see, this makes no sense to me, but then DADT made no sense to me, which is why i saw it as positive, and couldn't understand why gays were mad about it when it got put in place. then again, i can't really understand why the military would appeal to a gay. well, i get why dykes like it. but anyway, why does there even have to be a plan? did the top brass have to submit a plan when they started letting blacks in? or women? okay, you dont have to answer that. sigh.
That just sounds ridiculous. You don't understand why gays would want to be in the army, but you do understand why dykes would? Wow, what a stereotype. Obviously every gay man is a mincing nancyboy, and every lesbian is butch and manly. They probably have the exact same reason anyone else would have wanting to join the army.
okay, chill out. that was pretty much a joke. my girlfriend was in the army, my son in law and dad were and are air force, i'm familiar with the military as a career and i understand why someone would choose it, theoretically. i just wouldn't, and didn't, myself; i have huge problems with authority, among other features of the armed services i find unpleasant. of course
it was a stereotype, that's why i thought my tone was pretty readily apparent as joking. clearly i was wrong, and you'll either have to forgive me or get over it. but really, i will
use stereotypes if i feel like it, especially for comedic effect, because i am
gay. i will not have the vast resource of humor that is gay and lesbian taken away from me, do you hear? i did not live this long to not be able to make fun of traditional lesbian hairstyles or the incontrovertible fact that we les beans recycle gay men's last-year furniture from the curb. i'm not flexible about this.
and on a personal note, gay men--please. we don't need another wicker phase, okay? it doesn't stand up to recycling, even when you guys throw it out in perfect condition.
will be interesting to see what they do about benefits....and to see what constitutes a 'spouse' in the eyes of the military, for benefits et al. i visualize a future scenario in which lance, the lover of corporal whomever, sues the army for not allowing him to live in housing with the other military wives. the other military wives are over it as well because everybody knows no one can do hair like lance, or figure out how to get those commie bloodstains out of a hubby's uniform, or even design a yard, like lance. so they are protesting with him....
I'm sure that the spouses of gay men go live in the same housing as the spouses of straight women, and vice versa.
uh, no they don't. as yet there are no provisions of gay spouses in the military to my knowledge, not even as a result of DADT because how in fuck would you secure housing for your gay family if you were not allowed to be asked, and could not tell, whom you were cloven to in matrimony? lest we forget, gay marriage is also up for question in most american states, also a factor in whether or not the military accepts gay coupling with the same benefits and responsibilities they show to het spouses. hence why i am questioning the situation in albeit lighthearted terms. i'm sorry if somehow this mislead you as to my intent.
okay, sorry. ive lived with a military base in town (ft mclellan) till clinton shut it down the other day and killed the whole area's economy, and from observation and just listening to conversations from people who worked there or were stationed there over the years, i am not confident that the modern military can handle much of anything in the way of policy-making; the whole nature of the inflexibility and need for a chain of command seems to automatically cluster-fuck anything they try to do that is progressive. hell, no one can agree who owns the property the fort was on, even; the us government or the military or alabama... and, well, we as a country have never actually been known for fairness. or even 'live and let live' like we want everyone to think we are so into.
Well they better get used to it, like getting used to women being in the army. Army does need people, especially if they keep on going attacking countries, and excluding very capable people because of their sexuality just doesn't make sense.
well no, it doesn't. and, incidentally, women had their own army corps for YEARS before a female ever flew a helicopter. their uniforms had skirts, it was cute. they called them WACS; there is a museum near my house. it has the distinction of all the military museums around here of having absolutely no guns in it. they didn't 'get used' to women in the army, or the citadel, or fucking west point at all, they were forced to by civil rights and so on. the debate over women in live combat is actually still going on; it was going on more loudly when ron reagan and bush sr swore that a woman would never fire a shot in combat under their administration (there had been talk of a draft). so in the context of the conversation, i'm asking anyone who is in, or connected to, or who has seen the news from, the military following the repeal of DADT. because frankly i expect more balking on the part of the military, at least what they think they can get away with.
the military has never had to have official policies as to their methods. as late as desert storm there was complaint of them sending black soldiers and minorities into more dangerous combat situations (operation human shield) than white soldiers, which seemed more concentrated in safer platoons. vietnam had similar arguments about minorities. just because they allow gays in doesn't mean they are safe or in any way equal (re; benefits, freedom from hazing, etc), whether it can be asked about or not.
and really, i am not even so much worried that they wont give housing and such to gay spouses. i dont think it has as much to do with that as it does them not wanting to fund more dependents than they have to, and this means.....more dependents. plus there is the issue that, if they give spousal benefits to people who aren't legally spouses in some states, because that state has no provision for such, that sets a precedent and the military likes to stay out of civil politics as much as possible. i mean the budget HAS to be strained by now, wouldn't you agree?