Comments on: Picking a Fight

By: David

David — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:31:03 +0000

Been reading this discussion with interest.

From a Canadian point of view (short form: wholly gender-integrated, all trades and services, and no restrictions by orientation), the heralding of impending disaster vis-a-vis scrapping DADT seems premature.

The CF has had no restrictions on homosexuality for a good few years, now, though I’m none too sure on the timeline – and there’s been no loss of Service capability or cohesion thanks to the presence of gays in uniform; or, for that matter, women in the combat arms, and in submarines.

Different overall national culture? Different Service culture(s)?

As to the loud and protest-y, rainbow-flag crowd, they’re unlikely to join, regardless… gay or straight, it’s a certain set of people that join the Armed Forces and serve their country.

And… just for the sake of discussion… imagine the troubles DADT and related policies would cause if the draft were ever re-activated, given the reduced or entirely removed stigma associated with homosexuality in the greater populace.

By: JKB

JKB — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:55:24 +0000

The long term consequence of openly serving gays is the removal of the separation of the sexes. Once gays are openly sharing living space with those they are sexually attracted to, how can you justify separating males and females? The whole purpose of separate berthing is to manage the sexual attraction. Bunks will be assigned by rank and position without regard to sex. Sexual interaction will be managed using current regs without the physical barriers.

Is America ready for this blending of the sexes? Once the military mixes berthing/facilities can the lawsuits for mixed college dorm roomates, lockerooms, etc. be far behind? Will Obama want his daughters assigned a male roommate when they go to university?

The alternative is to berth heterosexual males with heterosexual males, heterosexual females with heterosexual females, homosexual males with homosexual females and give the bisexuals are room by their self.

By: b2

b2 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:26:26 +0000

Curtis,

I meant AD for active duty, but I get your point.

By: Curtis

Curtis — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:07:24 +0000

Since the sub-drivers don’t want any girls on the boat I think it’s only fair that all the gays should be detailed subs.
I love B2′s comment, “I’m just happy I ain’t on AD” since that brings to mind the old fleet days when all the girls were piled on the ADs and the red blooded sailor-men really wanted to go serve on tenders with the tender personnel. (the category of red blooded sailor referred to above was mostly made up of E-4 and below since no sane person of any rank or experience wanted to serve on a Destroyer tender (AD)).

By: Justthisguy

Justthisguy — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:36:12 +0000

Umm,”And got caught” goes after “…acted upon them”, and before “The UCMJ…”

Sorry.

By: Justthisguy

Justthisguy — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:30:55 +0000

If you ask me, the rot set in with the twentieth century and the psychologists. Buncha pwogwessives. The Articles of War did not look into a soldier or sailor’s mind, to see if he had homo tendencies, it just punished him if he acted upon them. The UCMJ criminalized mental tendencies.

And got caught.