Ladies with Seamen! Don't Ask, and certianly Don't TellFollow

I don't think the military is ready to survive without DADT. Whether you (or anyone else) likes it or not, a significant amount of the population is still homophobic. I don't have numbers, but I'm willing to bet that the percent of the military population that is homophobic is even greater. There seems to me to be an obvious connection between homophobia and testosterone, and the military is a breeding ground for it.

At any rate, so long as there are people (for better or worse) whose performance on the battlefield would be significantly degraded by the knowledge that one or more of the men in their unit is homosexual, I think it's in the best interest of the armed forces, in general, to keep such information off the battlefield.

That said, I didn't even know sub crews were still restricted to men only. A+ on changing that policy.

Show that pic of your avatar and it should be obvious which is which.

But that same group of people is saying, "We don't want to have to change to accommodate you. But you totally have to change/hide to fit in with us." The very same, no the exact same, thing that is happening to the Navy with the inclusion of women in submarines. Men and women are going to live with each other in a sardine can. Where's the uproar in that? Isn't there some conspiracy for secret outbreaks in lust? Pregnancy? Or is everyone really too exhausted from making that same argument about a homosexual soldier living in the same barracks?

I'd totally agree there's a breeding ground between homophobia and testosterone, mostly because we guys are almost a hive mind with the motto, "The nail that sticks out is going to get hammered."



I've served in the 348th Hospital Unit since my junior summer year in high school, and I'd have to say it would probably be much harder separating the those who'd accept homosexuality than the ultra nuts who want to stamp it out. They're loud, and numerous but have no sense of fraternity or cohesion whatsoever.

Then again, as a combat medic... Nobody really f'ucked with your orientation, skin color or choice of religion.

I really don't think it's the same thing at all. The reason women weren't able to be on a sub crew before is that it was lumped in as a "front-line" combat unit. Also, I'm sure to some extent, there was old-school holdover thinking that having women on board in such a confined space would complicate and distract the crew's performance. Personally, I think that's stupid, but then again I've never served aboard a sub. I think this new policy doesn't harm anything. Having women on the front lines is a different matter however, and one I'd never support.

Regardless, gays in the military is a separate topic as much as you'd like to call them the same under the umbrella of "equality".

The DADT policy was always silly, but it was a stepping stone to official acceptance. The reason Clinton didn't go the full 9 was that he wasn't going to gather full support for it, so this was a compromise. IMHO it worked as a transition phase and the next step should be taken.

I was in after the DADT became policy, and can only surmise the attitude prior to it from the stories I heard after the fact. In my unit, there were 2 guys who were widely suspected to be gay, one of them was in my shop. He was a great troop, and widely respected. No one that I knew of could say with 100% certainty that he was gay, but regardless he was widely liked and no one would have ever considered giving him hell about it. If they had, they may have gotten a beating. Would that have been the case had he come in with everyone knowing he was gay? I'd like to think so, but probably not. But that was 15 years ago, and times change.

GFY



Sure, and I don't endorse that mindset at all. However, We're talking the military - life and death situations - here, and I just think that as long as there exists a large percent of the population that just can't handle it, we should be mindful of the issue and not start encouraging open homosexuality. At the very least, if the DADT policy is repealed, then there should be a system in place to resolve conflicts that inevitably will arise without discriminating against either party and without endangering the lives of the individuals or their fellow combatants. Just read some of the comments in the linked article and you'll see what I'm talking about.

FTFY

An Ohio class submarine is a large submarine, but it is still a closed environment, and ANY additional mass you devote to installing seperate bathrooms, partiton walls or other visual barriers detracts from her warfighting trim. If the women searving on these submarines are truely prepared to be in mixed quarters with no special accomodation equipment installed on the submarines and are prepared to put up with the porentially less than cordial reception they may recieve on the boats, then more power to them. The instant they start demanding that we add things to a frontline military weapon system that might potentially slow it down or make it respond even that minute fraction slower than it would have otherwise, I would consider that an issue.

One big problem with putting women on subs is pregnancy. I've been in the Navy for 13 years now (10 active and 3 reserves), and when a female sailor gets pregnant, she is placed in a limited-duty status and restricted from going underway. If she becomes pregnant on a ship, she is choppered off asap.

The problem with submarines is that you might not see daylight for months at a time, as you could be conducting top secret operations in enemy waters, and to surface would put the mission and the crew at risk.

Mandate that all men on a submarine be gay

Woot! Either medics are going to get decent at abortions, since no contraceptive is 100% effective, even a double up of condom with pill/other, or we're going to have a new small generation of "Son of a Gun"s, Submarine Version. Hopefully all the important movable things on submarines that go "ping" are more than 4 ft off the floor.

As a person with just a touch of actual experiance in this subject, the subject of Gays in the military is not an issue for people in the military.

Once you have a certain level of trust in the people around you, sexuality is not an issue. I had 4 openly gay men in my last messdeck and never had a single incident and they where no more or less popular or problamatic then the straight guys.

Women are more of an issue for partners than actually causing an issue onboard in my experiance but i have seen many a marriage fall apart over rumour about a relationship that didn't exsist.

With reguards to Submarines the Royal Navy doesn't allow women to serve on them because they fear being sued over radiation preventing pregnancy's more than anything else.

Brown,



I do, not the oppressed part but definitly discharged. Most american men do not want to be in close quarters with homosexuals. Call it what you will, it's a fact of life. That the the radical left, a class that rarely serves in the military, want to push their own radical agenda in this way means less than nothing to me.




Bingo! This is about having the most efficient bad as* military on the face of the planet. We all know what Democrats think of the military and this is just another avenue for them to push their social agenda. They would rather be political correct than maintain the best fighting force in the world.



Allenj,



Even if their presence is a distraction to the majority?



Edited, May 10th 2010 10:20am by knoxxsouthy

I wish I knew some of these Democrats varus keeps bringing up, because I don't think I've ever met anyone like what he's describing.