OT: Gay Marriage

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
As to Brian’s point…it’s not about fearing that the one gay man is attracted to you. It’s about the potential for sexual harassment. It’s a fact that living together in close quarters changes the nature of relationships, and the opportunity for problems increases.
[/quote]

There are already rules against fraternization in the military.

I might agree with you if we were the first country in the world to integrate gays into the military.

But other countries have done so successfully. Israel, a conservative religious society, allows gays to serve openly.

We used to lead the world in social progress. We now lag.[/quote]

yeah, we need to make our military environmentally friendly as well. Solar power tanks and missiles that don’t pollute!

Silly me, I think social progress would include disbanding the military, not making it gay friendly.

[NotCranky]

[quote=afx114][quote=Russell]More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?[/quote]

This is an interesting question. Quantity or quality? Going the other way, we are in dire need of Arabic translators, yet there have been documented cases of dismissals of gay translators because of DADT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html). How is it pragmatic to dismiss badly needed skills because the other soldiers sensibilities were threatened?

Going back to Dan’s point, who decides which sensibilities are ok to use as a basis for dismissal and which sensibilities aren’t? I personally would have no problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with gay soldiers. I personally would have a problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with bible thumbing apocalyptic end-of-timers. Especially if they listen to Nickleback.

Does DADT apply to Nickleback fans as well?[/quote]

AFX, Most of us, regardless of what part of the country we came from didn’t really have too much of a problem with it. The slackers/druggies and asshole officers, were much worse on morale, with a few exceptions.I was probably bad for morale because I hate authority and it often showed. This was the Navy and the prevalence/acceptance caused lots of jokes aimed at the branch of service, so it could have been different in other branches. I am sure some gays were targeted for violence or worse even in the Navy though.

In the case UCGAL mention,as far as scrutiny or even possible retaliation goes, there may be differences in how officers are handled vs. enlisted. That could account for it. I don’t think many people hide their orientation very well in such cramped conditions though.In the case brought up by UCGAL, even before the emails I am pretty sure EVERYONE knew. When I was enlisted one officer an ensign(lowest ranking navy officer) basically outed himself and was pretty much under a barrage of attacks or witch hunt leading to his dismissal or quitting, I am not sure which.He was gone very quickly. In our super cramped enlisted quarters one very”out” fairly specialized(expensive) electronics tech, went officially un-scrutinized for as long as I knew of him which was several years.He was kind of ostracized.I heard he died of aids at Balboa hospital. There were a few less obvious but known people, even some known(highly expected) to have trysts on the ship. Other departments were known to have a large percentage of homosexuals and it was just expected to be that way in those types of jobs (yeoman , hospital corpsman, food services). In fact in the lunch room, there was what everyone knew as the “gay table” and I bet that still exists on almost all ships. It was the only table you saw blacks and Mexicans, Filipinos and whites sitting together in something like demographically representative numbers.

[NotCranky]

[quote=afx114][quote=Russell]More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?[/quote]

This is an interesting question. Quantity or quality? Going the other way, we are in dire need of Arabic translators, yet there have been documented cases of dismissals of gay translators because of DADT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html). How is it pragmatic to dismiss badly needed skills because the other soldiers sensibilities were threatened?

Going back to Dan’s point, who decides which sensibilities are ok to use as a basis for dismissal and which sensibilities aren’t? I personally would have no problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with gay soldiers. I personally would have a problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with bible thumbing apocalyptic end-of-timers. Especially if they listen to Nickleback.

Does DADT apply to Nickleback fans as well?[/quote]

AFX, Most of us, regardless of what part of the country we came from didn’t really have too much of a problem with it. The slackers/druggies and asshole officers, were much worse on morale, with a few exceptions.I was probably bad for morale because I hate authority and it often showed. This was the Navy and the prevalence/acceptance caused lots of jokes aimed at the branch of service, so it could have been different in other branches. I am sure some gays were targeted for violence or worse even in the Navy though.

In the case UCGAL mention,as far as scrutiny or even possible retaliation goes, there may be differences in how officers are handled vs. enlisted. That could account for it. I don’t think many people hide their orientation very well in such cramped conditions though.In the case brought up by UCGAL, even before the emails I am pretty sure EVERYONE knew. When I was enlisted one officer an ensign(lowest ranking navy officer) basically outed himself and was pretty much under a barrage of attacks or witch hunt leading to his dismissal or quitting, I am not sure which.He was gone very quickly. In our super cramped enlisted quarters one very”out” fairly specialized(expensive) electronics tech, went officially un-scrutinized for as long as I knew of him which was several years.He was kind of ostracized.I heard he died of aids at Balboa hospital. There were a few less obvious but known people, even some known(highly expected) to have trysts on the ship. Other departments were known to have a large percentage of homosexuals and it was just expected to be that way in those types of jobs (yeoman , hospital corpsman, food services). In fact in the lunch room, there was what everyone knew as the “gay table” and I bet that still exists on almost all ships. It was the only table you saw blacks and Mexicans, Filipinos and whites sitting together in something like demographically representative numbers.

[NotCranky]

[quote=afx114][quote=Russell]More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?[/quote]

This is an interesting question. Quantity or quality? Going the other way, we are in dire need of Arabic translators, yet there have been documented cases of dismissals of gay translators because of DADT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html). How is it pragmatic to dismiss badly needed skills because the other soldiers sensibilities were threatened?

Going back to Dan’s point, who decides which sensibilities are ok to use as a basis for dismissal and which sensibilities aren’t? I personally would have no problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with gay soldiers. I personally would have a problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with bible thumbing apocalyptic end-of-timers. Especially if they listen to Nickleback.

Does DADT apply to Nickleback fans as well?[/quote]

AFX, Most of us, regardless of what part of the country we came from didn’t really have too much of a problem with it. The slackers/druggies and asshole officers, were much worse on morale, with a few exceptions.I was probably bad for morale because I hate authority and it often showed. This was the Navy and the prevalence/acceptance caused lots of jokes aimed at the branch of service, so it could have been different in other branches. I am sure some gays were targeted for violence or worse even in the Navy though.

In the case UCGAL mention,as far as scrutiny or even possible retaliation goes, there may be differences in how officers are handled vs. enlisted. That could account for it. I don’t think many people hide their orientation very well in such cramped conditions though.In the case brought up by UCGAL, even before the emails I am pretty sure EVERYONE knew. When I was enlisted one officer an ensign(lowest ranking navy officer) basically outed himself and was pretty much under a barrage of attacks or witch hunt leading to his dismissal or quitting, I am not sure which.He was gone very quickly. In our super cramped enlisted quarters one very”out” fairly specialized(expensive) electronics tech, went officially un-scrutinized for as long as I knew of him which was several years.He was kind of ostracized.I heard he died of aids at Balboa hospital. There were a few less obvious but known people, even some known(highly expected) to have trysts on the ship. Other departments were known to have a large percentage of homosexuals and it was just expected to be that way in those types of jobs (yeoman , hospital corpsman, food services). In fact in the lunch room, there was what everyone knew as the “gay table” and I bet that still exists on almost all ships. It was the only table you saw blacks and Mexicans, Filipinos and whites sitting together in something like demographically representative numbers.

[NotCranky]

[quote=afx114][quote=Russell]More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?[/quote]

This is an interesting question. Quantity or quality? Going the other way, we are in dire need of Arabic translators, yet there have been documented cases of dismissals of gay translators because of DADT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html). How is it pragmatic to dismiss badly needed skills because the other soldiers sensibilities were threatened?

Going back to Dan’s point, who decides which sensibilities are ok to use as a basis for dismissal and which sensibilities aren’t? I personally would have no problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with gay soldiers. I personally would have a problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with bible thumbing apocalyptic end-of-timers. Especially if they listen to Nickleback.

Does DADT apply to Nickleback fans as well?[/quote]

AFX, Most of us, regardless of what part of the country we came from didn’t really have too much of a problem with it. The slackers/druggies and asshole officers, were much worse on morale, with a few exceptions.I was probably bad for morale because I hate authority and it often showed. This was the Navy and the prevalence/acceptance caused lots of jokes aimed at the branch of service, so it could have been different in other branches. I am sure some gays were targeted for violence or worse even in the Navy though.

In the case UCGAL mention,as far as scrutiny or even possible retaliation goes, there may be differences in how officers are handled vs. enlisted. That could account for it. I don’t think many people hide their orientation very well in such cramped conditions though.In the case brought up by UCGAL, even before the emails I am pretty sure EVERYONE knew. When I was enlisted one officer an ensign(lowest ranking navy officer) basically outed himself and was pretty much under a barrage of attacks or witch hunt leading to his dismissal or quitting, I am not sure which.He was gone very quickly. In our super cramped enlisted quarters one very”out” fairly specialized(expensive) electronics tech, went officially un-scrutinized for as long as I knew of him which was several years.He was kind of ostracized.I heard he died of aids at Balboa hospital. There were a few less obvious but known people, even some known(highly expected) to have trysts on the ship. Other departments were known to have a large percentage of homosexuals and it was just expected to be that way in those types of jobs (yeoman , hospital corpsman, food services). In fact in the lunch room, there was what everyone knew as the “gay table” and I bet that still exists on almost all ships. It was the only table you saw blacks and Mexicans, Filipinos and whites sitting together in something like demographically representative numbers.

[NotCranky]

[quote=afx114][quote=Russell]More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?[/quote]

This is an interesting question. Quantity or quality? Going the other way, we are in dire need of Arabic translators, yet there have been documented cases of dismissals of gay translators because of DADT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html). How is it pragmatic to dismiss badly needed skills because the other soldiers sensibilities were threatened?

Going back to Dan’s point, who decides which sensibilities are ok to use as a basis for dismissal and which sensibilities aren’t? I personally would have no problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with gay soldiers. I personally would have a problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with bible thumbing apocalyptic end-of-timers. Especially if they listen to Nickleback.

Does DADT apply to Nickleback fans as well?[/quote]

AFX, Most of us, regardless of what part of the country we came from didn’t really have too much of a problem with it. The slackers/druggies and asshole officers, were much worse on morale, with a few exceptions.I was probably bad for morale because I hate authority and it often showed. This was the Navy and the prevalence/acceptance caused lots of jokes aimed at the branch of service, so it could have been different in other branches. I am sure some gays were targeted for violence or worse even in the Navy though.

In the case UCGAL mention,as far as scrutiny or even possible retaliation goes, there may be differences in how officers are handled vs. enlisted. That could account for it. I don’t think many people hide their orientation very well in such cramped conditions though.In the case brought up by UCGAL, even before the emails I am pretty sure EVERYONE knew. When I was enlisted one officer an ensign(lowest ranking navy officer) basically outed himself and was pretty much under a barrage of attacks or witch hunt leading to his dismissal or quitting, I am not sure which.He was gone very quickly. In our super cramped enlisted quarters one very”out” fairly specialized(expensive) electronics tech, went officially un-scrutinized for as long as I knew of him which was several years.He was kind of ostracized.I heard he died of aids at Balboa hospital. There were a few less obvious but known people, even some known(highly expected) to have trysts on the ship. Other departments were known to have a large percentage of homosexuals and it was just expected to be that way in those types of jobs (yeoman , hospital corpsman, food services). In fact in the lunch room, there was what everyone knew as the “gay table” and I bet that still exists on almost all ships. It was the only table you saw blacks and Mexicans, Filipinos and whites sitting together in something like demographically representative numbers.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

yeah, we need to make our military environmentally friendly as well. Solar power tanks and missiles that don’t pollute!

Silly me, I think social progress would include disbanding the military, not making it gay friendly.[/quote]

Don’t you think that last 100 years saw enormous social progress? Take that in the context of human history.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

yeah, we need to make our military environmentally friendly as well. Solar power tanks and missiles that don’t pollute!

Silly me, I think social progress would include disbanding the military, not making it gay friendly.[/quote]

Don’t you think that last 100 years saw enormous social progress? Take that in the context of human history.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

yeah, we need to make our military environmentally friendly as well. Solar power tanks and missiles that don’t pollute!

Silly me, I think social progress would include disbanding the military, not making it gay friendly.[/quote]

Don’t you think that last 100 years saw enormous social progress? Take that in the context of human history.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

yeah, we need to make our military environmentally friendly as well. Solar power tanks and missiles that don’t pollute!

Silly me, I think social progress would include disbanding the military, not making it gay friendly.[/quote]

Don’t you think that last 100 years saw enormous social progress? Take that in the context of human history.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

yeah, we need to make our military environmentally friendly as well. Solar power tanks and missiles that don’t pollute!

Silly me, I think social progress would include disbanding the military, not making it gay friendly.[/quote]

Don’t you think that last 100 years saw enormous social progress? Take that in the context of human history.

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
As to Brian’s point…it’s not about fearing that the one gay man is attracted to you. It’s about the potential for sexual harassment. It’s a fact that living together in close quarters changes the nature of relationships, and the opportunity for problems increases.
[/quote]

There are already rules against fraternization in the military.

I might agree with you if we were the first country in the world to integrate gays into the military.

But other countries have done so successfully. Israel, a conservative religious society, allows gays to serve openly.

We used to lead the world in social progress. We now lag.[/quote]

This was from the 1993 senate hearing on the topic. There is a paragraph that addresses the question of comparing the U.S. military policy to that of other countries. I think it is shallow, there is probably more to it from broader social engineering political warfare concerns …but it least it shows an actual influential person’s perspective. I doubt the “logic” has changed much.

http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/HomosexualityDebate.html

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
As to Brian’s point…it’s not about fearing that the one gay man is attracted to you. It’s about the potential for sexual harassment. It’s a fact that living together in close quarters changes the nature of relationships, and the opportunity for problems increases.
[/quote]

There are already rules against fraternization in the military.

I might agree with you if we were the first country in the world to integrate gays into the military.

But other countries have done so successfully. Israel, a conservative religious society, allows gays to serve openly.

We used to lead the world in social progress. We now lag.[/quote]

This was from the 1993 senate hearing on the topic. There is a paragraph that addresses the question of comparing the U.S. military policy to that of other countries. I think it is shallow, there is probably more to it from broader social engineering political warfare concerns …but it least it shows an actual influential person’s perspective. I doubt the “logic” has changed much.

http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/HomosexualityDebate.html

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
As to Brian’s point…it’s not about fearing that the one gay man is attracted to you. It’s about the potential for sexual harassment. It’s a fact that living together in close quarters changes the nature of relationships, and the opportunity for problems increases.
[/quote]

There are already rules against fraternization in the military.

I might agree with you if we were the first country in the world to integrate gays into the military.

But other countries have done so successfully. Israel, a conservative religious society, allows gays to serve openly.

We used to lead the world in social progress. We now lag.[/quote]

This was from the 1993 senate hearing on the topic. There is a paragraph that addresses the question of comparing the U.S. military policy to that of other countries. I think it is shallow, there is probably more to it from broader social engineering political warfare concerns …but it least it shows an actual influential person’s perspective. I doubt the “logic” has changed much.

http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/HomosexualityDebate.html

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
As to Brian’s point…it’s not about fearing that the one gay man is attracted to you. It’s about the potential for sexual harassment. It’s a fact that living together in close quarters changes the nature of relationships, and the opportunity for problems increases.
[/quote]

There are already rules against fraternization in the military.

I might agree with you if we were the first country in the world to integrate gays into the military.

But other countries have done so successfully. Israel, a conservative religious society, allows gays to serve openly.

We used to lead the world in social progress. We now lag.[/quote]

This was from the 1993 senate hearing on the topic. There is a paragraph that addresses the question of comparing the U.S. military policy to that of other countries. I think it is shallow, there is probably more to it from broader social engineering political warfare concerns …but it least it shows an actual influential person’s perspective. I doubt the “logic” has changed much.

http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/HomosexualityDebate.html

[Author]

Posts