During his speech, the president stated that he wanted to see the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy repealed and presumably authorize Gays to serve openly in the military. It is estimated that currently there are as many as 66,000 Gays now serving on active duty. I would pose the question of, what if tomorrow an announcement were made that such had been approved Navy wide? Presumably, numerous individuals serving on ships and at Japan Bases would suddenly "Come Out". What would be the reaction? Would there be hostility? How would retention be effected?

Posted By Westpac Wayfarer on 29 Jan 2010 07:00 AM 
I would pose the question of, what if tomorrow an announcement were made that such had been approved Navy wide? Presumably, numerous individuals serving on ships and at Japan Bases would suddenly "Come Out". What would be the reaction? Would there be hostility? How would retention be effected?

Wow! that's kind of a loaded/can of worms question. 
I'm not sure. As for hostility I'm sure there would be some negative incidents around the armed services. It's nothing new to the military. Shortly before I left Japan a sailor commited suicide by handing his CO2 cartridge from his float coat to one of his squadron mates and jumped off the flight deck in the middle of flight ops. He was never found. It was rumored that he was being harassed about being gay, whether he was or not I don't know.
I personally have no problem with other peoples sexual orientation as long as they do their job, are proffesional, and keep their personal life out of the work place.
It definately has the potential to affect retention as many will feel uncomfortable knowing that someone may or may not be checking them out in the shower room. Which brings up a whole other can of worms. Would they be required to give people of gay orientation their own berthing and shower spaces on the ship to avoid incidents?
I believe sexual harassment cases have the potential to sky rocket just on malicious intent alone both against and from gay sailors.
It's something that would require much more thought and new policies that are well above my paygrade.
We were discussing this at work earlier today and to most it didn't really matter other than not wanting to have someone else of the same gender checking them out or hitting on them.

Rumors aside, it's a non-issue. To state otherwise is an underestimation of the American service menber.

Adapt and overcome. Jeeze. It's not like repealing the law is giving them permission to bugger you in the middle of the night! Only YOU can do that!

The majority of folks know who's gay and who's not. We really have no problem with it. I suspect that those still in the closet wouldn't disclose until they get to their next command, if they choose to disclose at all. I mean, I doubt seriously that I'd tell anyone in my current chain of command that I'm, you know...a LESBIAN.

Damn! Well, there. I said it. I've come out. Now I guess people will look at me differntly. They'll whisper more. I'll be stigmatized. IF THEY HADN'T PUT WOMEN ON SHIPS THIS NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED!!!

I just wish I could've done this while I was on active duty.

Repeal of the law will probably be a real good thing for submariners! (Go ahead. Hit me! I dare ya!)



(Mumble, grumble, raise your ire time. Take as much as you need.)




WHAT?!? The law's not repealed yet?

Nuts!

Okay. Just forget what I said. It's not true. I'm not a lesbian. I just happen to like flannel shirts.

Hey! I like women! I must be a lesbian also!

I guess I am kind of mixed on this issue. While I agree with you that it is "non-issue" the more I think about it, I am realizing it is a kind of a big deal. Part of the might of the Military is it's image.The perception of the Military as a strong, masculine entity helps command control and works to set America as a leader to Americans and our neighbors alike (despite their being women amongst the ranks). For many people homosexuality is a sign of weakness. Most nearly because of the mainstream portrayal of gays in the media (I know not all gay men are feminine, but that is generally the notion). Gays are sometimes categorized as not normal or having a degree of strange-ity as a result of their preferences. That too works against America's image of strength. So I guess the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy works as sort of a buffer to protect the image of the Military, by barring members from being openly gay, it promotes an image of strength and keeps "gay-bashers" at bay because no one can say that they are gay. Eh...wrong...that last point can easily be torn apart, with the numerous members who have been harmed and or/harmed themselves as a direct result of their sexuality.

Anyway, I think it would be nice that all people can openly display their affection to their partners, I just fear what it would do for the members that do "come-out". Maybe we could just quietly sweep the policy under the rug, but encourage people to keep sexuality a personal matter. That applies to both gay and straight!

Perception of the military members being strong and masculine is irrelevant. YOUR SEX LIFE IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS!! Keeping it to yourself at work is PROFESSIONAL. I might suspect that you are gay but under the law I cannot and will not ask you (what kind of people you have sex with) or discriminate against you because I "suspect" that you are homosexual. So yes it does legally deter against "gay bashing". But just in case any of you have failed to realize the real reason our heavenly father pres. obama has made this an issue I will enlighten you. "Gay" people want gay marriage. They want the Federal Government to acknowledge it and allow military members and subsequent dependents who enter into a gay marriage to be allowed health insurance and retirement benefits etc. This is just another ploy to claim discrimination and to shove their "sexuality" in our faces. To all of you gay people out there, I love you, I really do but I don't care that you are gay; just like you don't care that I am straight! But I really really wish you would QUIT TELLING ME that you are. It's nobody's business.

I also think it should be a non-issue. You guys (and gals) are working with homosexual people as we speak. Taking away the "don't ask, don't tell" would not make the gays go crazy and have them start hitting on you left and right. Be reasonable here. It would only give them more freedom to be who they are.

I also think the public thinks the Military and it's people is homophobic in nature, that we gay bash left and right and would discriminate. That's just not true, I think most members would not care. Hey, you might even have homophobic members but they wouldn't go around making life miserable for a person. And well... you will have a few that do. And we don't need those people, they're right their with racist, sexist, and a$$holes.

As far as putting them in different berthings and showers...? Think about it, that's just segregation right there. If a gay guy can't handle being around all those men or if a guy can't handle the fact he might be showering around a gay male... then just get out or grow up. It's 2010, the Military is full of different people, races, religions, sexes, and as an American Military members (and families) we should show the world we're for equality and fair treatment to no matter who it is. We're far ahead of many different countries and I'd like to keep it that when it comes to issues like this.

I agree with Elizabeth 100%. For the most part, everyone knows who is gay/lesbian and if they aren't doing anything to bother anyone else, than it really doesn't matter. As far as the segregation issues i mean seriously, if there is someone that is harassing others in berthing/showers than a. I'm sure it would have been something that was going on way before they were allowed to be 'out' and b. it is not 'gay people' who behave in such a manner, its a sexual deviant who can be of either orientation and sex. For the other side of that, if segregation was because of bigotry, than the offender doesn't need to be in the military. Keep your opinions on your co-workers to yourself and be professional.

What about Transsexuals a.k.a. "Trannys". Should "Trannys" be allowed to serve? If a biological male who is now serving or wants to serve desires to wear female type uniforms and conduct themselves in the female role, should they be permitted? Remember "Klinger" in Mash. Same question for females who desire to wear male uniforms etc.? If you feel Gays should serve openly but do not feel that "Trannys" should, please explain. Should a sailor be allowed to undergo a SEX change operation and continue to serve? Should the procedure be provided by the military? Where would they be berthed? Which head facilities would they use? Why not just have everybody use COED facilities? Well what do you think? Just asking...

I highly doubt the image of the US military would suffer if we removed DADT. Israel's defense force has allowed openly gay service members since 1993, and I don't think anyone could argue they've become a bunch of weenies since then. The countries that would look down on us for having openly gay service members already hate our guts and aren't particularly warm to our having women serving in the military either.

The "we can't have openly gay people in the military because they'll be harassed" argument doesn't really fly with me, either. I'm sure the same things were said when African-Americans were integrated into the services. Wouldn't that kind of argument essentially condone the harassment? Or consider it inevitable and that there'd be nothing that anyone could do about it ever? People have to work with other people they don't like/agree with/feel comfortable with all the time. They can either suck it up and move on (and possibly find out that other group isn't so terrible), or they can be shown the door.

FYI, "Trannys" is derogatory.

Transexualism opens a whole can of worms, and there are many categories, are they transexual, transgendered, cross-dresser, transvestite, genderqueer, pansexual, etc etc? But I feel that what sex you are, legally, not necessarily identify as, is what you should fall under in the Military. At work. But at home they can do whatever they want. If someone had a sex change is now legally a woman but was a man before, well now she is a woman and will follow rules for females in the Military. And I do think they should be allowed to go under procedures while serving. And after the procedure they should be now identified in the Military as to what gender they switched to. As far as if the Military should pay for it... IDK, since it falls under an "elective" surgery.

It really is a slippery slope and any set rules will never please anyone. I do think it's harsh if a man identifies himself as a woman but is a "male" within the Military no matter what. I don't really know how the Military could accommodate them to make it "fair". I am open for suggestions to see things differently though.

If you allow Gays to serve openly but do not allow Transsexuals to do so also by dressing in manner that they identify with, wouldn't that be discriminatory? Is it OK to have equality for some and not for others? Is "Tranny" really derogatory? Are there any "Trannys" out there who could advise us? Are Gays more deserving of equitable treatment than "Trannys". It seems to me that the "Prez" needs to contemplate these sorts of issues before he proceeds.

My opinion is this: I have no problem with it, as long as the person gets the job done, is professional, and keeps their business out of mine. That being said, if they're going to put women on submarines, better make it co-ed cuz if tom, dick, and harry can get their show while I'm going to take a shower, then I damn sure better be able to get my show when the women go shower. =D

Is "Tranny" really derogatory?

Considering "tranny" in the first place is slang for transvestites, yes, it's derogatory when you use it describing someone who is transsexual and not a transvestite. This also doesn't mean you can call a transvestite a "tranny" either. It's not as cut and dry as the F-word for gays, nor the N-word for black people, but it's in the same class. Our world is way far behind when it comes to understanding transsexualism so slang words and everything of the like is not brought to light as much a gay issues are.

As far as the prez addressing transsexuals, I think that's going to take a long time. He won't even consider gay marriage.

We all know we work with a lot of people who dont like gay people, I think all hell would break loos. It's like woman on submarines, things will have to change to make everyone fell comfortable serving next to them. I shouldnt matter anyway cause we all know who they are most of the time and they have been doing the job for years now anyway...

Posted By Elizabeth on 29 Jan 2010 03:38 PM

As far as putting them in different berthings and showers...? Think about it, that's just segregation right there. If a gay guy can't handle being around all those men or if a guy can't handle the fact he might be showering around a gay male... then just get out or grow up. It's 2010, the Military is full of different people, races, religions, sexes, and as an American Military members (and families) we should show the world we're for equality and fair treatment to no matter who it is. We're far ahead of many different countries and I'd like to keep it that when it comes to issues like this.

This is where things get interesting. Is it really segregation? If you were a female on a ship would you like it of there were 5 other guys in the shower room with you or watching you get dressed or undressed in the berthing? I'm sure most women would say no. Many service members could very well feel the same about someone who is openly gay.
As I said before it doesn't really bother me personally as long as they keep their personal feeling towards their co workers to themselves. I currently serve with an individual who is gay. He just made Chief, great guy, but keeps his personal life to himself and is professional at work.
It's a very difficult subject and should be thought about long and hard before just implementing it because it's good politics.

This is where things get interesting. Is it really segregation?

Well, yeah it is, IMO. We separate men and woman because of their sex, not because of their sexual preference.

If someone has a problem there might be a gay man showering in a stall next to them... sorry, get over it. A gay man probably not even thought about him in that way ever, anyway (because he knew he was straight). But if that gay man showering by him is leering or harassing him, well then you'd handle it the same way you would sexual harassment between a man and a woman. If a gay man wants to harass you, trust me, it isn't going to take that trip to the shower or sleeping in the same berthing.

Lifting the "don't ask, don't tell" policy isn't going to change the fact of how homosexuals act now while serving. They might just put a picture of their boyfriend on their desk or hold hands when you see them out to dinner in town--oh no! Straight people have the privlage of just everyone assuming you're straight to begin with, you can have that picture of your wife, you can talk about your date night (or even get nasty, you know some of you do!), etc etc. This just gives homosexuals the same right.

I mean if people want to segregate, then don't even bother getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell". Segregating them is far worse in my opinion... and how do you segregate people who are serving in Iraq and stuff?

Ok! you're right it is segregation. Maybe I didn't make my point clear. So if someone is admitedly gay and has let everyone know they are gay that they work with, does it not stand to reason that many will feel uncomfortable showering or being around them in the berthing. Is it not along the same lines as having men and women in the same shower room or berthing? Perhaps the gay individual is not comfortable being in the same shower room or berthing as the same sex due to their attraction to them. Do they then use the opposite sex shower or berthing? Or would it simply be easier for the military to provide them with their own berthing and shower? IMO it would be easier to provide them with another berthing or shower to use because of the issues that could arise from using the same sex areas. Again this is not something that should be just pushed out there for the sake of good politics. This is something that should be thought long and hard about with the higher chains of command. Especially when you consider the above questions.
Many of the individuals that are gay keep it to themselves, and most people around them probably don't know about it. If they were suddenly to "come out" how  many of their co-workers perceptions would change about being around that individual in the berthing or shower room?
Now you have some people that are suddenly uncomfortable in what is supposed to be their haven in a place where personal space and privacy is a precious commodity. You don't get much space to "Live" on a ship and what little you have is almost sacred.
Yes the individual that is gay may have been uncomfortable the whole time they were there too, but it was their choice to join the service knowing that would be the case.
The majority of people joining the service don't consider the fact they may be living next to or showering with someone who is gay. I'm sure there are many out there who are homophobic to some degree or another. So is it fair to either party to not segregate them?

Edit: On a side note. What about bi-sexuals? How do you handle their needs?
A lot of this comes down to the morale, welfare, and quality of life of your troops. If their morale is low because they are uncomfortable where they live they will not perform to their best ability, and could even develop significant problems due to what may seem like an insignificant issue to some but is a large issue to them.

If someone is uncomfortable showering by a stall next to a gay man, or changes their views because someone just "came out", they're being childish and probably discriminating (I mean, are you really changing a view on that person 'cause they're dating the same sex? Really? They're still the same person with the same values and personality). Saying that they need to be squared off in different areas is discriminating. It's almost as if you're saying these gay men are sexual deviants and can't be trusted to control themselves. You're working with gay men now, and you probably already know some who are already out, and you're doing just fine in shared bathrooms, work spaces and berthings. Things are not going to change that much after DADT is lifted! Be reasonable.

It's 2010, America and the Military doesn't have time for people who have homophobic tendencies, nor do they have to make you feel comfortable in your workspace because you might be uncomfortable working with a gay person. That's a personal issue and belief. Most people around you are perfectly fine working side by side next to a homosexual... why should they have to change things for people who don't have a problem and homosexuals themselves? Don't like it, get out. Your small "sacred" living areas are not going to be tainted by a gay Sailor in a rack above you. (This also goes for a homosexual who is not comfortable being around the same sex... Navy not for you! Get out!) But hey, you know what, the rest of America isn't allowed to separate the Gay workforce from the Straight one. So when you go to the "real world" you might be working with a Gay man, and yep, you might have to share a hotel room with him once because you're going to a convention... see how it's silly to have the Military acting "behind the times" and discriminatory?

Like I said, men and women are separated because of their sex, not because of their preference. Men and women have different needs and levels of privacy for different things... like well, woman have periods and men don't, etc etc. You guys can walk around in your berthing without a shirt on, women can not, plus they don't want you seeing them in their PJs probably, etc etc. It has nothing to do with who they're dating!

And what about bisexuals? So if we segregated gay people, where would we put them? Bisexual and Gay people's needs in the Military are the same as yours. They just want to get paid and be treated fairly. Period.

I have no problem with lesbians, I think everyone likes lesbians...No really this will all blow over until they have the first military same sex wedding then it will all blow up again.

I totally think that too. It'll be a big deal in the beginning and then they'll forget about it.

And yeah, I think most of this thoughts on segregation and uncomfortableness is because of gay males... not lesbians like at all.

Don't forget the Trannys. Equal rights for
Trannys. No justice, No peace!

rofl damn man no way that would be crossing the line man.

A scenario from the near future:

LCDR Tom Jones stationed aboard the USS Flame CG-69 gets off duty while inport San Francisco. He heads straight over to the Castro district for some fun and maybe to meet that special somebody. During the evening he meets a local, Dick Pease, and they begin a relationship. A few weeks later, they fly off to Vermont to get married. They return and Tom plans to take Dick to base to get him a dependent's ID and apply for Housing. In order to be closer to Tom, Dick decides to enlist. Later Dick tells Tom that he has enlisted and he also confesses that his previous boyfriend is Boatswain's Mate Chief Sharkey who is also stationed on the Flame. Also complicating matters, CPO Sharkey knows about LCDR Jones and his boy toy and is not happy. To make things even more interesting, Dick has requested to be assigned to the Flame.

Anyone see any problems here? Will Tom & Dick be able to be Happy serving in the Navy? And what about Chief Sharkey?
Far fetched? Maybe but definitely possible.

This just in: Another setback for our Gay Shipmates!


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Super Bowl network CBS rejected an ad Friday from ManCrunch.com, a gay dating Web site.

"After reviewing the ad, which is entirely commercial in nature, our standards and practices department decided not to accept this particular spot," said CBS spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs. "We are always open to working with a client on alternative submissions."

How is the "scenario from the near future" a problem that could happen with gay men so special? It could happen between a man and woman, and probably already has. Well, they probably wouldn't go all the way to Vermont to get married.

Look at all the Military Leaders, and how there faces were when Obama said this.
Remember everyone, "It's the right thing to do!"

Oh my, they didn't even budge. Lol.

I don't really care what way they go, you will have to get over it or get out. I think lesbians are easier to digest than a gay man. I love the L word...lol

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me.
I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and all who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world.
I proudly serve my country’s Navy combat team with Honor, Courage and Commitment.
I am committed to excellence and the fair treatment of all.-the Sailor's Creed

If upholding the Constitution and adhering to the Sailors Creed are  Liberal views, then color me Liberal. I think that having homophobic views is more damaging to good conduct and discipline in the military than allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve. Whether you like it or not, there are LOTS of gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the military. As you cannot sexually harass someone of the opposite sex without violating EO rules, you cannot sexually harass someone of the same sex. Allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve will have little or no impact on mission readiness other than to piss off open and closet homophobic pricks.

Fireballfish that's quite an intimidating
moniker that you have there. I bet others
think twice before argueing with you.

You've certainly honed your cutting and
pasting skills to a fine edge. You should
have included the preamble to the constitution,
the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence,
and maybe a couple of Bible quotes to
help bolster your pathetic composition skills.

Way to go trotting out the "Homophobe Card" in
order to attempt to stifle discussion. You must
have borrowed Lizzie's Liberal Playbook
for dummies. BTW no one is espousing a
so called Homophobic Agenda. A critical
analysis through discussion of pertinent questions
and issues has been attempted. Illustrating
absurdity with absurdity is part of the process.

Lizzy annoys me. You boor me.

I only annoy you because I bring up valid points and you don't agree with me. Fireballfish also bought up valid points but you wrote them off, and continue to ignore questions and points (well, if you're not slamming them from your high horse). Why did you start this thread? Did you think everyone was going to agree and say having to accommodate Gay people in the Military was too bothersome and perhaps wrong?

Get with it, you're stuck in the past (as evident of other threads) and won't even think about any of the "new radical liberal views!" because it's too "PC" and the left for you.

Woman's rights happened, then civil rights for minorities, now it's Gay people's turn~

I'm just a guy with a dream.

Fireballfish--I think that was a really good post. A reminder that you absolutely can't argue with!

WestPac Wayfarer:

I know I have a valid point and I wanted to iterate what we as sailor and Americans are responsible for upholding. Yes, I did cut and paste, I even highlighted in red the portions I wanted people to read. If I had typed the whole post rather than cut and pasting it, would it have rang more true in your ears? Yes, I brought up the issue of homophobia, as those are the only people who will have a problem with this. As for parroting some sort of Liberal ideal, if you read the quotes I posted you would realize in black and white (and a little red for good measure) that the ideas I expressed were not "Liberal" but the ideas we built our nation on and thus are the ideas of patriotic Americans.

My post was not directed an any particular person, but to express my beliefs. I am not here to intimidate anyone, if I were I would have placed my profile with no personal information. Would you not argue with me if my moniker was "big_ogre"?

I will take this opportunity to take one jab though: What is this "dream" you speak of?

You're not part of it.

Well would you care to discuss what IS in your dream?

Its Lesbians and co-ed showers...

I want to vomit when you people start spouting your political garbage and throwing around all these terms. Just thought I'd share that.

This whole thing is nothing new. We've known for months that Obama was working on repealing the ban on DADT. I don't see why people are getting bent out of shape about the whole homophobe thing, either. It's a known fact that there is no shortage of them in this f-ed up world we live in. Intolerance exists whether we like it or not.

For the record, I'm a very conservative, Christian, Republican and I agree with Elizabeth and Fireballfish. I didn't realize a belief in fair and equal treatment was political garbage.

I didn't realize a belief in fair and equal treatment was political garbage.

If you say so, lady.

Posted By KeithJ on 31 Jan 2010 03:43 PM
This whole thing is nothing new. We've known for months that Obama was working on repealing the ban on DADT. I don't see why people are getting bent out of shape about the whole homophobe thing, either. It's a known fact that there is no shortage of them in this f-ed up world we live in. Intolerance exists whether we like it or not.

Keith is right, get over it and if you can't get out. Will only open up space to move up...lol

Keith is right, get over it and if you can't get out. Will only open up space to move up...lol

My thoughts exactly. Give me room to make the next paygrade.

Most military are tolerant. Most gay military personel are not "flamboyant" and they keep it to themselves not because of DADT. They know that if they were to be flamboyant, it would antagonize and disrupt morale for all. However, All of you have missed the major point of this DADT policy change. Its a sideways way of getting another group of people (gay and lesbian military) to demand that there be gay marriage and subsequently demand military healthcare and retirement benefits. Thats basically it. We all know someone in the service that is gay, we probably befriended them and had them help plan our wedding. We DONT care that they are gay. Remember the old saying "it takes one to know one?" It takes a bigot to know a bigot.

Its a sideways way of getting another group of people (gay and lesbian military) to demand that there be gay marriage and subsequently demand military healthcare and retirement benefits.

That's the whole point, these people should be allowed this when they're legally married. Just like heterosexual couples.

But that ain't happening during the administration probably... well, at least his first term, anyway.

Top Defense Officials Seek an End to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

I like how Gates ordered a 1 year review how this would affect the impact for the military.  I had a pretty long discussion today with someone at lunch, and we talked a little about the affects.  You know it will piss off a lot of people, although, what happened when they allowed equal rights to skin color.  Bottom line someone will always complain.  Eventually they will get over it, and we will adjust to CHANGE.  Obama said it best when he ran for office, "CHANGE"!!!  He is sure doing that!

My question would be, how does it work with 2 men, being in a berthing, and possibly being boyfriend/boyfriend.  Possibly touching, or just a graceful hug in the berthing may affect some other sailors living in the same quarters.

What about 2 men holding hands onbase in civilian clothes. 

How are parents going to react to these things onbase, for their young children to have to see these things?

How about 2 gay individuals (male or female), sitting at Taco bell eating lunch (in civilian clothes) and they lean over and give each other a kiss onbase?  Would this be acceptable?

It really makes you think, but I dont think people are really prepared to see these changes, and it would cause a huge shock, and the reactions would be very negative to a lot of sailors.  I really see a lot of arguments amongst sailors, teasing, taunting, and possibly those gay individuals getting pullied... 

I can see the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY would have case after case every single day.

Personally, I dont think this will ever come to light. 

---
I think there have been gays in the military for hundreds of years.  And 200-300 years from now there will always be gays in the military..  The fact that its private, is why its lasted as long as it has.  There are a lot of people I think that would have problems with these sort of changes..

To me, I could care less.  I am no longer in the military.  I just remember my time in, and I remember what happened to those sailors that were portrayed to be gay (never proven) but still the image and the treatment they got, were different, and I could just see that becoming worse and worse, as incidents occur.

From the guy that didnt win....