Recruiters told they can accept openly gay applicants.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

lol, truthiness....you has it.

Who cares where they like to dip their wick, so long as they love their country and are prepared to defend it to their death.

Again not saying they cant serve. To summarize my concerns:

1) Either we should strictly enforce the Constitution and all its protections in the miltary as if it was the civilian world or we should accept granting some deference? If we grant deference to me this is a prime situation for such deference

2) If we do choose to repeal DADT then some changes need to be made to the current system that only assigns bathing and sleeping arrangements on gender alone. If an openly gay male or lesbian female wishes to serve this country and risk their life I am all for it. However I dont think our sons and daughters respectively should be required to undress in front of someone who is known to have a sexual attraction to their respective gender.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

The prohibition of women in combat roles is Congressionally mandated. The military doesn't make that decision.

What about the regulation regarding women on submarines that was recently changed by the Navy itself IIRC?

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

While we are at the hog wild debate what about the situation where we have either a feminine or even a transgender male who wishes to assume the female role...Should we be able to place them in combat zones? What about drafting said individuals?

[Guest GT_Rat]

Submarines have always been considered a more forward deployed (read front line combat unit) than say a supply ship or even amphibious assault ships. It's logical from that standpoint that it was one of the last places in the Navy that women were prohibited from serving. There are still jobs on ships and likely on subs that women still are not allowed to perform that are considered "Combat" ratings instead of "Combat Support." Also consider that space is at a considerable premium on Subs. Much more so than most if not all surface ships. Making room for the segregated berthing facilities that you like to drum about was a concern. I'm still not sure how, or even if, they managed to keep those areas completely separate. I'd bet there are some shared restroom facilities on those subs that have female sailors. Like toilets for example. It doesn't matter if the person sitting in the next stall is gay or straight, male or female. It still stinks when they fart.

[Daniel]

Again not saying they cant serve. To summarize my concerns:

1) Either we should strictly enforce the Constitution and all its protections in the miltary as if it was the civilian world or we should accept granting some deference? If we grant deference to me this is a prime situation for such deference

2) If we do choose to repeal DADT then some changes need to be made to the current system that only assigns bathing and sleeping arrangements on gender alone. If an openly gay male or lesbian female wishes to serve this country and risk their life I am all for it. However I dont think our sons and daughters respectively should be required to undress in front of someone who is known to have a sexual attraction to their respective gender.

You guys obv. have some warped since of showering procedures. I take a shower in a group setting maybe, and this is a big maybe, once or twice a year while at a class or something. You always have the choice to wait until no one is in the ****ing shower lol. Even the shower tents we got to use after two months of no showers in Iraq had dividers. You guys are making an issue out of a non issue. The only time you will consistently have to shower in an open shower with no other option would be basic training. I have been discussing this at work today and have been told that the newer barracks are getting stalls so even that wont be a problem.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

You guys obv. have some warped since of showering procedures. I take a shower in a group setting maybe, and this is a big maybe, once or twice a year while at a class or something. You always have the choice to wait until no one is in the ****ing shower lol. Even the shower tents we got to use after two months of no showers in Iraq had dividers. You guys are making an issue out of a non issue. The only time you will consistently have to shower in an open shower with no other option would be basic training. I have been discussing this at work today and have been told that the newer barracks are getting stalls so even that wont be a problem.

I understand that group showering doesnt occur constantly in the military. However even if it was only basic I dont think it anymore fair be forced on those who do not wish to shower with someone who has a known sexual attraction to their gender than it is to tell a openly homosexual person they cant join. Either let them join and make changes or dont let them join. However forcing others to make sacrifices so this person can be happy and open about it just seems to be unjust.

[Guest db99wj]

You guys obv. have some warped since of showering procedures. I take a shower in a group setting maybe, and this is a big maybe, once or twice a year while at a class or something. You always have the choice to wait until no one is in the ****ing shower lol. Even the shower tents we got to use after two months of no showers in Iraq had dividers. You guys are making an issue out of a non issue. The only time you will consistently have to shower in an open shower with no other option would be basic training. I have been discussing this at work today and have been told that the newer barracks are getting stalls so even that wont be a problem.

100% agree, basic would be the single largest time and location of this issue. Installing stalls...done. The showering thing, IMO is not a major problem, but concern regarding the issue has valid points to it, especially if you look at the man/woman thing, which then leads to the hetro/homo situation.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Submarines have always been considered a more forward deployed (read front line combat unit) than say a supply ship or even amphibious assault ships. It's logical from that standpoint that it was one of the last places in the Navy that women were prohibited from serving. There are still jobs on ships and likely on subs that women still are not allowed to perform that are considered "Combat" ratings instead of "Combat Support." Also consider that space is at a considerable premium on Subs. Much more so than most if not all surface ships. Making room for the segregated berthing facilities that you like to drum about was a concern. I'm still not sure how, or even if, they managed to keep those areas completely separate. I'd bet there are some shared restroom facilities on those subs that have female sailors. Like toilets for example. It doesn't matter if the person sitting in the next stall is gay or straight, male or female. It still stinks when they fart.

My point is it appears the Navy made the call not Congress. Therefore the branches are given deference in some situations that a civilian governmental entity may not be given.

Also does anyone have the cite for the USC section that prohibits women in combat? Because I find alot of articles talking about Pentagon regulations prohibiting women in ground combat roles but not congressional legislation.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

100% agree, basic would be the single largest time and location of this issue. Installing stalls...done. The showering thing, IMO is not a major problem, but concern regarding the issue has valid points to it, especially if you look at the man/woman thing, which then leads to the hetro/homo situation.

I agree dividers could be made to work. Whatever we need so that we dont have situations where men and women are required to disrobe in front of homosexual members of their sex.

[strickj]

Why would showers all the sudden be a problem?

[Guest mustangdave]

Why would showers all the sudden be a problem?

I know...we all gotta be clean...right? soap on a rope...or body wash...

[Guest GT_Rat]

My point is it appears the Navy made the call not Congress. Therefore the branches are given deference in some situations that a civilian governmental entity may not be given.

Also does anyone have the cite for the USC section that prohibits women in combat? Because I find alot of articles talking about Pentagon regulations prohibiting women in ground combat roles but not congressional legislation.

The Navy made the call to modify the accommodations sufficiently to allow it. (and if you don't think there were people in Congress that had some say about it you obviously have no idea how military funding works) The ship/sub does not dictate the job they will be doing. The job is what they are allowed/not-allowed to do. When I was in women were not allowed to be Gunners Mates (not sure if that's still the case) but the ship I was on, toward the end of my active enlistment, started to have females aboard in non-combat rates (jobs) like supply clerks, mess specialists, etc. The vessel is not the determining factor other than acceptable accommodations being available.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Why would showers all the sudden be a problem?

I assuming you are referring to the fact gays & lesbians have existed for years in the military? I would say that the reason it becomes an issue now as a general right of privacy and to maintain order we do not require personnel to shower with persons who have a sexual attraction to their gender ie; Male and Female showers. This rule is enforced regardless of if their is any actual sexual attraction between the parties showering at that time. Now we are dealing with a situation where an individual has made known they have a sexual preference for persons of their own gender. Now if we allow them to continue using the same shower facilities for group showers we are forcing people to expose themselves before people who are known to have an attraction to their gender something we havent forced before.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

The Navy made the call to modify the accommodations sufficiently to allow it. (and if you don't think there were people in Congress that had some say about it you obviously have no idea how military funding works) The ship/sub does not dictate the job they will be doing. The job is what they are allowed/not-allowed to do. When I was in women were not allowed to be Gunners Mates (not sure if that's still the case) but the ship I was on, toward the end of my active enlistment, started to have females aboard in non-combat rates (jobs) like supply clerks, mess specialists, etc. The vessel is not the determining factor.

So you are saying the Navy was given deference on the female thing solely because of inability to make accommodations for having two genders on a boat at once? If that is the case then great. That gives the rest of the armed forces ammo for the right to hold up on dropping DADT until facilities can be made to accommodate for the newly expressed sexual preference issues at hand.

[Guest db99wj]

If you really think about it, this is not really an problem, it is an issue or topic that comes up ever so often....let's think.....maybe......around election time.....what's in a couple of weeks????

The whole thing is bull**** used to deflect from the real issues that really matter from the as$hats running for election/reelection.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

What isnt a problem? The showers or DADT?

[Guest GT_Rat]

That would depend on if Congress dictates segregated berthing or if the Navy makes that distinction. My bet is Congress orders it but I haven't found anything to say that is the case. It would be easier on the Navy if berthing was unisex as it would save a lot of space that could be used for more weapons systems.

[Guest db99wj]

Problem, issue, topic, whatever, it's not really that big a deal. It is one of those topics that comes up around election time, then will disappear until the next elections. Oh, we need this groups vote, we need that groups vote so they start pandering to that group, this is one of the avenues that seems to come up every cycle. Once elected, an no elections, the topic gets quiet again. It's an election hotbutton issue.

Do they need to fix some things, sure, have some folks been screwed over because of this, sure, but when we look at the rest of the picture, it is fairly insignificant in the issues this country is facing.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Agreed on the underlying political motivations.

And to those who before pointed out the fact some persons intentionally provoke homosexual service members into coming out just so they get thrown out I feel those people should reprimanded in some way if DADT is reinstated.

[Oh Shoot]

Gay and straight men are together in the male showers now.

Gay and straight women are together in the female showers now.

What possible difference to one's rights does it matter if those individuals are known to be gay?

Does it violate some individual right to be sexually desired (or not) by a gay person as opposed to a straight person?

I'm really at a loss to understand this specific shower phobia. Unless in the male contingent, it's a fear of seeing a minority number of shower mates with erections, in which case seems the straight guys could just take as a compliment.

- OS

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Why do we separate men and women then? It is likely because their is a KNOWN sexual attraction between these individuals and some members of the opposite sex.

[Guest peacexxl]

Problem, issue, topic, whatever, it's not really that big a deal. It is one of those topics that comes up around election time, then will disappear until the next elections. Oh, we need this groups vote, we need that groups vote so they start pandering to that group, this is one of the avenues that seems to come up every cycle. Once elected, an no elections, the topic gets quiet again. It's an election hotbutton issue.

Do they need to fix some things, sure, have some folks been screwed over because of this, sure, but when we look at the rest of the picture, it is fairly insignificant in the issues this country is facing.

I think what happens is that if you are not part of the group having the problem, you don't really see it as a problem and the status quo is okay with you. That is why change seems to come so slowly to people who really need it.

As far as the issue at hand, I've never been gay and never served, but I think that it is not an issue "HEY LOOK AT ME. i'M GAY AND YOU HAVE TO LIKE IT". It is more about, if you can serve your country and then go home to your wife and children and be happy, then why can't I serve my country, then go home to the person I love or hang out with friends that I feel comfortable with and be happy, without worrying that if someone sees me enjoying my life, I may lose my carrer and my oppourtunity to serve a country that I clearly love and am willing to lay down my life for.

[Guest peacexxl]

Why do we separate men and women then? It is likely because their is a KNOWN sexual attraction between these individuals and some members of the opposite sex.

This is true, but you would think that at some point you would expect people to be adults and responsible for their own actions. I am not big on being PC, but the idea that we have to seperate the genders because men can't function or focus with attractive women around is pretty archaic. Unfortunately, if you look you still find instances of harrasment and rape or sexual assault in the military. That can't be okay and those folks should be delt with. Boys may be boys, but men should be men and be responsible for their actions.

[Oh Shoot]

Why do we separate men and women then? It is likely because their is a KNOWN sexual attraction between these individuals and some members of the opposite sex.

Original "reason"? Who knows for sure, and I'm not sure we know just how segregated the sexes even were before Jewish law became widely influential, say prior to 3,000 years ago.

I believe the ancient Egyptians had male/female communal bathing, to cite a "civilized" society. Certainly, the segregation of the sexes in most matters has never been a universal quality of societal living -- especially when you consider that most cultures in temperate climes were essentially naked all the time, and some still are.

Btw, anyone see Starship Troopers? No probs with communal showers there, and maybe that WILL be the standard someday, at least in the military.

- OS

[Guest mustangdave]

Ah, but don't forget, he did serve in the military.

I would want to see his DD-214 for proof....