Mullen: Troops Who Balk at Change in Gay Service Policy Can Find Other Work

[Sarge]

This guy needs to resign. Yesterday.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/02/mullen-troops-balk-change-gay-service-policy-job/

Military members who have a problem with a change in policy to allow gays to serve openly may find themselves looking for a new job, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Thursday.

 

[Henry]

Sarge: Troops who balk at troops who balk at change in gay service policy can find other work.

 

[riggins44]

If going to gays to come out into the open, then why not have co-ed barracks? What is wrong with women and men sleeping in same quarters?

A friend of mine told me he and his wife had a conversation about gays in military. He asked her would you mind if I shared a bunk or fox hole with a woman? Then he pointed out what is difference if allow gays to be housed with other gays and those that are straight verus guys and girls together.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

truth be told im torn on this, on one hand I am pro gay rights in that they should be allowed civil unions and the same benefits as heterosexual partners. On the other hand having been in a military environment I know that being openly gay wont fly (ive seen a gay friend get bashed pretty hard when he came out.) the truth is its a safety issue, and while its ok to slowly break down barriers, trying to force this on people is wrong too. going to fast will only harm things more.

 

[Sarge]

Sarge's rant for the day

First, Obama, who I have no use for whatsoever, has a "D" beside his name. That means he's going to take his shot at tearing at the military. It's just what Dems do.

This is nothing more than a blatant payoff to his gay backers.

Second Mullen, for his comments today, should resign. I would venture to say that 98% of military is straight. So what Mullen in effect said today is "Hey, you 98% majority, if you don't like serving with the 2% minority, for whatever reason, get out."

Now, even if we were fat and happy like we were in the 80's, that might not be so bad. But we don't have enough people now to keep from having to send troops to Iraq and/or Afghanistan multiple times over the years

And yet Mullen just cavalierly says "Get out".

I've spoken to some of my old troops who are now Chiefs and such. For one thing, most of them never saw this survey. The few that did said it never asked "Do you approve repeal of DADT?" Yes/No. Instead, the survey was given and it was insinuated that repealing DADT was a forgone conclusion. In addition, in order to take the survey they had to use their CAC cards to gain access, and those are traceable.

Now who is going to answer honestly when you can be traced and you go against the prevailing political winds?

Think that skewd the results?

Third. It appears there has been very little thought to the logistical nightmare this WILL create.

Case in point. You have a tranny come in with 44D's. Where does it shower? Where does it sleep? Does it wear the mens uniform or the womans?

And you know the ACLU will be right there along with said tranny making sure it gets it's rights and that no one bothers it or looks at it wrong. If that happens, then a perfectly good straight troop is going to be up the creek

Fourth, Gates (Who also should resign) has already said troops would have to undergo sensitivity training. I'm sorry, but do you realize how much annual training troops undergo every year? Now, on top of everything else and fighting a war, we're going to go to fairy training too.

Fifth, what happens when Bob and Neil get married in one state and get PCS'ed to a state that does not reconize gay marriage? An who's going to change the UCMJ, the military regulation that bans sodomy?

I haven't heard a peep that indicates anyone has given these things any thought.

All of this because a Marxist want to pay his gay buds back

 

[fansince62]

Sarge...as a retiree...here's my take:

1) I have no problem with repealing DADT on principle just as I had no problem with moving women into "combat" roles. it's the details that are problematic.

that said....

2) This is a situation of competing rights. were I back in a squadron, deployed aboard a CVN...I would welcome the openness...but would not want to room in a cramped 3 man with someone I knew was gay...or share shower/head facilities. that is also a PRIVACY RIGHT. but..the folks pushing this mostly have never served....and further absolutely do not care about the impacts. they do not care about the rights of ALL the players involved int this little morality play. this is all politics and emphatically, once examined, not about rights.

3) The media, once again, is lying in an outrageous manner to the American people about the consequences of these actions. I have met and worked with great female pilots. as you know, however, there have been frequent incidents of prostitution rings, high per centages of pregnancies right before cruises (i.e., no replacement for personnel)....politically motivated promotions of operationally incompetent people. there have also been an instance or two of squadron morale/effectiveness declining as gay skippers became magnets for gay aviators.....there are other stories.

the point is that there are tradeoffs involved with this and they are serious ones. The Obama's of the world don't give a *amn about the consequences - it's about the politics of their base. the media publishes only what suits its objectives. Where this is going to go I'm not sure. DADT was ugly...but it worked. This change....eh.......is going to land up chasing good folks out of the military and impacting morale/effectiveness more than many might think.

 

[fansince62]

truth be told im torn on this, on one hand I am pro gay rights in that they should be allowed civil unions and the same benefits as heterosexual partners. On the other hand having been in a military environment I know that being openly gay wont fly (ive seen a gay friend get bashed pretty hard when he came out.) the truth is its a safety issue, and while its ok to slowly break down barriers, trying to force this on people is wrong too. going to fast will only harm things more.

it's also a matter of rights for non-gays. that's a critical piece that keeps getting dropped out of the picture.

 

[fansince62]

great; so now either I support it or Im out of a job and not able to serve? Seems like the exact opposite of what should be going on.

do what everyone else does. flash the thumbs up and say you're onboard when some dumb *uck media or political type asks......but in the privacy of trusted friends and co-workers speak your mind. you think any of these current surveys should be taken seriously? pfffft.

 

[fansince62]

This guy needs to resign. Yesterday.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/02/mullen-troops-balk-change-gay-service-policy-job/

Military members who have a problem with a change in policy to allow gays to serve openly may find themselves looking for a new job, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Thursday.

"Iron Mike" doesn't care. he's datum outbound soon.

 

[fansince62]

im not homophobic in the least but now it seems that if you have any reservations or fear you are being told to hit the road. that seems like exactly what gay people were just fighting to stop...

neither am I. one of my best college buds...now deceased...was gay. but there is a difference between our daily interactions in society at large and the military. these punks running the show these days play pretend like they acknowledge these differences....but in reality don't. they don't care about the impacts. they certainly don't care how it might impact you, any other sailor...or any other serviceperson. this is 3/1ooths principle and 97/100ths politics by a party in deep doo doo.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

its all politics anyway, grandstanding to get more of the gay vote, the fact that the poll wasnt "should we" but how will we says it all. and sorry about your luck if you arent gay or arent on board lol. bah

 

[fansince62]

This guy needs to resign. Yesterday.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/02/mullen-troops-balk-change-gay-service-policy-job/

Military members who have a problem with a change in policy to allow gays to serve openly may find themselves looking for a new job, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Thursday.

btw...would the admonition include the Commandant of the Marine Corps?

 

[Sarge]

The JCS of the Army, AIr Force and Marine have bucked Mullen and Gates on this in public. If it somehow goes through, just to stand behind their positions they should resignin protest. In public. On the 6 o'clock news

 

[renaissance]

Some of you guys act like gays aren't already serving. What is the difference between a closeted gay guy checking you out and an out gay guy checking you out?

And the argument about a tranny joining up is retarded because they could join up under the current policy as not all transvestites are gay.

Despite what the title implies, you are not being told to hit the road if you have reservations or fear about the repeal. It is obviously a huge policy change and concern about the repercussions is natural. But if you meet those reservations or fear with a reasonable attempt at resolution, tolerance, or understanding, then you would have no problem.

I would also like to add that despite the repeal of DADT, gay service men will actually have very little motivation to actually come out. But they should not fear being discharged if they do come out.

 

[fansince62]

Some of you guys act like gays aren't already serving. What is the difference between a closeted gay guy checking you out and an out gay guy checking you out?

And the argument about a tranny joining up is retarded because they could join up under the current policy as not all transvestites are gay.

Despite what the title implies, you are not being told to hit the road if you have reservations or fear about the repeal. It is obviously a huge policy change and concern about the repercussions is natural. But if you meet those reservations or fear with a reasonable attempt at resolution, tolerance, or understanding, then you would have no problem.

I would also like to add that despite the repeal of DADT, gay service men will actually have very little motivation to actually come out. But they should not fear being discharged if they do come out.

wrong.

1) The ultimate force behind this policy change is political. The military, as usual, is being used as a crucible to force change in societal relationships and normative foundations. It's a lot more than the duplicitous, dishonest "they're already there" arguments being foisted on a general population that largely has not committed time to military service (and I might add large numbers inside the military - professional homesteaders - don't either) and prone to superficial "feel good" moral universals.

2) One idea structure supporting the change happens to be "equality" predicated, at the end of the day, on "rights". But the way the policy has been executed ignores the rights of other parties in this little social engineering drama. Privacy rights are very real. That is why men and women don't bunk in the same staterooms or share shower/toilet facilities aboard ship. I find the inevitable response comical and/or dishonest in the extreme: homosexuality is a predestined preference (i.e., built into the genes), but a preference for privacy or a visceral reaction or discomfort to this state is somehow all intellectual and can be conditioned away. btw....to fence another argument....at least for me...I find sexual orientation a much more fundamental human "attribute" than I do skin color. The two are not the same...any more than gender and skin color are.

3) Knowledge makes all the difference....just as it does in any other situation. For example, Tom may be a great person, perfectly able to dissemble his true personality. Inform me that he has a sexual preference for 15 year old girls or barnyard animals - I don't want to share spaces with him irrespective of the arbitrary legal disposition on what constitutes age of consent or acceptable orifices. and yes, I agree with what the expected response will be from those who are using the powers of the government to force their value system on the rest of society: don't like it? get out. many of us will be advising those in the military communities we live in to do two things - fight for your rights so that this is a situation that attends to all equities; get out if that balancing act of rights does not happen. let liberals man the rails and fill the foxholes.....for a change.

4) Others can argue, and have, about the core morality of homosexuality. Our society, mostly through the court system and selective interpretation of the Constitution has decided that this is not a moral matter at all. It's a matter of equal rights. "Equal", of course, being subject to the political winds of the time. What the implications of this are for future challenges supporting other sexual preferences is an interesting sideshow in its own right...but I digress (though this is a very real potential consequence of the logic that is being put into play). The current issue is...if we have to do this because political interests have gotten a President to use the powers of the executive branch to force the matter...at least do it in a reasonable manner.

What is happening now is dishonest on two essential planes:

- it ignores that rights of everyone

- it is being forced by people who have complete disregard for the consequences to the military. the leadership of both Services most likely to be impacted by this (USMC, Army) have both come out (so to speak!) with strong reservations. Obama and his supporters don't give a rat's arse because they don't care - for them it's a simple matter of throwing a bone (again...so to speak!) to a constituency they will need in the next election as they work tirelessly to wreck the economy and reduce America to a second rate power increasingly subordnant to emerging Asiatic powers and scoffed at by rogue terrorist supporting States.

Sure....rid the military of DADT. But do it in a way that addresses all the equities. I eagerly await the next set of Wikileaks from patriotic Americans serving the country.

 

[Sarge]

Some of you guys act like gays aren't already serving. What is the difference between a closeted gay guy checking you out and an out gay guy checking you out?

It's a mental health issue. I know they are there. I just don't want to know for certain they're there

And the argument about a tranny joining up is retarded because they could join up under the current policy as not all transvestites are gay.

I feel much better now. The assertaion is not silly at all. If DADT is repealed, it's gonna bring all the freaks out. And they'll be a protected gruop as well. THe ACLU and the Obama military will see to that.

Despite what the title implies, you are not being told to hit the road if you have reservations or fear about the repeal. It is obviously a huge policy change and concern about the repercussions is natural. But if you meet those reservations or fear with a reasonable attempt at resolution, tolerance, or understanding, then you would have no problem.

Yes Ren, that's exactly what Mullen said. In essence, he told about 98% of the military if you don't want to serve with gays, find other work.

Most of the military is made up of conservative individuals from mostly conservative areas of the country. They find gay behavior disgusting, as do I. Now, I don't care what you want to do in your own house, but I do care when you bring your agenda out into the open, especially the schools or the military. Bottom line, most people in the military don't fear gays, they find their behavior repulsive and/or immoral and don't want to be around it. And the difference between society and the military is that at the end of the day in society, you can go home and not hang around gay people if you so choose. In the military you don't have that option

 

[Elephant]

Ren, while I think your heart is in the right place you dont fully get what it is like to serve with someone unless you actually have. Being confined to small spaces, having NO privacy, having to depend on that person to survive. Its a big deal and to imply that someone being gay doesnt matter to any servicemen just isnt true. its as big of a deal as putting women in combat roles and it can change the whole attitude of a squadron/platoon.

ive got a friend who is gay that is serving in the national guard. he knows they dont like it, they know he is but he doesnt put it in their faces either. he "mans up" as he likes to say and is just like everyone else when he is in uniform. the fear i have is that by bringing dwn the DADT rule you are going to have a flood gate of very flamboyant gay people acting like individuals and that breaks unit integrity.

Mike, unfortunately this sort of sentiment is being lost on those who think it is a travesty that gays in the military cannot openly serve. They don't want to hear about what the majority of service men think and how it will affect the Armed Forces, all they are worried about is a very low percentage of individual's feelings being hurt.

I had some one say to me recently that I was a bigot and that I reminded them of someone who would have argued against blacks joining the military because I think that at a time of war this issue should not even be discussed. Of course, this individual showed their ignorance since blacks have served in the military since the Revolutionary war.

 

[renaissance]

Most of the military is made up of conservative individuals from mostly conservative areas of the country. They find gay behavior disgusting, as do I. Now, I don't care what you want to do in your own house, but I do care when you bring your agenda out into the open, especially the schools or the military. Bottom line, most people in the military don't fear gays, they find their behavior repulsive and/or immoral and don't want to be around it. And the difference between society and the military is that at the end of the day in society, you can go home and not hang around gay people if you so choose. In the military you don't have that option

What exactly do they have to be around?

I'm pretty sure some gay people are disgusted by ignorant homophobes, but they survive working alongside them. Did you never serve with someone who made personal choices you didn't agree with?

Ren, while I think your heart is in the right place you dont fully get what it is like to serve with someone unless you actually have. Being confined to small spaces, having NO privacy, having to depend on that person to survive. Its a big deal and to imply that someone being gay doesnt matter to any servicemen just isnt true. its as big of a deal as putting women in combat roles and it can change the whole attitude of a squadron/platoon.

ive got a friend who is gay that is serving in the national guard. he knows they dont like it, they know he is but he doesnt put it in their faces either. he "mans up" as he likes to say and is just like everyone else when he is in uniform. the fear i have is that by bringing dwn the DADT rule you are going to have a flood gate of very flamboyant gay people acting like individuals and that breaks unit integrity.

I'm not trying to disregard the obvious problems that go along with repealing DADT. The fact is, allowing gays to openly served has worked in several other countries. Are there challenges? Yes. Will the integrity of some units be affected? Possibly. But the fact is that most people and most situations would move along as they have been. Do you not think that gay people want to maintain the integrity and trust within their unit?

And I'm still not sure why everyone is convinced that a bunch of flamboyant, "hey, I'm gay!" dudes are going to suddenly join up just because they're allowed. Outside of gay bars and pride festivals, most gay people have little reason to "act gay." Your friend is a perfect example of this, yet people always fixate on the flaboyant gays and transvestites as if they are representative of the whole population.

 

[Elephant]

What exactly do they have to be around?

I'm pretty sure some gay people are disgusted by ignorant homophobes, but they survive working alongside them. Did you never serve with someone who made personal choices you didn't agree with?



I'm not trying to disregard the obvious problems that go along with repealing DADT. The fact is, allowing gays to openly served has worked in several other countries. Are there challenges? Yes. Will the integrity of some units be affected? Possibly. But the fact is that most people and most situations would move along as they have been. Do you not think that gay people want to maintain the integrity and trust within their unit?

You are asking Sarge what they have to be around. Have you served in the military? If so, you should know. If not, then why must you continue trying to discuss something from a perspective with no experience.

You quoted 2 men who have served. Both of them understand what it means for openly gay individuals to serve in the military. Why would you not take their word for it instead of telling them they are wrong when their experience tells them otherwise?


I have not served so I don't know, but I question many veterans and current service men, there is an overwhelming consensus that it will negatively affect our military.

 

[Goaldeje]

You are asking Sarge what they have to be around. Have you served in the military? If so, you should know. If not, then why must you continue trying to discuss something from a perspective with no experience.

You quoted 2 men who have served. Both of them understand what it means for openly gay individuals to serve in the military. Why would you not take their word for it instead of telling them they are wrong when their experience tells them otherwise?


I have not served so I don't know, but I question many veterans and current service men, there is an overwhelming consensus that it will negatively affect our military.

Your argument gives me the most pause about my position, El. Things like this discussion are why I love this board, because I can honestly learn from other people's perspectives.

My question to those who have served is, at the risk of seeming insensitive, why are your rights more important than a homosexual's rights? Why do yours take precedence over theirs? Is it because there are more of you? And if your rights are more important, are their other groups that are being discriminated against or will be discriminated against? Also, are we talking about only male homosexuals, or are lesbians OK to serve? Lastly, I would want to make sure that the discomfort with homosexuals doesn't stem from a moral issue, which would be a hard pill to swallow if true.

Not trying to be combative here, just trying to learn. And El's argument really does give me a lot of pause. On the other hand, I keep reading about this survey that was sent out, wherein a large majority of active service people now responded they were comfortable with the change. How do you respond to that?