The End of Don't Ask, Don't Tell- Your Thoughts?

[MSI64]

I work with an openly gay guy, His partner attends Mess functions and is an accepted part of the Military community. I have showered with this guy and do not feel its an invasion of my privacy.
I knew he was gay from the start (He announced on his Introduction to the Unit) and no one cares.
As for displays of affection they keep it to a minimum not because it offends anyone, but simply because its common courtesy. I would feel the same way if a straight member of our Mess was all over his wife in the bar.
Your sexuality should not be an issue within the Military whether you can do the job should be the issue. As for sexual assaults they are less common than you seem to think. The reason it becomes big news is because of the close knit community we live in.
You cannot compare Military live to any other career on the planet. The Military is a community of its own with its own strange traditions and history.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Abibi

You would have a point if I was saying that nudity leads to rape perhaps? Rather, even if YOU can master your own feelings it would be foolish to assert that everyone could and would. I guarantee you that a contributing reason to why men and women do normally shower separately. Because it eliminates the possibility completely and gives them a sense of privacy and peace.

Speaking for myself, when I'm naked in front of a group of people, I don't have "a sense of privacy and peace" regardless of the orientations of the people around me.

[MSI64]

Originally Posted by Abibi

You would have a point if I was saying that nudity leads to rape perhaps? Rather, even if YOU can master your own feelings it would be foolish to assert that everyone could and would. I guarantee you that a contributing reason to why men and women do normally shower separately. Because it eliminates the possibility completely and gives them a sense of privacy and peace.

So Lesbian on Lesbian rape never happens then???

[TheKnight]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

I think you guys are speculating about facts that have already been established.

Why do Americans always think every problem and situation is unique to them; that no-one's ever dealt with it before?
Rather than just speculating, why not look at the experience of those countries that already have openly gay people in the military?

Their experience can be useful to us, but the fact that our culture is different is a large part of why I, personally, don't put too much into it.

A lot those countries have equality for gays across the board. America does not. We have a federal law prohibiting their unions, we have majorities of the population voting down their unions. We have a culture in which gay is used as an insult, actions that might be considered homosexual in nature are insults, etc.

Perhaps this is true in other countries. However, in America is is very commonplace to have anti-homosexual attitudes or overtones. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that those aspects of our culture will affect our response to certain stimuli (like being around a gay person).

Originally Posted by Mestemia

Perhaps you can explain how learning someone you have taken multiple showers with is gay suddenly makes taking a shower with them an invasion of privacy?

I don't think Abibi has argued this. He's saying that in the same way that we don't allow females to shower with males, we should at least consider the same with gays and straights as the situation (as far as physical attraction) is the same.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by TheKnight

Their experience can be useful to us, but the fact that our culture is different is a large part of why I, personally, don't put too much into it.

A lot those countries have equality for gays across the board. America does not. We have a federal law prohibiting their unions, we have majorities of the population voting down their unions. We have a culture in which gay is used as an insult, actions that might be considered homosexual in nature are insults, etc.

Perhaps this is true in other countries. However, in America is is very commonplace to have anti-homosexual attitudes or overtones. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that those aspects of our culture will affect our response to certain stimuli (like being around a gay person).

Racism is common in America as well... and it was even more prevalent when the armed forces were integrated. The fact that poor attitudes are ingrained in society wasn't a good reason to continue inequality then, and it isn't a good reason now.

Originally Posted by TheKnight

I don't think Abibi has argued this. He's saying that in the same way that we don't allow females to shower with males, we should at least consider the same with gays and straights as the situation (as far as physical attraction) is the same.

But Abibi's argument is a red herring. Repeal of DADT isn't about allowing homosexual people to serve in the armed forces; they already do in large numbers. Repeal of DADT is only about allowing these homosexual members of the armed forces (which, to repeat, are already serving, living and even - horror of horrors - showering with heterosexual servicemen and servicewomen) to be open about the fact that they are homosexual.

The difference between pre- and post-repeal of DADT has nothing to do with whether a gay man might sneak a peek at your willie in the shower. The only thing it affects is whether you'll know if the guy sneaking a peek at your willie is straight or gay.



You know, to be perfectly frank, I find all this talk about showering concerns to be completely bizarre and missing the real issues at play. For an example of a real issue, consider this: the US armed forces has an astonishing number of support programs for family and spouses of servicemen and servicewomen, covering everything from rather run-of-the-mill (but important) social activities to suicide prevention programs for spouses, counseling for children of servicemen and servicewomen, and grief counselling for the survivors of soldiers killed in action. But with DADT in place, none of these programs are available to homosexual servicemen or women, or their partners.

That's the sort of thing that DADT is really about. If anyone really does think that the possibility that a gay man might get turned on in a group shower is more important than helping a child cope with the absence of his parent who's been deployed overseas or consoling the partner of a soldier who has died for his country, then shame on them.

And that goes double if they have one of those "support our troops" magnetic ribbons hypocritically stuck to their car.

[Gunfingers]

Well obviously if they're gay they're not really troops. *eyeroll*

I've got a lot of friends in the service, and as far as i know none of them even participate in communal showers. Where are these communal showers? Even most gyms i've been to have privacy curtains. ******' A.

[MSI64]

The only communal showers I have ever seen in my time is in the middle of the desert during Iraq and directly after Exercises.
I have to agree that this thing about showers is really a no brainer. There were/are bigger issues for the US armed forces to get there heads around.

[Duck]

Originally Posted by Gunfingers

Well obviously if they're gay they're not really troops. *eyeroll*

I've got a lot of friends in the service, and as far as i know none of them even participate in communal showers. Where are these communal showers? Even most gyms i've been to have privacy curtains. ******' A.

The only place I have seen communal showers was during boot camp, at fire-fighting school (everyone in the Navy is a firefighter, just like everyone in the Army is a rifleman), and at a couple of the older base pools. Truthfully, I think that I have had (as in taken) more communal showers at civilian gyms than in the military. Speaking personally, I have learned to not look at any of the guys in a shower area below the neck, and have thus far managed to not become aroused in areas of public nudity, despite being surrounded by hotties who were just as naked as I.

[Duck]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

You know, to be perfectly frank, I find all this talk about showering concerns to be completely bizarre and missing the real issues at play. For an example of a real issue, consider this: the US armed forces has an astonishing number of support programs for family and spouses of servicemen and servicewomen, covering everything from rather run-of-the-mill (but important) social activities to suicide prevention programs for spouses, counseling for children of servicemen and servicewomen, and grief counselling for the survivors of soldiers killed in action. But with DADT in place, none of these programs are available to homosexual servicemen or women, or their partners.

That's the sort of thing that DADT is really about. If anyone really does think that the possibility that a gay man might get turned on in a group shower is more important than helping a child cope with the absence of his parent who's been deployed overseas or consoling the partner of a soldier who has died for his country, then shame on them.

And that goes double if they have one of those "support our troops" magnetic ribbons hypocritically stuck to their car.

Of course, one of the concerns espoused by the right wingers is that repeal of DADT will result in federal sanction (as in approval of) same-sex relationships. With DOMA currently being challenged in court, and with Prop 8 being challenged as well, one demand about repeal was that housing, family support services, death benefits, counseling services, base access (for services such as Base Exchanges, Commissaries, medical facilities) and the like be restricted. In fact, the recommendations of the repeal study authors was that regulations be modified to designate some services more specifically as "member designated" and those that come via legal recognition of a relationship. The "member designated" services would be primarily limited to things that don't require an ID card to access or are designated by the member entirely. Limited access to family support services, designation (without the complicated "he is a 'friend'" or such) of death benefits (SGLI beneficiaries, possibly pay beneficiaries as well), death notification (who is the Chaplain going to visit when you are KIA?), possibly limited access to legal or other services. The study authors specifically cited DOMA in their recommendation that housing access, Housing allowances, dependent designation, medical access, transfer help, job hunting help and the like be tabled for address later, either after resolution of the DOMA court cases and the Prop 8 case or legislative action on those laws happened.

[MSI64]

I think there is a big job from DADT to housing for same sex couples and such like.