"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repealed!

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say sexual harrassment will INCREASE. What I said is that the dynamics have changed, and different scenarios will arise. I think it's wise to think these things through and be prepared for a changed environment, rather than being reactive after the fact.

BTW: I heard on the news last night that before the repeal of DADT took effect, the military spent six months analyzing what the ramifications would be, and then six months training personnel in preparation of the change. I don't have the details of what got covered, but it does seem that they gave the matter quite a bit of thought.

 

[Bware]

Friends in the marines, I followed my father and stuck with army. Thus branches that see combat first hand. As I understand it from friends in Navy and Airforce, they aren't as strict on the subject because they don't usually see active combat unless the job focuses on it, such as a navy seal.

That being said, that is based on hearsay and assumptions. But logic would state that if you are going into combat, you don't want a baby on board as that's unethical. If you're working on base in the US fixing planes or working in a lab or something, its not quite the same issue.

Actually it's just as big as an issue fixing planes. I am an ex aircraft mechanic, when a female maintainer got pregnant they would send her to sit and do paperwork and such for nine months. The tools and parts are waaaay to heavy for a pregnant woman to be lifting and the small confined spaces require to contort your body into ridiculous shapes in order to change various parts.

And back to the gay thing..we didn't have separate showers for gay men/lesbians. Do the gay men get to shower with the women and vice versa? I mean men and women are separate for a reason.

 

[Bware]

Unless the U.C.M.J. has been updated since I was in, your point stands in regards to homosexuals being bunked together due to article 125. But your point does not stand in regards to relations between men and women. There really are no articles or paragraphs that "frown upon" men and women relationships in service. I can understand you not wanting to debate this topic any further because we are going slightly off topic anyways.

You would make a good lawyer turk. He's right though. Even though there is nothing in the UCMJ about sexual relationships. However you and I both know that men and women are generally kept apart when deployed for this reason. Commanders do not want the men falling in love when they are there because they could put themselves and their brethren in danger trying to protect someone. How do you prevent this with homosexuals?

 

[Draka]

You would make a good lawyer turk. He's right though. Even though there is nothing in the UCMJ about sexual relationships. However you and I both know that men and women are generally kept apart when deployed for this reason. Commanders do not want the men falling in love when they are there because they could put themselves and their brethren in danger trying to protect someone. How do you prevent this with homosexuals?

Actually, relations while in combat situations may be discouraged, it really is more a matter of common sense than whether the military is trying to control love or sexual relations. When in highly stressful and dangerous situations most people aren't even thinking about getting to know someone they are fighting alongside in a romantic way, nor are you usually thinking about how hot another person looks in their cammies. When deployed on ship, men and women serve side-by-side, it's not like they are kept apart. Not to mention, there are far more service jobs outside of actual combat than in combat. It would seem ridiculous to discourage the state-side shore duty yeoman from getting into a relationship with a parachute rigger in the same command.

Turk is quite right. There is no rule or law in the military as a whole against relations between servicemembers. Since there is no code or law against such, it would be kind of hard to suggest that there would be anything different in that regard when concerning homosexuals.

 

[Draka]

Actually it's just as big as an issue fixing planes. I am an ex aircraft mechanic, when a female maintainer got pregnant they would send her to sit and do paperwork and such for nine months. The tools and parts are waaaay to heavy for a pregnant woman to be lifting and the small confined spaces require to contort your body into ridiculous shapes in order to change various parts.

Well, at least with her doing all the paper-pushing no one else probably had to deal with it. I rather enjoyed actually getting dirty and working on the aircraft and being on the flightline more than having to go sit and record all the inspection information and training records and publications library entries and so on and so forth. However, I was usually doing the training and pubs stuff anyway along with being the main flightline tech in the shop. Being the only woman in the shop I think the guys felt I was more "suited" to "secretarial" duty or something.

 

[Apex]

BTW: I heard on the news last night that before the repeal of DADT took effect, the military spent six months analyzing what the ramifications would be, and then six months training personnel in preparation of the change. I don't have the details of what got covered, but it does seem that they gave the matter quite a bit of thought.

Lol, if you only knew what the "training" consisted of. I am active duty, the "training" was nothing more than a scripted power point that basically said "act professional". It was really quite pointless and a waste of time. The points Kathryn are raising are valid. But I doubt she will get any real answers here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lol, if you only knew what the "training" consisted of. I am active duty, the "training" was nothing more than a scripted power point that basically said "act professional". It was really quite pointless and a waste of time. The points Kathryn are raising are valid. But I doubt she will get any real answers here.

What do you think you should've received but didn't?

 

[Apex]

What do you think you should've received but didn't?

There was no training needed IMO. But maybe I am putting a little to much faith in people.

 

[Draka]

There was no training needed IMO. But maybe I am putting a little to much faith in people.

I've always thought that the military is such a conglomeration of people from all walks of life, that unless you know you can deal with and accept other people on those different walks, then perhaps you shouldn't even consider going in the military in the first place.

 

[Kathryn]

I don't think that many military personnel are going to get their panties in a wad about gays serving openly. As I've stated before, it's not like they haven't been serving - and it's not like people haven't known or suspected that many of them were gay. My three active duty kids can attest to that.

I brought up logistical questions - not moral questions. I think they're valid questions and I can only hope that our military branches have thought them through and have contingency plans for these scenarios.

I say "I can only hope" because I've never heard any plans, and neither have my kids. But I guess time will tell.

 

[Bware]

Actually, relations while in combat situations may be discouraged, it really is more a matter of common sense than whether the military is trying to control love or sexual relations. When in highly stressful and dangerous situations most people aren't even thinking about getting to know someone they are fighting alongside in a romantic way, nor are you usually thinking about how hot another person looks in their cammies. When deployed on ship, men and women serve side-by-side, it's not like they are kept apart. Not to mention, there are far more service jobs outside of actual combat than in combat. It would seem ridiculous to discourage the state-side shore duty yeoman from getting into a relationship with a parachute rigger in the same command.

Turk is quite right. There is no rule or law in the military as a whole against relations between servicemembers. Since there is no code or law against such, it would be kind of hard to suggest that there would be anything different in that regard when concerning homosexuals.

I'm not talking about state side, I'm talking about a combat environment. And when deployed and in "tent city" when not out on patrol, men and women ARE kept apart, they do not share the same the tents/showers/bathrooms. It would be a completly different dynamic if men and women were allowed to co-habitate, there would be relationships that would put people in danger when they were out on patrol.

 

[averageJOE]

I'm not talking about state side, I'm talking about a combat environment. And when deployed and in "tent city" when not out on patrol, men and women ARE kept apart, they do not share the same the tents/showers/bathrooms. It would be a completly different dynamic if men and women were allowed to co-habitate, there would be relationships that would put people in danger when they were out on patrol.

When I was in Iraq I stayed in many tents that were occupied by both male and females.

 

[Duck]

Actually it's just as big as an issue fixing planes. I am an ex aircraft mechanic, when a female maintainer got pregnant they would send her to sit and do paperwork and such for nine months. The tools and parts are waaaay to heavy for a pregnant woman to be lifting and the small confined spaces require to contort your body into ridiculous shapes in order to change various parts.

And back to the gay thing..we didn't have separate showers for gay men/lesbians. Do the gay men get to shower with the women and vice versa? I mean men and women are separate for a reason.

Gays and lesbians have been living with, showering with, working with, fighting alongside, and the like since time immemorial. The only ******* thing that changed when DADT was repealed is that your poor sensitive hetero *** might hear the gay guy in your unit use the correct pronoun when talking about who he is going home to. There won't be any changes in who is living in housing (married housing that is) or who gets BAH with dependents because the Federal Government of the USA treats some of its citizens as second class citizens unworthy of the full benefits and responsibilities of citizenship because of who their orientation leads them to love.

 

[Darkness]

There is an interesting CBS News article, entitled Support for Gays in the Military Depends on the Question, which shows how it is important to frame the question, when inquiring how many people support the repeal of DADT. More people support allowing "gays and lesbians" to serve in the military than support allowing "homosexuals" to serve in the military.