system at the moment is dependent on NOT knowing how many service members are gay…
DADT is broken, why not fix it?
Your ‘other stuff is broken too, so leave it till we fix that stuff’ argument is not compelling, in my view.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:47 pmOkay… ‘C-ya…’ Whatever.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:48 pmAnd I looked it up, MilAfterLife… I’m not sure why we need to change the UCMJ rules as they apply to manslaughter… that makes no sense either….
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl119.htm
October 12th, 2009 at 6:51 pmYour argument is crap, MAL… sorry. I don’t get it…
October 12th, 2009 at 6:54 pmbackup – women have more to worry about from men than whether or not some one is looking at them in the shower. How often have straight men been sexually abused, harassed, etc. by gay men?
MilAfterLife – since gay men and women are currently serving in the military, how will being able to admit they are gay cause new issues?
October 12th, 2009 at 7:51 pmMIA
I am sure there are morale problems, real ones. I am also sure there were morale problems with whites that didnt want to serve next to blacks. REAL ONES. Then Truman desegregated the military and the military got OVER IT. It is time for them to get over this. If they cant they can get out.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:00 pmMilAfterLife says:
you don’t have the right to not know who else you’re showering with might be gay.
I never said that, can you read?
Backup was talking about a straight servicemember who might be afraid of showering with gay servicemembers. Under DADT, one can assume that the straight servicemember is already showering with gay servicemembers, but doesn’t know who they are. Allowing gays in the military would only give that straight servicemember the information about which other servicemembers he’s showering with might be gay. All I said was that nobody has the right to not know that.
.
MilAfterLife says:
Are you an idiot? Once again you show just how bad your reading comprehension is. Nothing was ever implied/said that gays can’t control themselves. Everybody gets lonely and eventually wants release.
In order for DADT to be a relevant issue, there would have to be significantly more gay servicemembers losing control than straight servicemembers. If “everybody wants release” equally, then removing DADT wouldn’t affect the rate of incidence. By bringing that up as a relevant issue in supporting your opposition to DADT, you imply that gays have less control of themselves than straights.
It’s called logic. You can wiki it and everything.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:12 amAlright already. Let’s all agree we’ll never try to shower with backup or MilAfterLife. HeySeuss Crikey on a crutch…
October 13th, 2009 at 1:44 amOut of about 200 posters 7 are hate filled.
The rest have brains.
October 16th, 2009 at 3:28 pmAs long as West Point and the military academies around the country continue to produce homophobes (many of whom have “experimented” during their formative years)we will see little reflection of the wider society reflected in the armed forces. lazer epilasyon
October 17th, 2009 at 4:14 amThank you for your sharing.!
October 17th, 2009 at 11:18 am