Saturday, February 20, 2010

Don't Ask, Don't Force The Issue

From everything that I can tell, the military has changed drastically from those days of yore when I was a prime recruit. Seemed everybody that I knew was signing up. Except for myself and a few others, most of my closest friends all succumbed eventually, if not after high school, then within a few years of graduation.
It was kinda like the thing to do.

Friends would come back from boot, or on leave, and I'd hear all about the military life, what was going on, how it was, how it worked. I had never known military life, but I kinda had a general idea about it.

So, traveling forward now, to 1993, I was laughing hilariously when President Clinton made welcoming homosexuals into the military one of his first policy objectives to start out his administration.
From everything I knew, that idea wasn't going to fly far.
And I was right.
I remember: One of the first questions a recruiter would ask a potential recruit concerned his sexuality. No homos allowed. It was pretty straight forward.

And given what I knew about the military, it was probably a good policy. ('cept for the Navy. We all knew the half-joke about the soap-on-a-rope you were expected to bring with you, just in case. Later reports would show the rumor to have some truth to it.)

My opinion back then was that the 'homo,no homo' policy was best left to those in charge of running the military. They know fullest how to meet the needs and objectives of their mission, so I just figured it was best to leave it up to them.

My opinion today is basically the same, although my knowledge of military life is much more constricted than it was back then.
From everything I can see, which is a very small 'everything', it's not the same life style anymore.
It's a new world, and a different kind of military, with a more professional soldier filling it's ranks than just a generation ago.
Among other things, standards for enlistment are stricter, and I doubt if half the kids graduating high school today can make the cut (they are too fat). Back in the 80's, every young dude with a pulse that wasn't on parole was considered eligible. Misdemeanor records were a technicality easily written off (as in the case of a couple of friends). And nobody was too fat.
Plus, housing conditions are much improved. I don't think anybody leaves basic training and moves into a barracks shared with eight other immature dudes. My brother was assigned a two bedroom apartment with a room mate. So, yeah, things are different.

Where I think the source of reluctance to change within the military comes from is the older generation of leaders. My guess is that soldiers in the field don't really care. It's the 50-somethings that are at the top of food chain, sitting behind desks and filling out reports, and I don't think they themselves are close enough to the soldiers to see just who are these early-twenty-somethings that make up the lager share of their ranks.

Just as the old stereotypes easily assigned to all gays do not necessarily hold true...
(Think about it. Back in the draft days, or during WWII, when everybody was conscripted. Ya think maybe there were more than a few homos caught in that wide net they were casting? But even then, I don't see any feathered-boas storming the beach in all those Normandy invasion photos.)
...so have the sexual attitudes of the current coming of age generation. Younger people are miles ahead on the tolerance meter. I doubt that there would be much hazing or whatever else.

President Obama, in my mind, was correct in calling for a study or proposal or whatever it was he called for, on how to rewind the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. A policy that was stupid, unworkable, and contradictory to begin with.

But it's got to be done within the military services. It can't come down as a dictate from on high from some civilian who knows nothing at all about the military lifestyle.

Don't get me wrong. If the military still thinks a no homo policy is their best course, then so be it. I don't believe access to a military career to be a basic right any more than access to a career as rabbi is. And if closing the doors on 1-2% of the population is a threat to defensive readiness, then maybe we have bigger issues to address than that.

I think he should urge them, not command them. And that appears to be the direction he's taking.

59 comments:

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

They'll shove it down our throats, and any guy who objects to being hit on by their roommate will at best be ignored, if not punished for "homophobia." No matter how many rules there are against it-- that's the pattern established and easily observable with male/female interaction, and we don't even have to share bedrooms and showers.
Try complaining about a couple of co-workers having a "ho-down" (sleeping with as many of the ship's crew as possible) or about the XO sleeping with the protestant Chaplain (she, the chaplain, was married-- so that's, what, four regulations utterly ignored?).

I know that China Lake had some of the best barracks around for the Navy, and we had four two-bed rooms to a living room-- with option to bump it up to four beds per room if the manning requirements went up.

so have the sexual attitudes of the current coming of age generation. Younger people are miles ahead on the tolerance meter. I doubt that there would be much hazing or whatever else.

Some other thinsg that have changed are the basic decency level on things that should be private, like one's sexuality, and the glamorization of 'rebelling' against approved targets.

Even in this day and age, a good tenth of the women that were in boot camp with me bragged about how they joined to basically get at 'the man'-- not to do the beepin' job.

Which is always assuming that just because the modern generation might be more tolerant, they'll be fine with showering with someone who is sexually attracted to them.

tully said...

No time for my actual thoughts on this issue, but here's something:

"One of the first questions a recruiter would ask a potential recruit concerned his sexuality. No homos allowed. It was pretty straight forward."

If it was straight and forward while you were talking to a recruiter, I suppose that would sort of give you away.

Gino said...

as someone with current, and strong, navy connections, i really appreciate your comment to discussion. you can add what most of my readers cant.

but still...
if i was a soldier, a member of the warrior class, you really think that i would allow another dude to sexually harrass me?
i wouldnt tolerate it *today*. and i'm an older guy, past my prime. at 20? you can bet there would be blood.
and my friends were no different.

beside, there arent that many homos in the population, even fewer of them are military inclined and would rather be attending musicals.
the instance of male-male harassment would be non existent just due to the odds.

Gino said...

no tully. i was a list pre-qualifying questions that were read to you.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

And what, exactly, would you do?

Hit him? Enjoy your time in the brig.

File a harassment claim, that would round-filed? Shoot, I know a couple of guys who CURRENTLY had this happen to them. (End result: see above statement.)

Or, would you realize that you do not fit into a military that will force you to bunk with those who are physically attracted to your gender, and not enter? (exactly the choice I would make if they forced women to bunk with men)

I see it as, at best, an utter lack of understanding of the nature of the military; more cynically, it's an attempt to destroy the military by someone who hates and fears that body.

tully said...

I was talking about an erection...

Gino said...

i know.

tully said...

HA! I thought I failed to get my point across (that's what she said).

Why do some people so readily confuse "homosexual" with "asshole who rapes his bunkmate"?

Do you honestly think those perpetrating prison rape are homosexuals? They are rapists! They rape what they can. Homosexuals are not categorically horny people who have sex with whomever is in the same room--they are people who are attracted to those of the same sex. The rapists you want out of the military are not going to be outed for their sexual orientation--they will be reported for raping people.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Why do some people so readily confuse "homosexual" with "asshole who rapes his bunkmate"?

...huh?

I don't think any of my geek guys would rape me, even after nine months with only one port call. Doesn't mean I'd be cool bunking with 'em.

tully said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tully said...

Why not? They stay in your bunks, you stay in yours...they're just bunks!

tully said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Kind of proving my point, here, man....

Modesty, in a word.

Self-worth.

Dignity.

There's a lot of ways to try to encompass the concept.

my name is Amanda said...

Foxfier,

Please explain exactly who you are claiming is attempting to destroy the military because they "hate and fear it?" Another American? Really, I'm just trying to follow your logic. Although I bet you do know something about hate and fear.

You think that Navy ships (and other formerly all-male military institutions) had accomodations for WOMEN before they were allowed to serve on ships? Accomodations are SOOOO not the point. It was discrimination, as it is with homosexuals today.

Tully,

I thought you made a lot of salient points, which reflected something like what I was thinking.

Although I didn't get that that was an erection joke *at all.*

Gino,

I agree with most of what you say, and though logically, the idea of allowing military leadership to decide makes sense, we don't need to infringe on the rights of citizens in order to defend our country. Gay men and women *already* give up significant freedoms, and sometimes their lives, in order to serve - and their fellow soldiers and sailors usually already know they're gay, and yet work with them just fine.

Besides, isn't the President actually the head of the military? :p

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

MNIA-
who has promised to remove DADT?

You think that Navy ships (and other formerly all-male military institutions) had accomodations for WOMEN before they were allowed to serve on ships? Accomodations are SOOOO not the point. It was discrimination, as it is with homosexuals today.

"Accomodations" is not the issue; odd you should bring it up, since I surely didn't mention it as the sticking point.
(Female berthing is smaller but otherwise the same as male berthing on carriers and LHDs, those ships I've got personal experience with; dealing with the dignity of those attracted to their own sex is a great deal more complicated than organizing by sex.)

If, by some utter miracle, you're actually interested in the issue-- check out VC's rather good summation of my side's logic.

Amusingly, if you paid attention to what I posted-- there are problems with women in the military already. Rules and regulations sure as fire don't work.

my name is Amanda said...

The same rhetoric about showers and bunks. Thus, accomodations. That is being used as the excuse for discrimination.

They *already* shower together. They *already* bunk together.

Really.

And if you would have paid attention to what *I* posted, you would have answered my question. ...Or was that what you meant by "who has promised to remove DADT?" I don't see how that answers my question, if so.

I don't understand the connection between dignity and being closeted. (Also I clicked on the link for "VC's" but it went to Gino's site.)

I'm not in the military. I do have close relationships with people in the military. A former commander (not a personal relationship, that one, in a mixed gathering) once told me that he didn't think that there should be women on ships at all. Because of all the paperwork, what with them being inconveniently fertile and whatnot. Oh, and because they have sex with the male sailors. Which obviously isn't the fault of the male sailors.

I love how when there are issues with a person in the military, if they're a woman, then suddenly it's "Oh, it's a problem to have *women* in the military!" Men have been manipulating the rules a lot longer, even when there were only men. Want to get pregnant to get off a ship? Bring a whole new life into the world? Wow, that's such an easy answer to getting out of a deployment! 18 years of raising and paying for a child - just to get out of 7-month deployment! It must mean that there's a problem with women in the military. Nevermind that men have been using "thoughts of suicide" for years - Oh no, that doesn't indicate in any way that there is a problem with men in the military, now does it? Men who get drunk and get into fights and go to jail - that doesn't interfere with the military at all? For example.

Sorry for the sarcasm. I get a little emotional about this stuff.

You said women claim to get into the military just get a guy? This is a problem? I mean, is there a ranking of "legitimate" reasons to join the military out there that I may have missed? In other words, who cares about what their reasons are? The point is that every member should do their job. Regardless of why they decided to take the job.

Responsible, quality people will always be there, acting with good judgement and doing their jobs. They will be both male and female.

The troublemakers will always be there, too, and their actions don't represent the whole. They will be male, female, gay, straight, whatever.

I am getting sidetracked by women, when the topic is DADT, but a culture that fosters such rampant sexism is naturally one that closets their gay population.

Rules and regulations don't work? Why? Because people never break rules in civilian life? A broken rule does not a broken policy make. I can't speak from inside the military, and you can. What would it be like without those rules and regulations? I mean, really - I'm not pretending to know more about the day-to-day than you do.

I know what people say, and it's constantly sexist toward women at every level. Usually it's about rating their looks or discussing how they only moved up because they're a woman, but sometimes it's even out of "respect."

An LCDR I know recently left her last tour, and one of the male officers said to me - during a heated discussion about sexist stuff in the military: "I wish I could have found the words to express to her that I thought she did an amazing job, and not because I mean that she did an amazing job for a woman."

And I said (what I still believe): "The fact that you felt you had to qualify the statement IS the problem."

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

The same rhetoric about showers and bunks. Thus, accomodations. That is being used as the excuse for discrimination.

If that's what you're going to boil it down to, I'll stop wasting my time with you now. That makes it pretty dang clear that your mind is made up, and don't bother you with the facts.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2010/02/colin_powell_on.html

Brian said...

Gino, admit it...you just wanted an excuse to post that picture again!

;)

Anonymous said...

My name is Amanda,

In reviewing your most recent post, I have to ask, if a woman told you point blank she had joined the military to bag a man, you wouldn't take her to task in the same way you did the male officer who couldn't find the words to compliment the female officer who had done such an outstanding job?

It would seem to me a woman going into the military for that reason is just as guilty of promoting the same standard which you find offensive in a male.

Just wondering.

squeaky

K-Rod said...

Since some want to change it to "Don't ask, Do tell", will the homos be required to wear pink?

Why are people so obsessed with gays not only in the military but openly and aggressively show their homosexuality.

....

I'm not going to sugar coat this for the morons; the expectation for all soldiers is to conform to the behavior required as a soldier; don't make this all about non-existent "homo" rights.

If you want to act in a way unbecoming of a soldier you should deal with the consequences. Duh.


Regardless of whether you are homo or hetro, we ALL have the same rights. Period.

Brian said...

Foxfier--how many gay people do you actually know? I am (literally) surrounded by gay men where I live, and have *never* experienced the sort of aggressive propositioning you seem to imagine takes place. (And at the risk of sounding like a prick, I'm a pretty decent-looking guy.) If/when that sort of thing does happen, I think it is safe to say that the person engaging in that kind of behavior is doing so because he/she is an asshole, not because he/she is gay.

FWIW, I am all for a "no assholes" rule in the military, and life generally.

tully--indeed.

Amanda--I have unqualified respect and admiration for the quality of your comments (not making a joke here, I really do), and I found it very easy to find those words. I don't think your officer acquaintance is sexist, he's just over-thinking.

squeaky--huh?

K-Rod--your rhetorical flourish is as impressive as ever.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Brian-
Where, exactly, did I say anything about "aggressive propositioning"? I don't mind defending my statements, but I do require that they actually be my statements. ANY propositioning by someone you're forced to sleep and shower with is unacceptable.

I have seen women get away with far, far more than any man would in sexual harassment on unwilling targets, day in and day out, because no-one wants to risk doing anything-- that would be sexist, y'know.

Sadly, "no assholes" would not do the military any good-- we need jerks because they make the impossible demands and because there is a depressingly high rate of flat out lazy folks around. Thing is, the assholes we need are the ones that respect tradition, rather than reveling in violating it and rubbing that violation in folks' face; the folks who don't respect someone else's feelings because there's something to get done, not because they enjoy emotional abuse.

On the side, I'm endlessly amused that folks assume ignorance of homosexuals when I don't agree with them, on the basis of what they've personally seen... because nobody else ever has totally different experiences with humans, right?
A better question might be: how much experience do you have with 17-22 year old homosexuals of both sexes? The same folks who do stupid, short-sighted things, especially for their ideals or desires?

K-Rod said...

Amanda said:
"...And I said (what I still believe): "The fact that you felt you had to qualify the statement IS the problem."..."

Amanda, the fact that YOU have to qualify people as straight or gay IS the problem.

My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

....

Brian, just the facts ma'am.


Regardless of whether you are homo or hetro, we ALL have the same rights. Period.

Brian said...

Where, exactly, did I say anything about "aggressive propositioning"?

I was referring to the first paragraph of your first comment. Obviously I paraphrased; if you feel that's a mischaracterization of what you said, then OK.

folks assume ignorance of homosexuals when I don't agree with them

Not assuming...just asking. And you didn't answer.

A better question might be: how much experience do you have with 17-22 year old homosexuals of both sexes?

Enough to be glad I'm not that age anymore.

The same folks who do stupid, short-sighted things, especially for their ideals or desires?

I don't disagree with any of that. But it's a function of age and immaturity, not sexual preference.

My larger point here is that there are many, many reasons for people to behave inappropriately (in the military or anywhere else). By all means, punish inappropriate behavior. But to exclude an entire class of people outright on the basis of little more than prejudice/fear/ignorance about one aspect of their private lives is arbitrary and silly.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Obviously I paraphrased; if you feel that's a mischaracterization of what you said, then OK.

...are you talking about where I pointed out the civilians who know jack and crit about military lifestyles?

Not assuming...just asking. And you didn't answer.

That's because I know how this dance goes: folks ask "yeah, well, do you know any X?" And when you say "yes, I know X, Y, Z and Q through N" they use that as an extra angle of attack. Not going to play that game-- if someone can't argue against the arguments, I won't hand them an ad hominem.

I don't disagree with any of that. But it's a function of age and immaturity, not sexual preference.

Who cares? Seriously, who cares if you are dead because the kid in the other car was trying to impress the girls, or if it's because the middle aged man was drunk? Who CARES if it's not fair a girl was raped in a club because she was drunk or because the bastard could? The end result is the same, and the end result is what matters in the military.

The relevant point is that, due to the sexuality involved, it will result in the sort of stupid, short-sighted issues that will interfere with the military mission at best.

That "at best" means dead people.

But to exclude an entire class of people outright on the basis of little more than prejudice/fear/ignorance about one aspect of their private lives is arbitrary and silly.

Good thing nobody's suggesting it, eh? A lot of folks are accusing those they disagree with of being thus motivated, but I don't hold much with their mind-reading abilities.

Let me put it in a very simple nutshell, though it will naturally suffer from the process:
what would be the net effect of forcing all men and women in the military to bunk together?
Keep in mind that female-on-male harassment is ignored, while male-on-female is believed unless it can be proven to be a physical impossibility. (Case I'm most familiar with, the woman accused a guy who was in another state in front of a bunch of brass at the stated time. Upside, that mistake saved the entire shop she'd accused-- she only accused him because the other woman in the shop liked him.)

Now, outside of prejudice (against traditional morality), fear (of being accused of intolerance by the PC Chosen) and ignorance (of military needs and goals as well as human motivation), what is the difference between forcing a man and a woman to bunk and forcing two homosexual men to bunk?

Either homosexuality is different, or it is not; if it is not, then simple human dignity demands that we not force folks to bunk with those who are sexually attracted to them or who they find sexually attractive. When a small berthing holds about seventy five folks, this isn't going to work.

Gino said...

foxfier has a point.

we have regs now that concern fraternization tween the sexes.
they are violated all the time, but with out the regs, if it was fraternization free for all, the issues would be much graeter.

we are dealing primarily with 18-22yrs, after all. and these 'adults' do need limits and leashes.

you cant bunk the gays co-ed, or together, due to potential fraternization issues.

the ban on gays does serve to keep those gays who would be inclined to misbehave on a leash, so to speak.

i'm thinking, like any law, its design is to lesson as well as prohibit.

we need to keep in mind, the military is not a free society, and never was inteded to be.

stuff like prejudice has it place in certain aspects, especially in aspects of behavior within a soceity that is built around conformity and obedience.

and homsexuality manifests itself in behavior. it can be banned.

tully said...

"homosexuality manifests itself in behavior. it can be banned"

I don't see my heterosexuality manifesting itself in behavior anytime soon!

Gino said...

now tully, i saw a pic of you with some hottie on yer fb page.

if you dont want, i know a few who do.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Too bad for you, Tully....

tully said...

That would be my aunt, Gino. (:

I'm getting a kick out of that one...Thanks, really. I'm honored.

Gino said...

that means she already loves you. yer half-way there.

tully said...

The little reminder I tend to give people on this issue is that this isn't about people flaunting their sexuality, or even disclosing their sexuality. The fact is, DADT can get you fired from the military just as soon as someone outs you. That means, whether you talk about your sexuality or not, if someone has a grudge against you and an internet connection, there's a good chance you can lose your career on account of your sexuality. That is a horrifying prospect.

Moreover, you could make the same arguments against racial integration of the military when racial tensions were high, couldn't you ("It's not practical to have black and white men fighting side by side")? Why should we have changed that rule? Don't people always fight more efficiently when placed beside comrades similar to themselves?

The big question is always whether these changes in language and policy are to be conditioned upon the changes in the hearts and minds of people, or whether it's the other way around. That question follows along the deepest division, in my estimation, in the history of philosophy, and it will not be resolved soon. That being said, we are only confusing the issue by not addressing it:

Does language (in it's broadest sense, including gestures, actions and any other means of communicating in the world) precede thought or does thought precede language?

tully said...

Oh, I just saw your awful quip...you slay me...

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

The fact is, DADT can get you fired from the military just as soon as someone outs you.

No, it can't. That is the "don't ask" portion.

If you go on TV saying "I'm gay and in the military"-- you told. If you bring your boyfriend to the base chapel and file to have a wedding ceremony-- you're outing yourself.

tully said...

Where can I access information on this law?

Gino said...

i dont know how it works exactly.

foxfier: if tully has butt sex with another sailor, and somebody tells the CO, does he get booted from the navy?

or does he need to be on video, or answer the question when asked?

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Here's one section, 10 U.S.C. § 654(b); amazingly, Wiki was helpful here.


A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that--
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

This is a better formated version.

Gino-
it has to be "credible."
Let me put it this way: there are two times that folks I know were separated for homosexuality. One was a pair of guys who set themselves up to get caught in the middle of the act in boot camp on night watch, and the other was a female bi friend that wanted out, so Frenched a civie female friend in the middle of the squadron picnic. ^.^

There's actually some really amusing reading you can find...guy from the Army is pissed because he was kicked out when he went on TV and said "yeah! I'm gay and in the military! Look it me!" (Looked it up: Darren Manzella)

There was an inquiry in his case, all was good...then he went on effin' 60 minutes. (Possibly, his superiors thought he was trying to pull like the other folks I mentioned. Me, I figure if some guy is desperate enough to do that sort of stuff, he's desperate enough to shoot himself in the foot or throw himself down stairs-- cheaper to discharge under DADT than to pay his medical bills.)

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Oh, Gino:
short answer:
guy I linked outed himself to his commander, submitted his own video of himself kissing his boyfriend...and didn't get kicked out until after he went on 60 minutes....

Gino said...

ok, so its not that hard to stay gay and in the army.

i only know of a coworker who's daughter didnt want to deploy to germany,(army) so she outed herself to the commander.

according to him, she says there are now shortage of lesbians in the army. she had lots of friends, and it was common knowledge.

as long as everybody behaved, nobody cared.

but that just what the one guy told me, so i cant say its definitive.

tully said...

We're talking about whether homosexuals are protected by military protocol. Everything you've given me indicates that the obsolescence of those in-command and surrounding the homosexual is in some way protective...but if a grudge forms toward that person for any reason, he or she is unprotected as soon as someone cares enough to put them into the spotlight. The excerpt you have given merely shows that homosexuality is tolerated within the military as long as it is not blatant. My point is that it can be made blatant. I thought you were going to give me the "Don't Ask" portion of the code...I guess I'll try to find it myself. Until I've looked at that, my argument means nothing.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

That is the entire code-- each department has their own procedures for it, but that's it.

You can't be removed except for the stated reasons, which do not include "some guy said you were gay" or "I think you might be gay" or even "before you joined you were gay" or "you tried to hire a same-sex prostitute last night, but we don't think you'll do it again."

That means that your notion-
That means, whether you talk about your sexuality or not, if someone has a grudge against you and an internet connection, there's a good chance you can lose your career on account of your sexuality.
- is incorrect. If you don't talk about your sexuality, post military, there won't be anything to find, and if someone digs up pre-military items, it's covered under 1 a, b and e.

RW said...

oh hai, what's this thread about?

K-Rod said...

Foxfier, excellent points, well done. Bravo!

Gino, good post, I think we can all agree DADT works (well, good enough for government work) and shouldn't be changed.

The bottom line, folks, is that Gino just wanted to post that pic again. ;^)

tully said...

Yes, I was wrong here. Well done Foxflier. I proved myself unable to read in this instance...you must admit, the grammar's not exactly a paradigm of clarity in this law.

Many thanks. I'll have to think over where to go from here on this issue. In the meantime, that was most informative.

Gino said...

oh hai, what's this thread about?

currently?
butt sex.

care to join in?

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Think we could get a movement to force laws to actually be easy to understand? If the bill of rights can manage it.....

tully said...

Mind you, I consider myself more capable than the next fellow to read the likes of Leibniz, Aristotle and Shakespeare...but I can't for the life of me read this law.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

I had the advantage of knowing the regulation, already.

Shakespeare made something beautiful; lawyers just hack out the shape they want from a log-jam of existing laws.

tully said...

To you, Foxflier, yield I many thanks,
That in your triumph magnanimity
Should crest the honor of your sword well-stained,
And in your graciousness am I now rained
Upon with such a shower of grace
As would great Tethys and Oceanus to sate,
Yet with what might thou would'st with violence make
The forg'ed jaws of law's conflation's sink
To clarity withall, upon truth's brink!

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

To battle cypher,
legalese all concealing,
is my desire

tully said...

Well done

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Yours was cooler, but I'm glad the haiku didn't utterly sink.

Gino said...

forget it tully. she's married.

tully said...

Do you ever get tired of crushing dreams?

my name is Amanda said...

Wow, 56 comments on this post! Exciting times. I didn't mean to abandon the thread - a lot of moving across the state stuff happening.

Foxfier - I am disappointed that you will not confront the Shower Excuse for keeping gay military members closeted, but mostly I believe that you aren't addressing that point of mine, and others, because you can't.

Squeaky - Maybe Brian is right, and I was being a little too harsh with the male officer who couldn't compliment the LCDR. I do think that the fact that she's a woman shouldn't be an issue, but he wasn't being an asshole for being overly conscious about it.

But to answer your question, no, I wouldn't take to task a woman who joined the military to find a husband. Not at all. I've perceived some women as joining the military because they want to use it as an exercise regimen. Some just need a direction, like with some men. I truly believe that committing to the job you take is what's important, regardless of the reason you take it. Like women in the 50s who went to college to get an MRS degree and ended up with an education and career instead. (Hey, it happened sometimes.)

And I don't think doing anything in order to find a husband or wife is "sexist." Not in and of itself. Most people want to get married, after all.

K-Rod - Why would homosexuals be required to wear pink? Explain to me how that makes sense.

Brian - Thank you!

K-Rod - Amanda, the fact that YOU have to qualify people as straight or gay IS the problem.

What problem are you referring to?

Gino - we have regs now that concern fraternization tween the sexes.
they are violated all the time, but with out the regs, if it was fraternization free for all, the issues would be much graeter.


Why does repealing DADT mean that there will be a free for all in the bunks?

Why do people keep talking like repealing DADT is the same as "letting gays into the military?"

They are already in the military. Many of the coworkers know they are gay. Things are rolling along SWIMMINGLY.


Tully - Does language (in it's broadest sense, including gestures, actions and any other means of communicating in the world) precede thought or does thought precede language?

It seems to me that language and thought influence each other, in an unending evolution.

As to how this relates to DADT, I guess it means that this isn't an issue we can address once. It's a process, like all efforts at equality among humans.

K-Rod said...

Amanda, please try to keep up with the discussion and try not to contradict yourself.

Out of one side of your mouth you cry for "equality among humans" and out of the other side you have to qualify people as straight or gay. The military assimilates recruits, openly gay and fraternizing behavior is not becoming of a soldier and is not part of the job description.

Anonymous said...

Good ԁay! This is my fіrst visіt to уour blog!

We are a teаm οf volunteerѕ and stагting a new ρrοject іn a community іn the ѕаme nichе.

Youг blog pгoviԁed us vаluable infоrmаtion to
work on. You hаve done a outstаnding jоb!
Feel free to visit my web blog whichonlinecolleges.com