The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
War Room
 
DADT Repeal
1
 

Mad HORSE
Level 1

Join date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1714

I'm extremely surprised that this hasn't been brought up yet, but what do you think?

I, for one, don't give a shit. I don't think it's going to change anything too much, except maybe in a few combat units. And that's only in the (I'm assuming) rare occasion that a gay service member is really open and out about it.

The one thing that does bother me about it is the housing issue. With the current rules straight service members aren't allowed to have the opposite sex spend the night or stay for any length of time in their barracks/dorms/housing. How will that affect the gays? Do you think some kind of similar rule will be put in place for that situation?

Now, despite what some might think, I guarantee that anyone that has served long enough to get through Basic and Tech School (or whatever you other guys call it) has served with a gay/lesbian service member.

My point is this: It's almost 2011. Who cares anymore? Except for the aforementioned housing/cohabitaion thing, does it really matter who you fuck anymore?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

HolyMacaroni
Level 1

Join date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5147

i'm just excited you and i can now practice combatives naked

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

boatguy
Level 3

Join date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1327

Actually, if you are living in the barracks(at least at every base I have been to), you are not allowed overnight guests at all. Do guys(and girls) have guests overnight? Of course, but it is one of those things that if you get caught and they have other reasons to nail you, it will get piled on. Even when we lived in housing a few years ago, if we had family or friends come to visit, we were supposed to notify the housing office. Did we? No, and they didn't enforce it unless there were a complaint of some kind.

But back to the original question, if we are allowing gays to serve openly, then we are opening the door for them to attempt to cohabitate in military housing. And my brother-in-law's former roommate who got kicked out of the Corps for watch him shower, would now just be told not to peep.

Do I really give a shit that gays can serve openly? No, and I know for a fact I have served with closeted gays, and was actually friends with a few over the years. To me, it becomes a safety issue. Unfortunately, there are a lot of dumb young enlisted guys in all branches, and all it will take will be a case or two with like-minded friends, and then spotting Tommy Flamboyant walking home by himself. I don't think there will be a drastic rise in 'hate crimes' in the service, but I do expect at least a minor uptick.

And don't forget guys, now we have a whole NEW round of GMTs to attend in the future. Yay, progress!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ExtremistPullup
Level

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 83

Does this mean they will get rid of Article 125

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

davidcox1
Level 2

Join date: Dec 2008
Posts: 780

ExtremistPullup wrote:
Does this mean they will get rid of Article 125



Nope - because it is gender neutral as written. The "explanation" in the manual states: "It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that personā??s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that personā??s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal."

However, in Lawrence v Texas the Supremes struck down a law in that state against sodomy. The effect of this ruling is that laws like Article 125 purporting to criminalize sodomy are likely all to be unconstitutional. Still, your point is well-taken and it will probably go away eventually.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

usmccds423
Level 5

Join date: Jan 2008
Posts: 9377

I posted this in pwi yesterday (I'm not really sure why it's such a worthless forum, but what can you do?)

"I think the biggest problem the military will face now is during recruiting and recruit training. Especially recruit training. You already have a powder keg ready to go off when folks from New York, Alabama, Tennessee, and everywhere else are thrown together and have to do everything together. Eat, sleep, shower, shit, and everything else for months away from home and out of their comfort zone. It doesn't surprise me that the majority of the military is okay with the repeal since these are folks with careers and/or have built close units through years of service together. The problems will be during and directly after recruit training especially once new marines or whomever are given some freedom after months of restriction and when boot camp balls are at an all time high."

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

HolyMacaroni
Level 1

Join date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5147

i also remember reading that although something like 70% the military approves of it, the strong oppostion came from primarily combat arms branches.

will be curious to see how each branch of the army (and it's sister forces) reacts to the appeal

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Dropkick_9
Level

Join date: Oct 2008
Posts: 82

ExtremistPullup wrote:
Does this mean they will get rid of Article 125



We were discussing that the other day, our JAG says he expects they will.

I don't really forsee a lot of people coming out all of the sudden. I imagine in the combat arms branches the dudes will still keep to themselves. I think more females will come out than males initially.

The mandatory training classes are not going to be fun.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

cdt_locke
Level

Join date: Oct 2010
Posts: 37

http://www.theonion.com/...-general,14158/

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mad HORSE
Level 1

Join date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1714

Dropkick_9 wrote:
The mandatory training classes are not going to be fun.


I was wondering about this. Do you think they had to do this back in the day when when the races were integrated? I doubt it, personally.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

davidcox1
Level 2

Join date: Dec 2008
Posts: 780

HolyMacaroni wrote:
i also remember reading that although something like 70% the military approves of it, the strong oppostion came from primarily combat arms branches.

will be curious to see how each branch of the army (and it's sister forces) reacts to the appeal


Looks like you've put on some size judging from your new profile pic--what say you?!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

HolyMacaroni
Level 1

Join date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5147

just trying to get on your level cox

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Valor
Level 4

Join date: Oct 2005
Posts: 782

Well, if they put them all in Quartermaster units, I got no problem with it.

Uniforms will smell better.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

steadfastred
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2006
Posts: 236

Race != sexual orientation.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

npr386
Level

Join date: Feb 2011
Posts: 12

Personally, I don't care about gay POGs. But in the grunts, it's a different lifestyle and mentality. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but there are bound to be issues. I would expect a rise in harassment complaints at the least. Then again, I don't think a lot of gay grunts would really make a big deal out of it and the POGs probably don't care as much. Just my $.02

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
1