And how was that different than with racial integration?
And how was that different than with racial integration?
Again its been covered over and over in other threads. You choose to deny it even when those that are and have served tell you it is an issue so I guess you know better.
And how was that different than with racial integration?
Again its been covered over and over in other threads. You choose to deny it even when those that are and have served tell you it is an issue so I guess you know better.
No, help me out. How is this any different than the arguments raised against integration?
And how was that different than with racial integration?
Again its been covered over and over in other threads. You choose to deny it even when those that are and have served tell you it is an issue so I guess you know better.
No, help me out. How is this any different than the arguments raised against integration?
Use the search button.Its been discussed before and you brought up this exact question
**I can understand the idea of deferring to military leaders on the issue. But that’s what makes the filibuster odd, because under the amendment, the military gets the final sign off on implementation. **
So why pass this before the military signs off since it will not be implemented until then? It’s like writing a check for a car before going to the dealership.
Use the search button. Its been discussed before and you brought up this exact question
Yup, and there is lots of evidence that repealing DADT will be much easier than integration was for a large number of reasons.
**I can understand the idea of deferring to military leaders on the issue. But that’s what makes the filibuster odd, because under the amendment, the military gets the final sign off on implementation. **
So why pass this before the military signs off since it will not be implemented until then? It’s like writing a check for a car before going to the dealership.
That doesn’t make sense as a basis for filibuster. At all. I won’t vote for it now, but I’ll vote for it later?
So I read a thread (DADT…RIP)…not much meat there. Mostly anecdotal evidence or prospective fears based on the assumption that gays just can’t help themselves with who they hit on. Of course, it already happens (the occasional gay hitting on a straight), so I don’t see what changes. I return to my question: exactly how is this different than racial integration? If anything the transition could be smoother: most people are mature not to suddenly hate or dislike or avoid a person they’ve gotten to know because they out themselves. Racial integration involved bringing in people that were never before in a unit.
“Mostly anecdotal evidence or prospective fears based on the assumption that gays just can’t help themselves with who they hit on.”
I don’t think that’s really the primary issue; at least it isn’t for me. Of course there will be issues of intolerant people who harrass, beat up, treat differently for work assignments or fitness evaluations, etc. In my opinion, however, the meat of the issue is the fact that Soldiers and Sailors don’t just work together, they live together, in extremely cramped and personal conditions. It’s easy enough for someone who works at a civilian company to say that it easy to integrate, because they aren’t forced to eat, shower, sleep, etc in close proximity to others with little to no privacy.
I generally break it down like this, to make it easy to understand. We don’t, as a military, allow males and females to berth or shower in the same spaces. We don’t allow that because we recognize, as a culture, the necessary separation of males and females for privacy reasons, to prevent sexual misconduct or harrassment, etc. If you ask the average American if they are ok with their 19 year-old daughter Sailor bunking with a bunch of male Sailors, the answer would be a resounding “no.” There is no significant difference between that situation, and a situation in which straight males or females are required to bunk and shower with gay males or females.
It’s not a matter of the gays being unable to control their sexual urges, specifically, any more than it would be with mixed gender berthing. It’s a matter of our cultural respect for privacy, especially in matters of sex and gender.
“Mostly anecdotal evidence or prospective fears based on the assumption that gays just can’t help themselves with who they hit on.”
I don’t think that’s really the primary issue; at least it isn’t for me. Of course there will be issues of intolerant people who harrass, beat up, treat differently for work assignments or fitness evaluations, etc. In my opinion, however, the meat of the issue is the fact that Soldiers and Sailors don’t just work together, they live together, in extremely cramped and personal conditions. It’s easy enough for someone who works at a civilian company to say that it easy to integrate, because they aren’t forced to eat, shower, sleep, etc in close proximity to others with little to no privacy.
I generally break it down like this, to make it easy to understand. We don’t, as a military, allow males and females to berth or shower in the same spaces. We don’t allow that because we recognize, as a culture, the necessary separation of males and females for privacy reasons, to prevent sexual misconduct or harrassment, etc. If you ask the average American if they are ok with their 19 year-old daughter Sailor bunking with a bunch of male Sailors, the answer would be a resounding “no.” There is no significant difference between that situation, and a situation in which straight males or females are required to bunk and shower with gay males or females.
It’s not a matter of the gays being unable to control their sexual urges, specifically, any more than it would be with mixed gender berthing. It’s a matter of our cultural respect for privacy, especially in matters of sex and gender.
I would disagree with that analysis. Suppose you have straight Soldier A and closeted gay Soldier B. They’ve been living together now for, say 1 year. DADT and restrictions on homosexuality are lifted. Soldier B reveals he is gay. Now, suddenly, Soldier A is concerned about “cultural respect for privacy” or is he worried that Soldier B will hit on him? I mean, based on the stories offered in various threads, it often sounds like the worst kept secret within a unit that a Private Smith or Private Jones is gay. Yet, those units function smoothly.
“Now, suddenly, Soldier A is concerned about “cultural respect for privacy” or is he worried that Soldier B will hit on him?”
Probably some are concerned with each. Regardless, if we’re not ready to allow males and females to berth together, then we have no business forcing straights to berth with homosexuals, or homosexuals to berth with other homosexuals.
“Yet, those units function smoothly.”
You assume. If you think that there aren’t problems in many units with servicemembers “known” to be gay, you’re fooling yourself, or being fed a load of crap by someone.