Obama to end "don't ask, don't tell" policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Man, I don't even remember when gays were openly allowed to join the army here, before we got into this millenium for sure. How come the US is still so behind on these things? Does religion still wield so much power?

In any case: any step forward is a good thing, so good on Obama for making this happen.
 
The alternative is merely a different form of sexual discrimination. How long until they are sued by a service member for not providing basic separate quarters and showers from objects of their affection?

Right now heterosexuals aren't forced to sleep and shower in the same quarters as potential sexual partners, so why should homosexual people be forced to do so?

The opposite is also true - male heterosexual service members may feel their privacy violated by showering with women, and for similar reason may feel their privacy is violated by showering with homosexual men.

DADT is far, far, far from an ideal situation. Propose something better, please. Until then, it sounds like it's still the closest we can get.

-Adam

Ugh. This is why Obama's dragging his feet on this, I guess.

edit: I mean because people honestly believe what steinman posted, not that he has anything resembling a rational point[/quote]

If my point is not rational, then explain why we still have separate facilities for men and women?

Are you saying that homosexual sexuality is diffierent that heterosexual sexuality, and thus they don't need separate facilities, or are you saying that we shouldn't have separate facilities for men and women?

It's a very logical argument, and I'm curious why you're dismissing it out of hand without refuting it.

It honestly sounds like something people don't want to address/admit because it's not solved.

If I'm wrong, educate me.

-Adam
 
You can't tell someoen's gay just by looking at them (well, usually). After a football match, in school after gym lessons, whatever, we've all showered together with other people before - and 1 in 20 is gay, people. Chances are pretty high you've already showered with a gay person but didn't know. What the fuck do you care? As long as he doesn't suddenly start to ravage you right then and there; and most really won't -_-
Bubble... it's Americans. They are afraid of nudity :p

[/jk][/QUOTE]

It's not fear... it's shame. There's a difference :D
 
The alternative is merely a different form of sexual discrimination. How long until they are sued by a service member for not providing basic separate quarters and showers from objects of their affection?

Right now heterosexuals aren't forced to sleep and shower in the same quarters as potential sexual partners, so why should homosexual people be forced to do so?

The opposite is also true - male heterosexual service members may feel their privacy violated by showering with women, and for similar reason may feel their privacy is violated by showering with homosexual men.

DADT is far, far, far from an ideal situation. Propose something better, please. Until then, it sounds like it's still the closest we can get.

-Adam



Ugh. This is why Obama's dragging his feet on this, I guess.

edit: I mean because people honestly believe what steinman posted, not that he has anything resembling a rational point[/quote]

If my point is not rational, then explain why we still have separate facilities for men and women?

Are you saying that homosexual sexuality is diffierent that heterosexual sexuality, and thus they don't need separate facilities, or are you saying that we shouldn't have separate facilities for men and women?

It's a very logical argument, and I'm curious why you're dismissing it out of hand without refuting it.

It honestly sounds like something people don't want to address/admit because it's not solved.

If I'm wrong, educate me.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

It is a non issue. Gay men and women of the same gender already use the same facilities in civillian life, why would there be a change for the military?

Apparently you don't know any gay people. Yes, homosexual and heterosexuality is different.

If you'd been showering with women since birth, there would be no need to have seperate facilities. It's a cultural thing, not a sexuality thing.

Also, this is the worst strawman argument I've ever heard.
 

ElJuski

Staff member
The alternative is merely a different form of sexual discrimination. How long until they are sued by a service member for not providing basic separate quarters and showers from objects of their affection?

Right now heterosexuals aren't forced to sleep and shower in the same quarters as potential sexual partners, so why should homosexual people be forced to do so?

The opposite is also true - male heterosexual service members may feel their privacy violated by showering with women, and for similar reason may feel their privacy is violated by showering with homosexual men.

DADT is far, far, far from an ideal situation. Propose something better, please. Until then, it sounds like it's still the closest we can get.

-Adam

Ugh. This is why Obama's dragging his feet on this, I guess.

edit: I mean because people honestly believe what steinman posted, not that he has anything resembling a rational point[/quote]

If my point is not rational, then explain why we still have separate facilities for men and women?

Are you saying that homosexual sexuality is diffierent that heterosexual sexuality, and thus they don't need separate facilities, or are you saying that we shouldn't have separate facilities for men and women?

It's a very logical argument, and I'm curious why you're dismissing it out of hand without refuting it.

It honestly sounds like something people don't want to address/admit because it's not solved.

If I'm wrong, educate me.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

Sounds like the problem you propose is wrongful assumptions of gay men and women desiring straight men and women, and assimilating them to their "wrongful" deeds.

It also sounds like you're projecting your *own* fears of being assimilating to their "wrongful" deeds.

In fact, there are unisex bathrooms and showers across the country; where there are separate bathrooms it seems more about the sexual-social norms long established in this country, or ease. Women don't exactly need urinals, don't they?

---------- Post added at 07:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 PM ----------

Also, yes. If it were a "gay/straight" thing, why don't we just have separate bathrooms for homosexuals? And they can sit in the back of the bus, too, in case they decide to gaze upon my straight Adonis and turn me flaming.
 
If I'm wrong, educate me.

-Adam
Cause gays have been showering and using their gender-assigned facilities all their lifes, it's nothing new to them, they can handle it... just as we could handle it if we had been using unisex facilities all our lifes, like many european countries.


Educated enough?

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------

You know, as much as I can love the States, the puritan foundations still shine through too much for me to ever really consider moving there.
 
Love the irony/hypocrisy.

"It's a cultural norm" is ok to use as an argument for one side, but it can't be used for the other side.

Good luck with that.

-Adam
 
Love the irony/hypocrisy.

"It's a cultural norm" is ok to use as an argument for one side, but it can't be used for the other side.

Good luck with that.

-Adam
Yes, it's acceptable when dealing with whether you should burp at the table or not, but not when it's alienating a considerable chunk of the population of their basic human rights.

Or are you ok with women being burned at the stake for looking at a man that's not their husband? Y'know, cause it cultural?

It's not all black and white, steiny.
 

North_Ranger

Staff member
You can't tell someoen's gay just by looking at them (well, usually). After a football match, in school after gym lessons, whatever, we've all showered together with other people before - and 1 in 20 is gay, people. Chances are pretty high you've already showered with a gay person but didn't know. What the fuck do you care? As long as he doesn't suddenly start to ravage you right then and there; and most really won't -_-
Bubble... it's Americans. They are afraid of nudity :p

[/jk][/QUOTE]

It's not fear... it's shame. There's a difference :D[/QUOTE]

Well, the end result is the same, isn't it? Someone of the same sex appears tackle out/beaver presented and everybody screams bloody murder :p

---------- Post added at 12:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 AM ----------

If my point is not rational, then explain why we still have separate facilities for men and women?

-Adam
Because each is catered to their genders need, rather then their sexuality?[/QUOTE]

And what about unisex toilets? Granted, they're not widespread, but they're still there...
 
And what about unisex toilets? Granted, they're not widespread, but they're still there...
Basically, when going unisex you save space and costs, so unisex is more cost effective. I think this is the basic idea when people decide on providing unisex facilities rather then separate gender facilities.

Of course, the whole gender apartheid thing started purely out of shame/embarrassment and a class/gender inequality.

Personally I don't mind either. Unisex is fine, separate is fine. If it turns someone of any gender on to watch me shower or something I couldn't care less, as long as he/she doesn't act on it.
 

ElJuski

Staff member
Unisex is fine, separate is fine. If it turns someone of any gender on to watch me shower or something I couldn't care less, as long as he/she doesn't act on it.
Right, the main issue is the sexuality present. Which, for some reason, Steiny thinks is different and rampant amongst the homosexuals versus "normal" day to day folk.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

BOWLIEE AND ELJUSKI YOU MY DAWGS BUt you knew that already i mean at least juski did cause he an i be tight

edit OH SHIT I FUCKED UP BOWIELEE'S NAME FUCK

but seriously steinman what the fuck
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100902570.html
I was 18 years old when I landed in the kingdom of Bahrain, off the coast of Saudi Arabia, in the winter of 2005. It was the first time I'd ever left the continental United States. My joints ached after more than 24 hours of travel, but I knew that a new life of service and adventure awaited me on the other side of that aircraft door.

This was the day I had been dreaming about since I'd enlisted in the Navy a few months before, on my birthday. I loved my country, and I knew that I was ready to prove myself in action.

I also knew that I was gay.

However, I chose to put service above my personal life. My understanding of the \"don't ask, don't tell\" policy was that if I kept quiet about my sexuality and didn't break any rules, I would face no punishment. I was wrong.

Once I joined the Navy, I was tormented by my chief and fellow sailors, physically and emotionally, for being gay. The irony of \"don't ask, don't tell\" is that it protects bigots and punishes gays who comply. Now, after a Youth Radio investigation of the abuses I suffered, the chief of naval operations ordered a thorough study of how the Navy handled the situation and is currently reviewing the document. I'm hopeful that the case will be reopened and top leadership finally held accountable for the lives they have ruined.

Within days of arriving at my duty station in Bahrain, I decided that I wanted to earn a place among the elite handlers working with dogs trained to detect explosives. After passing exams and completing training, I went from serving among hundreds of military police to serving in a specialized unit of two dozen handlers and 32 dogs. I was responsible for training and working with two dogs throughout the region. Our goal was to keep explosives and insurgents out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

For 12 hours a day in 112-degree heat with 85 percent humidity, we searched vehicles for explosives and responded to any threats. I loved the job, but there wasn't a day that went by when I wasn't completely miserable.

Shop talk in the unit revolved around sex, either the prostitute-filled parties of days past or the escapades my comrades looked forward to. They interpreted my silence and total lack of interest as an admission of homosexuality. My higher-ups seemed to think that gave them the right to bind me to chairs, ridicule me, hose me down and lock me in a feces-filled dog kennel.

I can't say for certain when the abuse started or when it stopped. Now, several years removed from those days in Bahrain, it blends together in my mind as a 28-month nightmare.

Once, the abuse was an all-day event; a training scenario turned into an excuse to humiliate me. Normally we ran the dogs through practice situations -- an earthquake, a bomb or a fight -- that we might encounter in our work. That day, in a classroom at an American school in Bahrain, with posters of the Founding Fathers lining the walls, the scenario happened to be me. I was the decoy, and I had to do just what Chief Petty Officer Michael Toussaint ordered.

In one corner of the classroom was a long sofa, turned away from the door. When you walked into the room, it appeared that one man was sitting on it, alone. But I was there too -- the chief had decided that I would be down on my hands and knees, simulating oral sex. A kennel support staff member and I were supposed to pretend that we were in our bedroom and that the dogs were catching us having sex. Over and over, with each of the 32 dogs, I was forced to enact this scenario.

I told no one about what I was living through. I feared that reporting the abuse would lead to an investigation into my sexuality. My leaders and fellow sailors were punishing me for keeping my sexuality to myself, punishing me because I wouldn't \"tell.\"

I even saw \"don't ask, don't tell\" used against heterosexual female service members who had reported being the victims of sexual assault. If my chief acted on their statements, he would be forced to punish a friend of his, so the easiest way to make the problem go away was to scare the women into silence by saying something like: \"You weren't sexually assaulted by a male in my unit. I hear you're a lesbian.\" After all, homosexuals have no rights in our military. You can't sexually assault someone who doesn't exist.

But the abuse wasn't invisible to everyone. In 2005, roughly six months into my time with that unit, a new sailor in our group was taken aback when I was left tied up in a dog kennel. She reported the incident and, from what I understand, this prompted an internal investigation into hazing in my unit. Even then, the abuse continued, and I still couldn't bring myself to talk about it. It took 90 minutes and the threat of a subpoena to get me to testify.

The Navy confirmed 93 incidents of misconduct, including hazing, abuse, physical assault, solicitation of prostitutes and misuse of government property and funds, but the case was closed. After receiving a letter of caution, the military's version of a slap on the wrist, my chief was eventually promoted in rank and position.

In the course of that investigation, the Navy decided to charge my best friend, Petty Officer 1st Class Jennifer Valdivia, a 27-year-old Sailor of the Year and second in command of my unit, for failing to put an end to my chief's tyranny. The idea that she could have stopped the abuse is, to me, unfair and unreasonable. The Navy itself failed to stop him.

Val, as I called her, was set to return home when she was told of the charges and that she wouldn't be leaving Bahrain as planned. She was afraid that she would never see the United States again. My mentor ended up taking her life.

This incredible woman, whom I ate lunch with every Sunday and ran with every morning, was gone. Since the night I learned of her death, I have been haunted by nightmares. In my dreams, she's decomposing and suggests that the only way for me to stop my abuse is to follow her lead and end my life.

Just two days before she killed herself, Val gave me a gift, a token of congratulations on being accepted to the Naval Academy prep school in Rhode Island.

And despite everything that had happened -- the abuse and her death -- I decided to enroll. I wanted to put what had happened in Bahrain behind me. I had applied to the academy twice before I was finally accepted to the prep school, an education that would put me on my way to a commission from Annapolis.

It was my dream come true. I left Bahrain as a petty officer 3rd class and completed a six-week officer candidate boot camp. My commanders told me they wanted me to have a leadership role at the school. But after more than two years of abuse, the suicide of a fine sailor and the Navy's unwillingness to punish the top leadership in my unit, I was mentally and emotionally depleted. I refused to be punished any longer for who I am, so I made the most difficult decision of my life. I stood outside the office of my commanding officer with my knees buckling. My resignation read:

\"I am a homosexual. I deeply regret that my personal feelings are not compatible with Naval regulations or policy. I am proud of my service and had hoped I would be able to serve the Navy and the country for my entire career. However, the principles of honor, courage and commitment mean I must be honest with myself, courageous in my beliefs, and committed in my action. I understand that this statement will be used to end my Naval career.\"

It would take two months for the Naval Academy and its lawyers to figure out what to do with me. The lawyers dove into a mess of technicalities. The \"don't ask, don't tell\" policy is riddled with inconsistencies, loopholes, unfairness and hypocrisy. As an officer candidate, I found the situation even more confusing. Lawyers debated: Should they be consulting the \"don't ask, don't tell\" policy for officers or the regulations for enlisted personnel? Given the amount of money invested in military officers, the policy for them is far more forgiving.

During those weeks I was ordered to restricted duty and living quarters. I was stuck pulling weeds in the courtyard of the school, as students who had been my peers walked to class in their proud midshipmen-candidate uniforms. I was ordered not to contact my former classmates by any means. The school didn't want me to \"influence them.\" This was my lowest point. Based on principle, based on dignity, I had forfeited my dream of a Naval Academy graduation.

Thankfully, I was discharged honorably with full benefits. Otherwise, I would have been left with no money for college and no health-care options for the severe depression, insomnia and post-traumatic stress disorder that Veterans Affairs physicians have diagnosed in me since I've returned from overseas. That would have been lawful under \"don't ask, don't tell.\"

For years, I kept this story a secret from my loved ones, wanting simply to move on. But I believe we have a window of opportunity now in the effort to repeal \"don't ask, don't tell,\" and this has propelled me to go public with my experience. This weekend, I will be at the National Equality March for gay rights in Washington, after traveling across the country speaking at gay pride events and at universities, trying to build momentum for a strategy for repeal.

I'm doing all of this during midterms at the University of San Diego, where I am a junior majoring in political science. While my greatest regret is that I will never graduate from Annapolis, I am confident that soon I will serve proudly as a commissioned officer.

I don't think I will ever feel as powerless as I did when I was on my knees, wearing a U.S. military uniform in the Middle East, forced by my superior to shove my head between another man's legs. But I have discovered that telling this story holds its own kind of power.

The more I talk about what happened to me, the more I hear from others who have been in similar situations. Students in the service academies calling me, crying, asking if they should quit. World War II veterans. Enlisted soldiers serving overseas. They are hopeful that we may soon have a different kind of military, that gay and lesbian men and women can serve the country we love with job security and dignity.

Despite everything, I am hopeful, too.

Joseph Rocha is a junior at the University of San Diego.
fuck DADT
 
Unisex is fine, separate is fine. If it turns someone of any gender on to watch me shower or something I couldn't care less, as long as he/she doesn't act on it.
Right, the main issue is the sexuality present. Which, for some reason, Steiny thinks is different and rampant amongst the homosexuals versus "normal" day to day folk.[/QUOTE]

I've managed to steer clear of this conversation thus far, but it doesn't seem like that's what Steinman is saying at all. Steinman is coming from the side of segregated bathrooms based on gender. As long as everyone is heterosexual, it serves two functions:

Function 1 - keeping all the equipment built to serve gender A in one place
and
Function 2 - keeping all people attracted to gender B away from gender B while they are "vulnerable"

Throw homosexuals into the mix though, and you've got no guarantees on purpose 2. Now, you can disagree whether Function 2 is necessary or not, but if you stop for a moment and take for a given that it is, then homosexuals pose a problem to the integrity of the system. THAT is where Steiman is coming from. It's not a matter of Steinman thinking homosexual sexuality and heterosexual sexuality are different.
 

North_Ranger

Staff member
Indeed. God, that sounded horrible... Part of me hopes that hazing of this magnitude isn't going on in our own defence forces. But then there's the part of me that remembers how juvenile, asinine and completely idiotic treatment all of us got in the hands of our immediate NCOs... *sighs*

---------- Post added at 11:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 AM ----------

Unisex is fine, separate is fine. If it turns someone of any gender on to watch me shower or something I couldn't care less, as long as he/she doesn't act on it.
Right, the main issue is the sexuality present. Which, for some reason, Steiny thinks is different and rampant amongst the homosexuals versus "normal" day to day folk.[/QUOTE]

I've managed to steer clear of this conversation thus far, but it doesn't seem like that's what Steinman is saying at all. Steinman is coming from the side of segregated bathrooms based on gender. As long as everyone is heterosexual, it serves two functions:

Function 1 - keeping all the equipment built to serve gender A in one place
and
Function 2 - keeping all people attracted to gender B away from gender B while they are "vulnerable"

Throw homosexuals into the mix though, and you've got no guarantees on purpose 2. Now, you can disagree whether Function 2 is necessary or not, but if you stop for a moment and take for a given that it is, then homosexuals pose a problem to the integrity of the system. THAT is where Steiman is coming from. It's not a matter of Steinman thinking homosexual sexuality and heterosexual sexuality are different.[/QUOTE]

That still sounds like a somewhat BS argument, if you don't mind me saying so. It gives the impression that people can't keep their boner/moisture to themselves while being in the company of the gender they are with.

Also, the same thing happens in civilian life as well. Gay people go to the same toilets as the rest of us, news at eleven.
 
I've managed to steer clear of this conversation thus far, but it doesn't seem like that's what Steinman is saying at all. Steinman is coming from the side of segregated bathrooms based on gender. As long as everyone is heterosexual, it serves two functions:

Function 1 - keeping all the equipment built to serve gender A in one place
and
Function 2 - keeping all people attracted to gender B away from gender B while they are "vulnerable"

Throw homosexuals into the mix though, and you've got no guarantees on purpose 2. Now, you can disagree whether Function 2 is necessary or not, but if you stop for a moment and take for a given that it is, then homosexuals pose a problem to the integrity of the system. THAT is where Steiman is coming from. It's not a matter of Steinman thinking homosexual sexuality and heterosexual sexuality are different.
So now you're Pro-Segregated Bathrooms? I think we should get Segregated Locker Rooms while we're at it, why stop there? I can think of how much further you can push that line of thinking for hours. :eek:rly:
 
What needs to happen is something that will make accidental sightings of other's genitalia no longer be an issue in male toilets... coz really, i had enough of looking at the ceiling while trying to pee.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

But no, seriously, guys, let's keep this Sword of Damocles hanging over every gay serviceman or -woman's head, making them live in constant fear of being discovered in the best of situations, and in the worst, allowing them to be harassed and abused and even preventing straight women from being able to report sexual abuse and assault for fear of being kicked out for being gay because of fucking bathrooms

let's just keep doing that because you know us queers just can't fucking control ourselves





fucking shit
 
I think the military needs to have separate bathrooms based on whether you can procreate. So send the visectomies and tube-tied with the homosexuals, and leave the baby-makers be.
 
Guys, you don't even want to put the bathroom option out there. 'Cause at least the male portion of the LGBT population has been wanting it. Not because they're gay/bi/trans, because they're GUYS.

Have you been in a men's public restroom before?

No rational, relatively hygienic human male would turn down the chance to get government-approved access to an exclusive bathroom used by a smaller segment of the population.

Every guy you can keep out, regardless of differentiation method, is that much less TP all over the floor, pee-stains, missed urinals, unflushed shit you have to deal with.

If I could lobby Yankee stadium successfully to provide exclusive bathroom facilities to the minority of 25-34 males from New Jersey with mixed racial backgrounds, an appreciation for terrible puns, and a working knowledge of Google Adwords, I would.
 
I

Iaculus

I've managed to steer clear of this conversation thus far, but it doesn't seem like that's what Steinman is saying at all. Steinman is coming from the side of segregated bathrooms based on gender. As long as everyone is heterosexual, it serves two functions:

Function 1 - keeping all the equipment built to serve gender A in one place
and
Function 2 - keeping all people attracted to gender B away from gender B while they are "vulnerable"

Throw homosexuals into the mix though, and you've got no guarantees on purpose 2. Now, you can disagree whether Function 2 is necessary or not, but if you stop for a moment and take for a given that it is, then homosexuals pose a problem to the integrity of the system. THAT is where Steiman is coming from. It's not a matter of Steinman thinking homosexual sexuality and heterosexual sexuality are different.
So now you're Pro-Segregated Bathrooms? I think we should get Segregated Locker Rooms while we're at it, why stop there? I can think of how much further you can push that line of thinking for hours. :eek:rly:[/QUOTE]

Who's 'you' here? Explaining an argument's reasoning doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it.
 

ElJuski

Staff member
Either way "Function 1" isn't enough of an argument and "Function 2" is under the auspicious reasoning that only straight people use public bathrooms anyway.

Oh, and that someone is more "vulnerable" because they are using a restroom. As if taking a piss or a shit is a mating call for the human race.
 
Well now I hope it becomes, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't kick them out, Don't engage in lewd acts in the restroom.

All you guys using the bathroom analogy... George Micheal or Larry Craig.
 
C

Chibibar

on one hand, I guess I kinda understand the "don't ask, don't tell" at least the original idea behind it. I mean, how would you handle your staff correctly? I mean the general public is pretty ignorant in terms of mentality of homosexuals. I mean look at general populus of U.S. won't even let them married and how do you think the government handle it?

they hide it and push it aside thinking it is "catchable" I am sad of the story earlier about a guy being hazed for his sexuality, but he didn't say anything cause he didn't want to be discharge. Can you imagine the hazing will occur if some people are open about it?

I think it is a step and I HOPE same sex marriage will be allow across the U.S. (as the next step) Tossing religion aside and look at the basic rights the government are denying their citizen because of their sexual preference.
 
K

Kitty Sinatra

You can't tell someoen's gay just by looking at them (well, usually). After a football match, in school after gym lessons, whatever, we've all showered together with other people before - and 1 in 20 is gay, people. Chances are pretty high you've already showered with a gay person but didn't know. What the fuck do you care? As long as he doesn't suddenly start to ravage you right then and there; and most really won't -_-
But you will, I hope. :unibrow:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top