Obama: IÂ’ll let gays serve openly in military

[SlyOneDoofy]

A question...

If homosexual men can take showers in the military with other men.... can hetrosexual men take showers with the women in the military?

[jeremyboycool]

A question...

If homosexual men can take showers in the military with other men.... can hetrosexual men take showers with the women in the military?

Don't homosexual males already share showers with straight males in the military?

[jeremyboycool]

More reading on the issue.

As in debates about a new policy concerning sexual orientation, discussions of racial integration of the military in the 1940s often included dire predictions based on then-widespread prejudices. The report of a 1942 General Board commissioned to consider the integration of African Americans in the Navy, for example, concluded that "the enlistment of negroes [sic] for unlimited general service is inadvisable." It offered the following rationale:

"Enlistment for general service implies that the individual may be sent anywhere — to any ship or station where he is needed. Men on board ship live in particularly close association; in their messes, one man sits beside another; their hammocks or bunks are close together; in their common tasks they work side by side; and in particular tasks such as those of a gun's crew, they form a closely knit, highly coordinated team. How many white men would choose, of their own accord, that their closest associates in sleeping quarters, at mess, and in a gun's crew should be of another race? How many would accept such conditions, if required to do so, without resentment and just as a matter of course? The General Board believes that the answer is 'Few, if any,' and further believes that if the issue were forced, there would be a lowering of contentment, teamwork and discipline in the service." (Navy General Board, 1942, p. 1)

In a 1948 Gallup Poll of 3000 American adults, 63% of those surveyed favored racial segregation of the military whereas only 26% supported integration. President Truman was strongly criticized for his Executive Order, and the attacks were often accompanied by dire predictions about the weakening of the U.S. armed forces and national security. Senator Richard B. Russell, for example, spoke against the policy on the Senate floor, offering predictions that are remarkably similar to some of those made in the recent debates about allowing gay people to serve openly in the military:

[T]he mandatory intermingling of the races throughout the services will be a terrific blow to the efficiency and fighting power of the armed services....It is sure to increase the numbers of men who will be disabled through communicable diseases. It will increase the rate of crime committed by servicemen." (Quoted in Binkin et al., 1982, p. 26).

[jeremyboycool]

And since so many are concerned with open homosexuals in the military you might want to keep this in mind...

Openly gay personnel are unlikely ever to constitute a substantial proportion of the military. A final important difference concerns the relative proportion of military personnel who are members of a racial minority and those who are openly gay. Since the military's intensive integration efforts began in the 1960s, members of racial minorities — especially African Americans — have constituted a substantial proportion of military personnel. The proportion of openly gay personnel is likely to remain small, however, even if current restrictions are eliminated.

Although the stigma attached to homosexuality in the United States interferes with attempts to assess its prevalence, most research with probability samples suggests that at least 3-6% of the male population is homosexual, with somewhat fewer females. Based on this estimate, only a small number of military units would have an openly homosexual member, even in the aftermath of a dramatic policy liberalization. Furthermore, the experience of domestic paramilitary organizations (such as fire and police departments) and foreign military organizations suggest that relatively few homosexual personnel will disclose their sexual orientation publicly.

Indeed, based on research by the RAND Corporation concerning domestic paramilitary organizations, Professor Robert MacCoun (1996) estimated that fewer than 6% of 40-person platoons and fewer than 1% of 5-person crews and teams would be expected to have an open homosexual in the wake of a policy change. Furthermore, he noted that even fewer units would have an open homosexual if the presence of open homosexuals were to be clustered rather than randomly distributed.

[jeremyboycool]

Btw, those quotes came from this site: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/index.html

A great wealth of information on just about anything related to the controversies surrounding homosexuals.

[YeOldeStonecat]

Tell the parents of gay soldiers who've been murdered by their fellow soldiers that sensitivity training is a "waste of time".

With respect to those unfortunate recipients of a hate crime, IMO sensitivity training wouldn't make a dent in the heads of those hardcore filled with hatred....those who are immersed in hatred deep enough to commit such violent acts. They'd be the ones giggling in sensitivity class, uttering jokes under their breath during class, and loudly walking out of class cracking jokes to each other.

[Meggie]

Tell the parents of gay soldiers who've been murdered by their fellow soldiers that sensitivity training is a "waste of time".

straight soldiers have gotten killed by other soldiers too...

Whenever there is a wave of suicides we go through hours of suicide training. We have a certain amount of other sensitivity training anually as well.. but I think its the nature of the military, fat guys get made fun of by fellow soldiers, as do ugly guys and skanky girls. So the guy that walks in flaming or talking about having a homosexual lover is going to be tormented too. I am really going to be suprised if you see an uprising of homosexuals joining the military now.. if anything its just going to make it more difficult to the gays already serving in the military.

waste of time.

[Meggie]

Don't homosexual males already share showers with straight males in the military?

yes but they cant tell, or be asked if they are gay.

[jeremyboycool]

straight soldiers have gotten killed by other soldiers too...

Whenever there is a wave of suicides we go through hours of suicide training. We have a certain amount of other sensitivity training anually as well.. but I think its the nature of the military, fat guys get made fun of by fellow soldiers, as do ugly guys and skanky girls. So the guy that walks in flaming or talking about having a homosexual lover is going to be tormented too. I am really going to be suprised if you see an uprising of homosexuals joining the military now.. if anything its just going to make it more difficult to the gays already serving in the military.

waste of time.

" if anything its just going to make it more difficult to the gays already serving in the military."

How exactly is it going to do that? Once DADT is removed it is not like all homosexuals are going to be wearing a sign that says "Hello, I am gay." Chances are very little will change.

People are just going to have to learn to cope with this because this is going to happen.

[jeremyboycool]

yes but they cant tell, or be asked if they are gay.

I don't see how that is relevant. But gay men and straight men have been showering together since the beginning of public showering. I am sure they can manage.

[9mmprincess]

With respect to those unfortunate recipients of a hate crime, IMO sensitivity training wouldn't make a dent in the heads of those hardcore filled with hatred....those who are immersed in hatred deep enough to commit such violent acts. They'd be the ones giggling in sensitivity class, uttering jokes under their breath during class, and loudly walking out of class cracking jokes to each other.

I know there are some it wouldn't make a dent in... but I do believe for some, it would make a difference. For others it might be more gradual. Maybe they go from talking crap about gay ppl and harassing them, to just only talking crap about them to their buddies. Maybe a few months later, they dont talk crap at all. I still feel like the training is important, because it shows that those in charge are taking a stand and saying "this isnt allowed". keeping dont ask dont tell, and not doing any training (ignoring the problem, basically), sort of says (IMO) that they dont really give a damn about the whole thing, and do what you want, boys, we're with you - those gays get on our nerves too. You know what I mean? I think it's important for it to come from the top, that hey, this wont be allowed anymore, and we're serious about it. You're right tho, there are a few *******s who will always be *******s and never change their ways.