By With two wars and the continuing modernization & transformation of the military going on, this is what Defense Secretary Robert Gates is busy doing:
Another military official familiar with the discussion said some of the issues to be considered include the cost of implementing a new policy, benefits for gay spouses, potential hate crimes, and even logistical questions such as the possible need to renovate barracks to separate straight and gay troops.
According to the official, the idea of separate housing or showers was not considered a serious possibility, but would be discussed in order to rule it out.
Previously, Gates has said the transition from the existing law should be done gradually and “very, very carefully.” [CNN]
I still maintain that the fact of the matter is that gays serving openly in the military won’t be an issue because they are serving already and most servicemember including myself don’t care. However, the real issue is what comes after they are allowed to serve openly and they begin to demand special treatment? That is when you will see this issue create tension in the ranks. Gays having their own barracks, showers, and hate crime protections is just the tip of the iceberg.
Also I can never say this enough, gays are no where near as discriminated against as overweight soldiers. Far more servicemembers are discharged for being overweight than those who are discharged for being gay. It is too bad overweight soldiers being discharged do not have a well funded and organized lobby groups to help them.
1:31 am on January 29th, 2010 1
At least it will cut down on the number of “homosexuals” who come out just before deployment regardless of actual orientation. They will have to hoof it down to Burger King and triple cheeburger their way out or get pregnant.
Reply
2:44 am on January 29th, 2010 2
This is a good thing.
Imagine the awkward moments it will save.
No more “accidentally” having to climb into your roommate’s bed nakeed when “drunk” just to… uh… test the waters.
Or, with luck, you can get a flaming little twink for a roommate… so when you don’t score at the juicy bar, or the dorm/barracks ho is booked solid for the night, you have a little something to go back to… just call ahead so he can get a skimpy dress, a wig and some lipstick ready.
Y’ain’t ghay if you are thinkin’ of a girl, are ya?
They say bein’ ghay is just a matter of which end of the diick you are on.
In fact, there probably ain’t nothin’ wrong with suckin’ a diick…
…as long as you don’t get all fagggoty about it.
None-the-less, this is going to be an amazing social experiment.
As a predominately-male environment, like prisons and boys’ schools, there is already a bit of situational hommosexuality in the military… and it’s going to be interesting to see if it (secretly (or openly)) gets a lot bigger… lots and lots bigger.
Unlike prison, where hommosexuality is dangerous, and boy’s schools, where it is unacceptable, the military will go to great lengths to insure there is no discrimination and guys are comfortable to let their orientation be known.
With acceptance, a very, very low rate of AIDS and all the known players out in the open, its going to be a nightly beer-fueled barebackking funkfest… like Melbourne in the 70s.
This little experiment is going to be talked about for a thousand years.
I wonder how many straight guys are going to get suckked into this lifestyle… so to speak.
Reply
January 29th, 2010 at 6:38 am
Hate to burst your bubble, but the United States isn’t the first country to allow gays to serve in the military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service#Countries_that_allow_homosexuals_to_serve_in_the_military
Reply
January 29th, 2010 at 7:22 am
I was going down the link—ahh, I was reading the link. Lots of heavy hitters there.
One had a (no touching) policy for all members—ahh, all individuals. That must be fun. What’s next, blinders? Sounds like a highly effective force.
But after experiencing the way females use the system, I have to agree with CH. I can hear them now. Females are very good at using the system, and I expect gays to be even better. The only excuse they will not have is that of being pregnant.
Reply
2:48 am on January 29th, 2010 3
“This little experiment is going to be talked about for a thousand years”
Reply
4:01 am on January 29th, 2010 4
“However, the real issue is what comes after they are allowed to serve openly and they begin to demand special treatment? That is when you will see this issue create tension in the ranks. Gays having their own barracks, showers, and hate crime protections is just the tip of the iceberg.”
Could you please cite specific examples of large or national institutions that provide separate accommodations like housing or hygiene facilities for gays and lesbians?
Reply
January 29th, 2010 at 4:43 am
There aren’t any that I know of and that goes back to the issue of special treatment. They should not receive any special treatment compared to other soldiers and their own barracks, showers, etc. is special treatment.
Reply
January 29th, 2010 at 5:00 am
As I understand it, the “Gays In The Military” crowd are pushing for a UCMJ provision where lodging an unsuccessful sexual harassment complaint against a homosexual service member would be a UCMJ offense. I could see serious drama if something like that went on the books.
Reply
January 29th, 2010 at 6:32 am
Do you honestly believe it will be gays who feel uncomfortable in the shower room?
Fact, gays don’t want special treatment, they want equal rights.
Reply
January 29th, 2010 at 7:52 am
They have equal rights.
Their problem is that they want to be open about their sexual preference.
Well G-whiz, I’d like to go around in the girls locker room and tell them about MY sexual preference. But it really wouldn’t be a good idea would it.
I really don’t gave a damn if an individual is gay. It is often obvious if you know them. But I really don’t care to discuss the subject. I would like to look at a soldier and see a soldier.
With a soldiers needs and all that would include. With this added, I not only need to know his/her blood type, PT abiltiy, religious faith, married or single, swimmer or non-swimmer and so on. Now I need to know how many are gay.
On the UCMJ. If they want that provision, then the special treatment is already starting.
January 29th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
“Their problem is that they want to be open about their sexual preference.”
A right that they don’t have but heterosexuals do in the US military.
Besides, you’re trying to tell us they get all the same benefits? I find that hard to believe given they can’t reveal who their spouses are.
January 30th, 2010 at 9:49 am
Teadrinker, being “open” about your sexual preference in public is not a “right” for anyone. It is what you do with Like-minded friends.
Trust me, I don’t talk about my female adventures at the Family reunion, or with my distant Brother and his wife and college age kids.
But with my Like-minded Buddies it is expected.
I don’t get all the benefits that a married man does!
I can’t reveal that I believe marriage to be the highest form of Prostitution. Legally endorsed by the Government.
Why must EVERYTHING be revealed. (there is the issue)
Personally, I like the idea of gays getting married. Gay Divorce will be VERY entertaining. Why should only Hetersexuals get the “right” to go thru that legal pain. Who gets what if they are the same sex? “Gay Divorce Court” will be a major NBC hit! Jerry Springer should get started on it now!
It’ll make those fat rednecks beating on each other look like nothing.
January 29th, 2010 at 7:43 am
I have little doubt gay service members do not want special perks. But I think their advocates do. So why do gays need a special provision like this when there are already general provisions which would do the same thing? Also, why would their advocates want such a provision?
Reply
January 29th, 2010 at 4:52 am
So you oppose the lifting of “don’t ask, don’t tell” because you’re worried about “special treatment” like separate barracks and showers even though you cannot cite any established examples? ???
Reply
January 29th, 2010 at 5:59 am
I didn’t say I opposed lifting the policy I said I oppose special treatment which is what the Pentagon is looking at giving gays.
Reply
January 29th, 2010 at 6:33 am
You’re opposing something that isn’t.
8:29 am on January 29th, 2010 5
Well, this should help kill the ville.
Or will it?
Will the bars become filled with LadyBoys? Will Heteros have to do “package checks” before they buy a drink for the lady?
That’ll make the brothers happy. “Damn man, and she was fine too!” Well, what stopped ya? “Man that bitchee was a dude yo!” Where’s the club that has the real women in it?
But on the up side, Race-religion-womens rights will go to the back burner. The new deal and what will occupy the new effort will be making sure the gays get their special treatment.
Because we are all special, in our own special groups. The Platoon will be divided into these special groups. The Company will be divided into it’s special groups.
Oh, and the bars will be adding their LadyBoys. Can’t shut down the bars anymore bacause that would be anti-gay.
Oh yes. This will be fun to watch
Rome—here we come.
It’s all about division.
Reply
January 29th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Have you gone night-clubbing in any cosmopolitan city in the U.S. or around the world in the last 20 years?
Straights and gays have been able to self-segregate, find their own space, or tolerate each other successfully without the need for much government regulation or intervention.
Reply
January 29th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Like I said before, don’t expect to see a guy in a Speedo with sparklers in each hand rollerblading down the streets of Yongsan the moment “don’t ask, don’t tell” is lifted.
Reply
February 10th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Yeah, the buttock buccaneers we see in the news in San Fran and other homo spots are just propaganda from Bushitler.
This has nothing to do with equal rights- it’s merely another major cultural attack on a respected institution.
I say we ignore the fairies. We’re going to have to put up with their public azz banditry here pretty soon, but I think we should just say no to the kind of horse dung the political kommissars/EO nazis will be pushing at us…
Reply
3:02 pm on January 29th, 2010 6
Speaking of self-segregation, I’ll relate an observation and I hope there are some old-timers around to back me up on this.
There was a club in Songtan called the Hilltop, which was located where there is a fenced-in parking area next to what is the Join Us now. In 1980, it was well known as the lesbian bar. It wasn’t exclusive. Straight men and women could go there, but it was where the lesbians liked to hang out. A first timer visiting there may not notice but after a time you would.
When the lesbian groups came in, the Korean girls immediately recognized them and pushed tables together for them. If a Korean girl wanted to dance with one of the GI girls at the table, she would look to one of the head GI girls (butch/dyke or whatever they are called) to get a nod that it was OK. After some drinking, there was lap-dancing and heavy kissing with and among the GI women and some of the Korean.
If anyone cared to find out who was lesbian on base back then, you could visit that club on the weekend. But, apparently very few cared.
Even though homosexuality was technically a violation then, and in pre-Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell, even hearsay could be reported, few people seemed concerned about it.
GI women told me that they had established arraignments for the lesbians in the barracks. The female dorms had wings identified for lesbians. Apparently, they were able to work this out among themselves without the need for supervision. No one seemed to have issues with or complained about it. But, back then, I think women in the military had issues of more concern than accommodating the lesbians among them.
Reply
5:20 pm on January 29th, 2010 7
The Obama Administration is only doing this as a political payback to organizations that gave $$$ to his campaign. What’s best for the men and women in uniform is not even a factor.
From the outside it’s easy to say, ”Let everyone have sex with everyone else”, but inside the military there are legitimate reasons why everyone needs to maintain self control. Remember, too, that there are also plenty of rules against certain heterosexual activities that can cause many problems in the ranks.
Reply
January 29th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
“The Obama Administration is only doing this as a political payback to organizations that gave $$$ to his campaign.”
Yes, just as Republicans do.
Reply
January 29th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
So, you agree that it’s bad policy?
Reply
January 30th, 2010 at 9:51 am
No argument!
Reply
10:24 pm on January 29th, 2010 8
“However, the real issue is what comes after they are allowed to serve openly and they begin to demand special treatment?”
You ought not to discriminate against someone because you fear what undeserved rights she may demand after achieving what she deserves but currently has not.
“Also I can never say this enough, gays are no where near as discriminated against as overweight soldiers. Far more servicemembers are discharged for being overweight than those who are discharged for being gay. It is too bad overweight soldiers being discharged do not have a well funded and organized lobby groups to help them.”
Just because Bob is also being discriminated against does not mean you should continue to discriminate against Steve.
Reply
10:48 pm on January 29th, 2010 9
I’ve posted this before, but really, there is nothing new. So 3peat:
How will you and other leaders feel when you are encouraged (command directed) to attend festivities for “Gay Pride Month?” Perhaps you might even have the ‘opportunity’ to give a speech detailing how these fine folks are ‘great assets to our national defense’ (having contributed so much) and how we should all emulate them. Perhaps you may even be able to opine on how their gayness directly contributes to mission readiness. You might get really lucky and AFN will broadcast your remarks for the entire world, including your family, to see. Tell me you cannot image such a scenario. Tell me it does not make you cringe about.
How will you react when you go to the PX with a big banner overhead stating something along the lines of “AAFES Proudly Salutes Our Gay & Lesbian Soldiers!” As a soldier, man and (not sure, father?) how does that strike you?
Let’s face it, perhaps many societies are able to absorb these folks into their militaries precisely BECAUSE they do not celebrate their, er, specialness. Also, as you noted other countries, particularly Europeans, are generally more liberal than most Americans.
Finally, I guess I would not define myself so much as ‘anti-gay’ but rather ‘anti-all-the-other-stuff-that-will-go-with-allowing-this’. That’s the big problem.
Reply
10:27 pm on February 9th, 2010 10
Even though DADT is still on the books, maybe the word has gone out to un-enforce it, even retroactively.
It’s been reported that Lt. Dan Choi is back in uniform.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/09/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6191549.shtml
Reply