Explain this to me....

[anarky]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_ ... Zzd2FybmFn

WASHINGTON – Top Army and Air Force officers said Tuesday they would be reluctant to overturn a 17-year policy that prohibits gays from serving openly in the military without more time to ascertain it won't hurt the services.

"I do have serious concerns about the impact of a repeal of the law on a force that is fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight and a half years," Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey told Congress. "We just don't know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness."

As Casey cautioned the Senate Armed Services Committee against moving too fast to repeal the law, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz made similar remarks before the House.

The carefully crafted comments indicate reluctance among the military's senior ranks to act anytime soon on President Barack Obama's plan to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Obama says the policy is wrongheaded and should change. Defense Secretary Robert Gates agrees but wants to move slowly, and has ordered a lengthy assessment on how to lift the ban without affecting troops and their families.

Officials expect the study to be complete by the end of the year, but that it could be several more years before the repeal is fully implemented.

In the meantime, congressional Democrats are debating how to advance the issue. Some party members are reluctant to repeal the 1993 law, while others want an immediate moratorium on dismissals.

The testimony by the service chiefs is considered crucial to the debate. As the top uniformed officials in each service, the chief is in charge of recruitment and preparing troops for deployments. If the policy on gays is overturned, they would have to decide how to implement the changes.

What am I missing?

What is there to it, aside from saying, "Okay, if you're gay, you can serve and we won't kick you out"?

[Senor JabbaJohnL]

You mean some people in the military could be anti-gay? I'm absolutely shocked!

[Ran]

Just throwing this out there. Imagine being stuck in Iraq or some other shit hole for 3, 4, 6, or 12 months. You work 10-12 hours a day with people trying to blow you into tiny pieces. All the while living in a tent with a dozen other dudes and having to use community showers with little or no privacy. You get that one 5-10 minute shower per day and an openly gay guy walks in. How you think you'd feel? Reminder: some of these guys have guns that are loaded.

I'm not naive and I know there are gays in the military now. I joined right as the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy kicked in. The recruiter actually didn't have the new forms, so he had to skip those questions on whatever form he was filling out. Over the 12 years I was in, I only knew of a few people that were gay, but its not like I was looking for them, either. A guy I shared a bathroom with ended up getting busted for drugs, then supposedly came out of the closet after he got to prison. I'm not sure if it was real, or if he just wanted to be transferred out of that jail.

That said, I don't have a problem with gay marriage and other gay rights. Just think about some of the conditions the military lives in before you say how easy it would be to change living conditions.

[Slicker]

I personally don't have a problem with gays serving but I 110% see where Ran is coming from. I realize that all gay men don't just go around wanting to fuck every guy they see but I'm sure the tendencies are there. What if you had coed showers? Would you not be attracted to a female or vice versa? How would you feel if someone you weren't attracted to came onto you or was watching you int he shower?

That being said there are several gay guys and girls on the ship. The guys can be spotted a mile away since they literally walk with forearms out and they strut. Not shit. The girls are more manly than the men. No shit. Whatevs. They don't do a damn thing to me and I don't do a damn thing to them.

[anarky]

Okay, fair enough. I was just curious. Yousa points well seen.

[Ran]

I don't care either way. I just didn't think you guys understood the close quarters some of these guys live in. Those Generals putting off the decision is probably a smart thing. They have a lot of things to think about before they change the policy. It wasn't too long ago the Army and Marine Corps had gang and white supremest problems leading to people getting killed. I would hate to see someone getting killed because of his sexual preference.

[Diabolical]

What if you had coed showers? Would you not be attracted to a female or vice versa? How would you feel if someone you weren't attracted to came onto you or was watching you int he shower?

Seemed to work just fine in Starship Troopers.

I was just curious.

I knew it.

[vynsane]

That being said there are several gay guys and girls on the ship. The guys can be spotted a mile away since they literally walk with forearms out and they strut. Not shit. The girls are more manly than the men. No shit. Whatevs. They don't do a damn thing to me and I don't do a damn thing to them.

by this logic, if you can tell without being told, what's the difference? they're still gay whether or not they 'told the proper authorities'. you should be equally scared of being hit on (if it's a gay dude) or lose an arm-wrestling match (if it's a gay chick) whether it's checked off on a form or not.

it really won't change a damn thing one way or another. there are homosexual people in the military. there are heterosexual people in the military. there are homophobes in the military. just like every other facet of life. the only thing this will change is whether or not it's checked off on a form.

wait, maybe i'm getting this wrong: if "don't ask, don't tell" is repealed, does that mean it will REQUIRE everyone TO ask and everyone TO tell? that WOULD cut into productivity time...

i understand the close quarters/showers thing, but at the end of the day, i don't see a big difference in the end result. it's just getting rid of a rather arcane misinterpretation of equality. BUT, it does give a homosexual person recourse of action if he or she is actively persecuted for being homosexual. as it stands right now, they're not allowed to tell, so any persecution that goes on is under the radar and can be swept under the rug as "well, no one knew you were a gay, so obviously the harassment is because of something else!"

[anarky]

As I understand it, it wouldn't require anyone to be "out," but they wouldn't be booted if they do come out (or are found out, or whatever).

The real confusing question: How come if I buy an album by Johnny Cash, Amazon starts bombarding me with e-mails that start, "As a country music fan, you might like..." followed by stuff I definitely would not like? Yet they will allow new books by authors I've bought multiple books by, albums by bands I've bought multiple albums by, etc, totally slip by until I find out about them six months later? Can't they work on their recommendation system, or at least realize that all Johnny Cash fans don't automatically love bullshit like Toby Keith or Rascal Flatts?

[jdr3]

How's it different than race, where they ask you if you are black asian or other? What the fuck we like segregation, who gives a shit it's going to happen anyway. You don't have to answer the race question..(or at least you are not supposed to have to) but they make you do it anyway. You're not supposed to use your SSN as identification, but you can't get shit nowadays without entering it. You don't have to tell people whether you're married, yet a professional networking site like LinkedIN asks you the question. You can't say you're open-minded and than say you don't understand or accept people that "aren't". Human nature is hypocritical at best. But I think it's awesome.

[Slicker]

by this logic, if you can tell without being told, what's the difference? they're still gay whether or not they 'told the proper authorities'. you should be equally scared of being hit on (if it's a gay dude) or lose an arm-wrestling match (if it's a gay chick) whether it's checked off on a form or not.

Perhaps there are people out there that are gay and haven't joined for the fear of being kicked out but if it's repealed then they won't have that fear and they'll join. Like I said I don't really have a problem but there are ignorant people that would definitely have a problem and may act on it.

True boat story. In our 200 man berthing we had a phantom cock toucher. He would go around to where you slept in the middle of the night and literally start playing with your dick. Needless to say he did it to the wrong person and got the shit beat out of him...bad. Now he's in federal prison for sexual assault.

[anarky]

Okay, that's the sort of behavior that doesn't belong anywhere, military or not. He deserved an ass-kicking and jail time.

I dunno if the media plays it up, but I keep hearing stories like "There are only six Arabic translators in the service, and one of them was outed on Facebook, so now they have to kick him out." Sounds serious, but possible overdramatic.

[Senor JabbaJohnL]

Perhaps there are people out there that are gay and haven't joined for the fear of being kicked out but if it's repealed then they won't have that fear and they'll join.

That's probably true. Haven't there been several translators who were kicked out for being gay, thus hindering our ability to understand what possible terrorists were saying? That's a problem.

EDIT: Holy shit, anarky, I was posting about the translators as you were. Weird.

[vynsane]

True boat story. In our 200 man berthing we had a phantom cock toucher. He would go around to where you slept in the middle of the night and literally start playing with your dick. Needless to say he did it to the wrong person and got the shit beat out of him...bad. Now he's in federal prison for sexual assault.

who is in federal prison for sexual assault? the phantom manhandler (did i just create a new forumite, or was it just bizzarro the grip?) or the guy who kicked his ass? if it's the toucher, then he got what he deserved - i mean, the imprisonment (maybe the beating, too). had it been a woman, she would have been equally guilty and imprisoned (unless she was smokin' hot, 'natch). it has nothing to do with sexual orientation, except that in this case it would be minimally easier for a guy to do it, as opposed to a girl, as he shared the room with 199 other dudes. a chick would have to go to such lengths as open a door.

sexually touching someone in their sleep is deviant behavior (and just stupid). consensual homosexual sex is not. i'm sure of the other 199 guys, any gay dudes only touched other consenting gay dudes.

if the guy who beat up the toucher is in prison, that's another matter. defending yourself is one thing, but beating a guy to a pulp instead of reporting his ass to the higher-ups borders on hate crime. in my opinion they should've both seen repercussions. there's no reason for putting someone in the hospital for touching your winky. a mild thrashing would suffice. a broken nose, maybe.

[Slicker]

The phantom manhandler is in prison. This wasn't even the first time it happened...or the second...or probably even the 4th. Everyone knew it was him but he had never been physically caught. So when someone finally got him he got about 6 penis touchings worth of an ass kicking.


As for the translators I'll have to call BS on that one. I'm not certain on this but I'd have to say that at least every carrier in the fleet has an arabic translator which would give a total at least 10 of them on top of whatever translators are on the ground in the middle east.