Calif judge to stop 'don't ask, don't tell' policy

[Oldgringo]

bdickens wrote:

We do quarter males and females in the same barracks. The open-bay barracks you see in the movies are long gone; today they are more like college dorms.

This is true. I was the construction Project Manager on a rather large multi-structure dorm type barracks project for the 1st Brigade of the 82nd Airborne on Ft. Bragg, NC on this date in 2001.

I shan't forget that any sooner than I'll forget my whereabouts on the day that President Kennedy was murdered.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

1) The military standards are the same as any other job requirement. To get any job you must apply and meet their criteria or standard. So EVERY job "discriminates" according to what you all are saying.

2) We do quarter male and female in the same barracks but they are NOT in the same room. The fact of the matter is that the military will not let PVT John Doe have his own room because he is gay. He is a private and will have a roommate. As a man I do not want to room with a gay man. That would make me very uncomfortable as it would make a female very uncomfortable to live with a man. The other problem arises when you go to the field or to combat. The living situation is much different than it is stateside. Also, when you are in those environments you have open showers. I cannot go and shower with the females as I am a male. Male and females have their own shower house. The military will not give gays their own shower house. I know I do not want to shower with a gay guy. I would be extremely uncomfortable just like a female would if she showered with males. Then we can go into chaplains. Chaplains are there so that they can help soldiers. If an openly gay soldier goes to a chaplain for help with a relationship this puts the chaplain in a very uncomfortable situation. Does he help this soldier as it is duty as a fellow soldier. Or does he not because his faith does not agree with the soldiers sexual orientation. The best way to let gay people serve in the military is with "Dont ask dont tell". That is the standard and the standard is not lowered for other people so it should not be lowered for gays either.

3) As for as the Army chaptering the gay linguists out. The military may be in need of Arabic linguists but it they do not meet the standard they need to be chaptered out. I have to hold myself and all of my soldiers to a specific standard. If we do not meet them we have ways to try to help the soldier rehabilitate. If they cannot then they need to be separated. If we lower the standard for gays then we have to lower the standard for everyone and that is NOT the way to run a military.


Bottom line is it all comes down to standards. Every job has them. The military is not different. Ours are a little more strict because we are a fighting force. Our soldiers must be fit and able to handle combat and everything comes with it. Dont ask dont tell is in place to let gays serve in the military and to uphold morale throughout.

“A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops; while, on the contrary, an incapable leader can demoralize the best of troops.”
- General John Pershing

Make no mistake about it. If dont ask dont tell is abolished the morale of the troops will be destroyed and for those of you that know morale is key to being a soldier.

[The Annoyed Man]

1) We do quarter males and females in the same barracks. The open-bay barracks you see in the movies are long gone; today they are more like college dorms.

Then I stand corrected on that. Times change. Evidently, I'm behind the times. But, you still do not address the issue of someone's right to not be sexually objectified. Are women and men assigned as roommates to one another in those dorms? Because that would be the analogy to roommates of the same gender in which one is gay and the other isn't. Does the military have regulations against heterosexual personnel shacking up in these dorms? If they do, how would those regulations be applied against gay couples shacking up in the dorms?

2) Male-female relationships form within the unit frequently with negligible, if any, effect on morale and/ or cohesion. There is no reason to postulate that same-sex relationships should be any different other than prejudice.

I'd like to see if that holds true under fire, when one partner in a relationship may have to face a decision that would help another unit member at the peril to their relationship partner. I'm not buying that it is without repercussions to unit cohesion or efficiency - regardless of whether the partners are heterosexual or gay.

3) Gay people can, have and continue to serve honorably. Many gays have been particularly been drawn to the linguistics field as translators. The Army recently (and stupidly, I might opine) discharged a number of gays who were found out and who happened to be translators. Arabic translators. Don't we need a couple Arabic translators now and again?

And I've already stated that those who serve honorably are to be commended. In the case of the discharged translators, what led to their being outed? Again, my objection isn't to gays quietly and discreetly serving their nation. My objection is to gay activists using the military as a vehicle to ram through their particular political agenda. Their concern isn't honorable service, it is political activism. They are ruthless in its pursuit, and they don't particularly care what they break in the process. I don't hate them for their gender preferences. I hate them for their lack of restraint in their conduct. That's not prejudice. That's simply a reaction to people who don't know how to comport themselves. If the gay translators who were discharged were serving discreetly and honorably, then shame on the Army for discharging them. If they were discharge for rubbing the Army's nose in their sexuality, then good for the Army.

[nitrogen]

xtremeduty.45: Why would it make you uncomfortable to room with a gay man?

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

For the same reasons that it would make a female uncomfortable to room with a male.

I have no problems with gays. I have a very good friend and a brother-in-law that is gay. This does not mean that I want to live with one.

As a PVT in the Army you have a room with a roommate. That is your "home". You shower there. You change clothes there. You bring your girlfriends or boyfriends there. I would not want to have to do those things with a gay man in the room or have him do that with me in the room. It would be uncomfortable.

I have not been in the barracks in a long time but I know thats how I feel and how my joes feel and I would not want them to go through that either.

[dicion]

For the same reasons that it would make a female uncomfortable to room with a male.

You do know that Colleges are moving to mixed-sex dorms, complete with male/female roommate pairings.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/15 ... -2010mar15" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer ... ainin.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.parentdish.com/2010/03/16/ma ... trend-gro/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ironically, it was started as a way to avoid what you're referring to, Gay roommates with straight ones.
It has since become just allowing the opposite sexes to room together.

So in comparison to this scenario, I don't see it being very different.

[Hoi Polloi]

There is a massive backlash to the few colleges doing that, too.

[nitrogen]

For the same reasons that it would make a female uncomfortable to room with a male.

I'd better ask my female roomate how uncomfortable I make her when she gets back from her boyfriends' place tonight.

So basically, what you're telling me, is, you have a gay brother-in-law, but you'd be uncomfortable living with anyone that's gay? Why is that? Do you think they'd be looking/thinking about you in a lecherous manner? Do you think they'd try something?

Do you think about every woman YOU see in a lecherous manner? Do you try something on every woman you see? Why do you think someone that's gay would act in a manner that's any different?

I submit that if men and women can work together in the military, so can gay and straight folks. People need to get over their heebie-jeebies about it.

[psijac]

xtremeduty.45: Why would it make you uncomfortable to room with a gay man?

I would object to people being forced to live with a gay roommate. As an adult living in the cilivian world you can choose your living conditions, and if you don not like them you can always move out. I would have no trouble living with any one of any race, gender religion, or sexual preferance. As long as I meet them before hand an boundaries were set and rent was reasonable.

The enlisted man or woman gets not such privilege. You will room with whom ever the BEQ Sgt. Pairs you with so long as they are the same gender there is nothing you can do to get out of it. It doesn't matter if they are a neat freak and you are a slob or if they have BO and don't their teeth. The only thing you can do is try to get promoted or get married. A common option is to rent an apartment out in town. But the military will not give you a housing allowance. Why should they? You have a perfectly good barracks room containing a neat freak with BO. You you have to spend your own meager pay on a $400.00 studio apartment. And you still have to drive back to the chow hall for all your meal as they won't give you commissary rations. Between car payments, insurance, gas, food and rent you are now living well below the poverty line.

And you still have to keep a room you don't live in clean for the weekly inspections.

[The Annoyed Man]

For the same reasons that it would make a female uncomfortable to room with a male.

I'd better ask my female roomate how uncomfortable I make her when she gets back from her boyfriends' place tonight.

So basically, what you're telling me, is, you have a gay brother-in-law, but you'd be uncomfortable living with anyone that's gay? Why is that? Do you think they'd be looking/thinking about you in a lecherous manner? Do you think they'd try something?

Do you think about every woman YOU see in a lecherous manner? Do you try something on every woman you see? Why do you think someone that's gay would act in a manner that's any different?

I submit that if men and women can work together in the military, so can gay and straight folks. People need to get over their heebie-jeebies about it.

Does your female roommate share your bedroom? Because that's what this is about.

[bdickens]

Do you think about every woman YOU see in a lecherous manner? Do you try something on every woman you see? Why do you think someone that's gay would act in a manner that's any different?
I submit that if men and women can work together in the military, so can gay and straight folks. People need to get over their heebie-jeebies about it.

You beat me to it.

... You will room with whom ever the BEQ Sgt. Pairs you with so long as they are the same gender there is nothing you can do to get out of it....

Not necessarily. I had a couple of different pigs moved out of my room. One, I kicked out myself.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Thank you TAM.

nitrogen, I am guess that you are friends with your roommate and not strangers right?

Why should I, someone that meets the military standards have to suffer and be uncofortable because we want to change the standards so that we can accommodate and make somebody else feel better? If gays want to serve in the military do it quietly and comply with the standard.

[jester]

I keep expecting the 9th Circus Court to rule separate sex bathrooms unconstitutional.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

You know what you are right. We should lower the standards for you. We should lower the military standards just like we lower every other standard in this country so that we can coddle everyone and not hold them accountable for themselves. God forbid somebody actually try and meet the standards for a job, school or the military. No, we must lower the standards of this country so that we can adjust to you so that you do not have to do any work.

Gays are not allowed to openly serve. Its not that they cannot serve. They just cant do it openly. Thats the standard but instead of meeting the standard you want to change it to where it is easier for you

[Hoi Polloi]

There's no standard saying patronizing sleeze ball heterosexuals must keep their sexual desires hidden. I wish there were. We do not shower or bunk men and women together for several reasons that do have a direct bearing on homosexuals, though. Here are a few:

1) Modesty and decency. Our societal standards do not include nudity in front of those of the opposite sex. As a matter of fact, the military in itself is a bit of an exception to our Puritan origins which means most Americans do not undress in front of those of the same sex in most settings (sports, military, etc being exceptions), preferring to have private dressing and showering spaces. This is not an assumption that others will be lecherous (though it is a layer of protection from those who are of either sex and any sexual persuasion), as someone above said, but a standard to protect both the person changing and the person subjected to the sight from sexualization, lust, and scandal among other things. Heterosexuals and homosexuals should be treated equally: we will not knowingly place you in a position where your modesty or reputation could be impugned or where you as a person could be sexualized or objectified, or where you could be forced to see something that is sexualized or a temptation to your passions.

2) Lovers spats. The military is a high stress environment with many people living in close quarters. Someone above said that people move on peacefully after hooking up and breaking up. There are several reasons that could be the norm, though I doubt it is an entirely accurate portrayal; however, men and women being kept apart most of the time helps this greatly. It isn't so easy to move on if your lovers' spat is with your roommate. Homosexuals have a much higher number of average sexual liaisons and relationships than homosexuals, meaning close quarters and high conflict are a high likelihood. They've discovered this with the allowance of women on ships now and the drama that has ensued over relationship disputes. Homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated equally: we won't force you to sleep in the same room as your ex-girlfriend/boyfriend, nor will we knowingly put you up in the same room as your current girlfriend/boyfriend.

3) Close quarters. Someone above said that the housing is often dorm-room style. While this is true, it isn't a full picture. Those on ships and subs, deployed overseas, or in some locations might have anywhere from 4-40 easily bunking in the same room. Rules are usually in place that prohibit those of the opposite sex from entering these rooms. It would not be an appropriate place for sexual liaisons, but that would be hard to enforce if open homosexuality was a protected group, which would actually give them exceptions to rules others are held to. Instead, homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated equally: we don't want to see your sex life.

4) Disease prevention. This is not a politically correct topic, but it is a scientifically accurate one. Open homosexuals have a significantly higher rate of contagious diseases. Those who have had homosexual sex one time are permanently barred from donating blood. While AIDS is on the decrease overall, I saw a French study the other day saying it is skyrocketing among homosexual males. When you live in such close quarters among, on average, hundreds of 18-21 year old males, some of whom are deployed away from their homes for years on end, fatal sexually transmitted diseases is a real concern from a disease prevention standpoint. Likewise is the concern over what they'll pick up in port from women of the night, which I believe is also treated in a "don't ask, don't tell" way. Homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated equally in this regard.

5) Culture. There is a military culture which includes a code of conduct, hierarchy, language, and much more. This culture has gradually changed over time, but it is slow to change. This is overall a good thing. The institution and culture in place is what sustains our armed forces, unites them, and allows them to go to battle together. It is a job that by necessity must take team building and uniformity to the extreme. Clothing is issued and identical right down to decreed underwear allowances. Sheets and rooms are identical. Everyone marches in uniform, sings in uniform, eats in uniform, and had better even breathe in uniform. This uniformity is a necessity for the job. It isn't the place for personal expression or opinions because on the battlefield that could cost people their lives. No one is allowed to have long purple hair, spike cuffs, to live at home with their mommas, or to do anything else out of the uniform norm. Insisting that one is in a different, protected class of people, and taking a stand that one must be able to openly profess his personal preferences over the group norm is a deadly attitude to take within the armed forces. This is strictly not allowed by anyone and is rather drilled out of them from the start. We all are unique, have our preferences, and the things that set us apart, and those things are kept personal by all who are in the armed forces for the sake of the whole because that mentality is essential when facing a war. Homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated equally in this regard.

The don't ask, don't tell policy was the military's way of treating homosexuals equally because that is their policy regarding sexuality as a whole. Anything else would set homosexuals aside into a protected class that is treated differently. The military, as a necessity, does not have the ability to treat people differently outside of its established hierarchical system because it undermines the fundamental training and purpose of the system, increases the potential for passions and conflict in close quarters and high stress environments, and makes for an instability that is difficult to maintain among young males which places their own security and the security of our nation at risk.